The online community for bionicle has done a solid job of archiving and even polishing the various content that was released over the years. There's a site that collected all of the flash games [0], and someone stitched together a few versions of the "Biological Chronicle" [1], which is every book, comic, and even transcriptions of two of the flash games that had an actual narrative, woven so the narratives all line up.
[0] https://biomediaproject.com/bmp/
[1] I don't have a link handy to the ebook, I'm also not sure if they had permission to upload all of that content in one file or not
Digging it out, the box says "Quest For Makuta / Bionicle / Adventure Game" with LEGO and RoseArt logos on it, and it was bought in a store ... and it's number 31390, which is found on ... well, one LEGO-adjacent site (bricklink) at least. A lot of others don't seem to have it. Apparently there's also a version (31391) that came in a metal tin, but the one I have is the cardboard box.
I believe they mean "Bionicle Adventure Game: Quest For Makuta (2001)" which has a Lego logo on it. I also cannot find anything on the site in question
But the companies use of telemarketers isn't a net benefit to society. If the company instead spent on product quality, warranty services, employee benefits, or charity, we'd see more of a net-positive impact on the world around us. Generally, companies spending money competing for market share through advertising only benefits specific parties, and only financially.
The goals and incentives (for companies) aren't currently aligned with our needs & problems (as a society). So a lot of resources get spent on things like advertising, that (in theory) could instead be spent on solving problems related to housing, healthcare, infrastructure, if the incentives existed or the goals were set differently.
In capitalism people vote with their own money: if there is a demand for some good or service it keeps getting provided.
Of course you might argue, that average person can be manipulated into buying things that are harmful to them, but if you want to prevent that there's really no way to do that efficiently other than turning the whole country into a totalitarian surveillance state. And you also need an elite, a group of people who are above the law because they are just smarter, and know better and therefore set the rules for lesser beings.
This is a very late comment, but in case anyone else is looking at this thread in the future:
A quick google search [0][1] seems to prove #5 false, specifically the bit about roads bringing in more in taxes than they cost to maintain. The first article is from 2011 and is about the US.
Your diabetes analogy fails, because ADHD does not have an environmentally-caused Type 2.
ADHD is hereditary, genetic, and has to do with how the brain tends to be wired in that individual. ADHD can be helped through environment and habit changes, and impacts can be reduced, but you cannot cure it.
It seems that you think ADHD is not a real disease, given your quotes around the words "disease", "cure", etc. If some people are mis-diagnosed, it doesn't invalidate all the others.
> Youth with ADD/ADHD engaged in screen time with an average of 149.1 min/weekday and 59% had a TV in their bedroom. Adjusting for child and family characteristics, having a TV in the bedroom was associated with 25 minute higher daily screen time (95% CI: 12.8–37.4 min/day). A bedroom TV was associated with 32% higher odds of engaging in screen time for over 2 h/day (OR = 1.3; 95% CI: 1.0–1.7).
This does not imply causation. Someone with ADHD is more likely to give in to distraction and dopamine. This study was done with a sample of people who already have ADHD. Nothing in it indicates that television time is going to cause ADHD.
Someone who has a better relationship with exercise, screens, or whatever, doesn't mean they don't have ADHD anymore. Medicated or not. They just have better support and lifestyle habits that minimize how much it might impact them.
> Medicated or not. They just have better support and lifestyle habits that minimize how much it might impact them.
If a disease can be resolved through changes in lifestyle is it a disease needing medication?
I think that is kind of the point, is it not? We can give the kids anti-depressants for being depressed or we can help them change their lifestyles. We can give the kids ADHD drugs or we can change their lifestyles. We can let the kids get diabetes, put them on drugs, or help them lose weight.
This is a ridiculous discussion. Yes, drugs can help and we may need to use them in extreme cases to aid in lifestyle changes, but shouldn’t the goal be improved life style
They're not mutually exclusive, and ideally you mix and match. Being on medication is a bit too polarizing, as there are people who vilify it, or otherwise shame people who need to be on life-long or long-term medication, but there is also a problem with over- or mis-prescribing.
I don't really have much to do with the prescribing part of it (besides my personal medication decisions, and doing my part to not ignore the problem), so I'll leave that to my friends in the medical industry. Though especially having held some uninformed opinions on people who need medication earlier in life, I think it's important to not make people question whether they should take life-changing medication because of stigma or social pressure.
I will say my personal experiences have exposed me to people who need medication but have trouble accepting it a lot more than the latter, so I don't want to pretend my experience is universal.
Even if I wasn't someone with ADHD, the comment in question is dismissive of what ADHD actually is, as well as the very-valid treatment of getting medication.
Like I said in my comment, they pointed out some real problems, but made sweeping generalizations, mostly negative, about the people in question.
ADHD is not well understood by a lot of people, and someone with or without ADHD who is well-versed in the topic pointing out that their comment is not helpful to discussion about how to treat the disorder, shouldn't be dismissed as them "Taking it personally".
They said it was infuriating and they were very tempted to just say “fuck you”, they’re very clearly taking it personally, it’s not meant as a dismissal. I’m just trying to help them not feel personally attacked, but clearly I did that poorly. Sorry about that.
As the person in question, I understood your intent and I didn't downvote you. But it's also hard to see how (paraphrased:) "Parents of so-called ADHD kids are bad parents and their kids have a made-up disease" is not meant as a personal attack: "You are a bad parent and should feel bad."
I started medication as an adult, lived in a home with two involved & present parents, never saw any doctor about ADHD until I was an adult, and was never an unhappy child.
Looking back, I clearly had ADHD, but since it's a condition that's unique and specific symptoms vary per person, I just happened to have mechanisms that worked and got lucky with how my brain patterns fit into school from Elementary - High School.
I had plenty of outdoor activity, and plenty of video games / computer use. Not that you mentioned it, but I also read fantasy/sci-fi books like they were daily papers, finished all of my incomplete homework in the morning while waiting for class to start, and was constantly multi-tasking in class (reading, doing homework for an upcoming class, or occasionally fidgeting).
My sample size is 1, but I have 4-5 diagnosed (either as kids or adults) close friends with similar stories.
Your comment takes some generally-well-known positive advice (exercise more, social interaction & supportive relationships are good, parenting kids is a big task that takes time & effort), and identifies some real problems we face today (social isolation, a lack of non-religious adult organizations, sedentary lifestyles) and uses it to disparage people with real, diagnosable conditions, and vilifying those who turn to medication for it.
I'm fine with how my life worked out, but I can't imagine being the kind of kid whose ADHD manifested in a different way that made school exponentially harder than it was for me, and being told that life-changing medicine, that let me participate in school or work just like everyone else does, is something I was given by mistake, or that I just had shit parents or should have played outside more.
One way I try to explain it to people: "We give people insulin because they have diabetes. Diabetes is the disease, but you can cure it through diet and exercise for Type 2 (it's environmental), Type 1 you cannot (it's genetic). Insulin treats the disease, but doesn't cure it"
Why is it not the same for ADHD or depression? Type 1 is genetic and Type 2 is environmental.
The argument I was attempting to make is different from what everyone here is saying I think. What is a disease?
> Disease - a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning and is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms
Two points:
1. I would argue that what you describe isn't impairing normal function. It's that we are attempting to make you do abnormal things (sit in a room all day and be lectured at. At the end you have an exam). Society is failing to raise children properly and expecting things that are abnormal for the human animal.
2. A disease is basically diagnosed from a bucket of symptoms. Those symptoms will have different causes. Without taking a measured approach at identifying the causes, you are likely going to see a plethora of factors. These can and do include things like hyperactivity from siting and watching TV (now they have energy and want to move). Things of that nature.
Given the above, we're effectively medicating children for personal / societal reasons, not because the human animal is actually suffering or impaired in any way.
Let me put it another way then - ADHD meds increase the range of tasks I'm able to do succesfully. They add to my life rather than take something away.
I'm talking about tasks I want to do but would struggle with without medication (mainly coding for pleasure).
Yeah - I could find different things to do with my life, but I love coding and I am delighted to find there's a simple pill I can take that helps me do more of it.
I understand what you're saying, but reread what you said and replace "medication" and "pill" with "cocaine". Amphetamine can be used in the same manner and for the same perceived reasons.
Granted, I am happy for you and I think drug laws are ridiculous.
(Methylphenidate is not amphetamine btw. Other ADHD meds are literally amphetamines but I'm only talking about methylphenidate)
If cocaine had positive effects that outweighed the negatives then it absolutely should be prescribed. But it doesn't. Unlike methylphenidate - which for most people has fairly mild downsides at the doses it is usually prescribed in. It is also largely non-addictive with little evidence of long-term health damage.
Also unlike cocaine.
All in all, I'm not sure how this comparison helps.
Further, as you pointed out does have benefits (which is I assume why it's prescribed). Cocaine and meth have similar effects btw (pros and cons), abuse is what causes the issue(s). People can survive on both for decades though.
“ In this paper, we discuss candidate triggers of islet autoimmunity and factors thought to promote progression from autoimmunity to overt type 1 diabetes (figure 1). These factors seem to have their effect mainly in the genetically predisposed individuals.” [my emphasis]
“ Importantly, environmental factors that trigger islet autoimmunity might differ from those that promote progression from autoimmunity to overt diabetes.”
My situation mirrors yours pretty closely. I didn't recognize the symptoms or seek treatment until my mid-30's, but looking back I clearly had ADHD symptoms that became serious around high school.
In my case, my grades plummeted and I was unable to get into the colleges I wanted, or to graduate from an engineering program like I had wanted. I ended up graduating with a degree after 7 years and bouncing between 4 different colleges, and I've had a decently good career in Silicon Valley where being a generalist is a solid plus. But my dreams of being a (literal) astronaut were flushed down the toilet in the process.
Kids shouldn't have to sacrifice their dreams or their self-esteem because parents are unwilling or unable to seek proper treatment.
As you pointed out ADHD is a disease, what’s the cause?
Do you have adhd, or do the drugs help you focus and you want that?
Calling it a disease implies something is wrong, but having trouble focusing isn’t “wrong”. It’s a skill one can acquire and may have a variety of factors impacting it (from genetics to environment to mental management).
That’s the issue I personally take with these kind of discussions. Medication may help you focus (coffee does that), but do people who need coffee in the morning to focus well have a disease? Hardly.
Not them, and I don't have ADHD, but I am the parent of a child with ADHD and I know plenty of people with ADHD, and it's not just "having trouble focusing". For a lot of people, it's a complete inability to focus on any one thing for any real amount of time. They can try as hard as they can to force themselves, but become disfocused and distracted despite any effort. It also often involves impulsiveness that is incredibly difficult to control, to the point that often it feels like it wasn't even their own choice. A common description I've heard is that it feels like somebody else was controlling them. My son would say when he was younger "My brain made me do it" or "my hands just did it on their own", and at first I thought it was an excuse, but after one destructive incident, he broke down crying at the age of 7 saying that he doesn't know why he does the things he does, and he can't stop or control himself, and he wishes he could stop himself from doing it. He tries to be good but then something takes control and makes him do destructive things or blurt out things he knows are wrong to say.
On medication now, he still has a hard time, but he is actually capable of controlling himself, he is capable of forcing himself to focus, and he's much happier. Now it is just a skill for him to work on, but in the past, it was an actual impossibility. It is a true disorder, not just "trouble focusing", and ADHD medication is a fundamental need for some people to function at all, and not comparable to a morning coffee.
In the past, these people were often assumed to be possessed, or insane, and were institutionalized, killed, or imprisoned. It's not like ADHD is a new epidemic or something.
Thank you for you sympathy and empathetic response. Your son's in good hands.
As an ADHDer, I never understood what it was like for others until I got treatment with stimulants. It's like I can just take this magic pill and for 8 hours I'm "normal."
I wish there was an opposite pill, one which made people inattentive and impulsive. Then everyone else could try it for a day or two and see how debilitating it is. Regular, everyday life is like being falling-down drunk in terms of mental incapacitation, and the pills for the first time let us experience life sober.
Edit: how old is your son now? One thing I worry about as a parent of an ADHDer as well is her eating. I've so far avoided treatment for her because I'm worried she'll eat less and her growth will be stunted. We're cautiously waiting on medication until post-puberty.
My son is 9 now. We only started him on medication this year (we were trying so hard to get it under control without medication, and his doctor was worried about his weight if we put him on the stimulants). Getting him to eat is a challenge, but it always was anyway and he's always been pretty skinny. Fortunately, he loves milk, so we can always get some calories and protein in him that way. We get a low-carb full-fat milk so his sugar intake isn't crazy high.
Dextroamphetamine. Worked great for a few months, but have lessened in effectiveness. Now it still works for focus, but the impulsiveness came back (he was actually able to explain to me that he was having trouble controlling his actions), so he's now on guanfacine too, for impulse control.
We do a couple off days now and then, but not a lot because he feels like it's a wasted day because he can't focus on anything he really wants to. I suggested that he could take weekends off the stimulant, but he says he'd rather be able to operate mostly every day than to have a more focused week and completely wasted weekend, and I feel like he's capable of making that decision for himself.
Ironically, the opposite pill for me is Adderall. I take stimulants for idiopathic hypersomnia and if I take too high of a dose I have a hard time concentrating on just one thing.
I don’t think it gets as bad as ADHD but I definitely get a taste of it.
There's a huge difference between having a little trouble focusing, and struggling all fucking day to focus... then realizing at the end of the day, you have been working all day, but bouncing between tasks so much that you really got nothing done. It's frustrating and debilitating and makes you feel like a complete piece of shit. Then because you're not doing as well as everybody around you, you dwell on it at night, and you don't sleep. And you know what no sleep does? It exacerbates the problem, and so you have to struggle even harder when you're exhausted just to get things done. Then you spend all weekend sleeping, because it's the only 2 nights of the week where you don't have to go back to work the next day, and fail yet again. Then you start to feel like your life is this fucking cycle of struggle every week, with no personal accomplishments.
ADHD is not a disease; our brains are just wired differently. The upsides of ADHD - hyperfocus, strategic planning, ability to readily correlate otherwise unrelated things all contributed to who I am and my success. The drugs help even out the downsides to ADHD.
As a quick counter-point to *, there is another sub-problem with healthcare/doctors in the US, where often patients with chronic illnesses or not-easily-testable conditions have to fight hard for doctors to take them seriously. The why of this varies a lot from what I've seen, but includes:
- an attitude of "most patients are just trying to wring medications out of you"
- an ego-hit of "if I didn't make the diagnosis, I don't want to help" (this applies to both patients coming in with a suspicion of what they have, or getting a diagnosis from another doctor)
- burn-out/overworking, where doctors have a hard time managing all the different cases coming at them without dropping the ball here and there
It's not a simple, single-cause problem at all, but just want to provide an alternative point of view about patients who look things up or come in asking about a specific condition or diagnosis.
When I got my ADHD diagnosis after a quarter-century, I went in specifically asking about ADHD because I had seen some flags that made me think I might have ADHD. Contrast that with the people doctors screen out who are trying to get a stimulant prescription despite not needing it, and you have a situation where it's hard for doctors to tell who does or doesn't need meds, and where patients with actual conditions have to fight hard for those to be diagnosed.
Even in cases like POTS, which has no medication involved in treatment, just lifestyle changes, and yet people close to me who have POTS all had an uphill battle getting it recognized by anyone, especially doctors who could diagnose (disclaimer: sample size = 3).
> When I got my ADHD diagnosis after a quarter-century, I went in specifically asking about ADHD because I had seen some flags that made me think I might have ADHD. Contrast that with the people doctors screen out who are trying to get a stimulant prescription despite not needing it, and you have a situation where it's hard for doctors to tell who does or doesn't need meds, and where patients with actual conditions have to fight hard for those to be diagnosed.
I told my doctor I had already been diagnosed with ADHD because I had a strong suspicion I had it and wanted to see for myself if the medication helped (it helped massively). I think medicine should be accessible for patients who need it but I don't know how to avoid large amounts of patients then taking medications for the wrong thing, which would probably happen if it was a free-for-all. It kinda comes down to the question of having the personal freedom to hurt yourself doing something stupid, which is a balance (a little of that freedom is good, too much probably bad). All-in-all I lean toward the current system of using on experts to make the final decision. Still, I would be really pissed if a doctor prevented me from getting stimulants for something I believe I need, so I am not 100% satisfied with the current system either.
Another wrinkle to the problem with that gatekeeping structure is that it is so prone to bias against women and people of color, who are much more likely to be undiagnosed and ignored or dismissed.
> a 2000 study[0] published in The New England Journal of Medicine found that women are seven times more likely than men to be misdiagnosed and discharged in the middle of having a heart attack.
> women with chronic pain conditions are more likely to be wrongly diagnosed with mental health conditions than men and prescribed psychotropic drugs, as doctors dismiss their symptoms as hysterics [1].
> racial bias in pain perception is associated with racial bias in pain treatment recommendations... Black Americans are systematically undertreated for pain relative to white Americans.
(To contextualize the votes: I think you were getting down voted for assuming that sexual and racial bias don’t exist. You assumed the statement mentioning that such biases existed was inaccurate and wanted explanation as to how. However, per my other comment, the biases exist and contribute to significant negative health outcomes for the disadvantaged groups.)
I view drug enforcement policy meant to prevent individuals from making decisions for themselves as always doing more harm than good. The place for regulation in this space is controlling what claims profit-motivated entities can make about drugs, enforcing quality and safety standards in manufacturing, and honestly tying the hands of insurance companies as much as possible, if not just gutting them altogether
Yeah, I've witnessed this first hand with my spouse. She's been told she just needs to exercise more (she was a professional dancer when it hit her), that it's all in her head (actual psychiatrist said otherwise), that it will resolve in 6-18 months (it didn't), etc., etc. It's pretty appalling.
Thanks for mentioning POTS, btw. Despite how many people have it, it's still fairly poorly known about even within the medical community.
I'm more and more convinced that POTS/EDS/MCAS aren't rare diseases, they're just criminally under-diagnosed because they tend to affect women. FWIW, POTS is much more manageable with medication (e.g. Midodrine and Florinef).
> criminally under-diagnosed because they tend to effect women
I just can't understand this argument. Women already live 5 years longer than men on average. You mean to tell me if the system didn't discriminate so strongly against their best interest they'd live even longer than men?
Responding to both you and the comment above/below you:
Women have a hard time getting symptoms, esp around pain, taken seriously. Oftentimes these symptoms are downplayed or ignored, regardless of the sex/gender of the medical professional.
nurses are 91% female and doctors are about 37% female - are they also 'criminally under-diagnosing'? Seems there are quite a few more women in healthcare than men these days.
The counterpoint to your last thing is that there are also many ailments that we literally just do not have enough info about yet to have proper treatments. And if we are studying such things many doctors are not going to always be up on the latest research for that specific condition.
I have found it helpful to approach it in more of a teamwork-like mentality. Don't just read WebMD and try to diagnose yourself - journal your symptoms, observe the trends, record data. If it seems like it points to a specific condition hop on Google Scholar and look for some legitimate new research the average doctor may not have heard about. Print that out and then when you go in show them and ask questions without attempting to specifically diagnose yourself.
You could be totally wrong but with some background info your doctor is much more likely to accurately diagnose and take you seriously.
Paella actually has a lot of variations all over spain, and it was a very "what do we have on-hand" kind of food!
My relatives in Madrid have chorizo, shrimp, shellfish, rabbit, chicken, sausage as far as meats I've seen in the paellas they've made.
Chorizo, shrimp, shellfish, and chicken is by far the most common they make. It may also make sense that the paella that "caught on" in the states just hails from a different region of Spain. So "American Paella" may just be closer to a non-valencian paella.
> Paella actually has a lot of variations all over spain, and it was a very "what do we have on-hand" kind of food!
I'm sorry but that's not true at all. Paella allows for some variations, but there's a clear line separating paella from "arroz con cosas". Just because it has rice and is cooked in a wide and short pan doesn't make it paella.
> My relatives in Madrid have chorizo, shrimp, shellfish, rabbit, chicken, sausage as far as meats I've seen in the paellas they've made.
I don't think you can call an orange juice "paella" just because "that's how you cook it".
Paella Valenciana might be that restrictive, but paella… that ship sailed long ago. Paella can even come with orange juice if you are inventive enough (it ought to have orange reminiscences due to The Need to cook it with naranjo wood).
And that “clear line” is source of endless discussions, so not so clear it seems!
Do you have any more information on the abortion policy you're using as a comparison?
Tried to guess which country you were referring to but couldn't find concrete info after a bit of googling.
I don't think the comparison between using more inclusive language to refer to people, and you being forced to abandon your beliefs, makes much sense. Putting aside potential issues with beliefs and their effect on a person's treatment of those around them, no one is forcing you to stop believing whatever it is you believe.
Potentially limited may be how you treat or talk to people, but that is a separate limit than what you are allowed to believe, since once it becomes words or actions, now it's not just in your head but out in reality and potentially affecting others.
MY MISTAKE: apparently the law does allow a doctor to say no for his believes. I cannot edit the previous post.
Again, so this people today say that you have to say "les", what prevents me from saying I am not filling included, I want everybody to start saying "lus" or "chimichangas" for that matter? The problem for me is that they force you to behave however they want you to behave.
Honestly though, in my day job I've been trying to eschew gendered pronouns across the board - my coworker's gender is not relevant to them being my coworker. For a long time we've promoted gender as the single most defining trait as a person in a way we don't promote with height, weight or even skincolor. It's Mr. Smith and Mrs. Smith that are used as common forms of address - but not Tall Smith or British Smith. I'm pretty much done with such an emphasis being placed on gender in common social interactions, the only thing it's relevant to is who's going to sleep with who which isn't really something I want to discuss at work anyways.
Mr. and Mrs. are both honorifics that are technically nouns - but they definitely modify the noun that comes after them which is one of the uses of an adjective. I can talk about the white house and the red house - just like I can talk about Mr. Smith and Mrs. Smith.
There are plenty of other words (including adjectives) that you can use as honorifics - you've got Little John (and Lil Jon), Short Bob and Tall Bob.
I think it's fair to move away from Mr. and Mrs. being as prominent as they are.
> but they definitely modify the noun that comes after them
One of the two nouns is an appositive, but it's never been too clear to me which is which in English grammar. In my native tongue it definitely doesn't seem to be the case that Mr. modifies Smith, as our equivalent to Mr. is a common noun that is used to refer to any male human.
In English the word serves double duty (and does other stuff) - "Hey Mr., can you tell me which way it is to the subway station" is a perfectly natural sentence. They can even be anonymized nouns (similar to la blanca - referring to a white house depending on context) - "Oh, I was going to wait to open the bottle until the Mrs. gets back". Lastly you've got the example I had in my prior comment "Oh sorry, I actually wanted to speak with Mrs. Smith - can you put her on the line?" where it is functionally, I think, an adjective though the dictionary considers it a noun in that usage.
Academically speaking, my understanding of the linguistics at play are that there are biases embedded deep within the gendering of specific words, even.
There is a real gap in the archaic forms of Romance languages when it comes to the level of gender sophistication that was in the even more archaic Latin.
Modern languages are evolving rapidly and it is entirely within the realm of reasonableness to expect that humanity will tend towards meta-evolving it’s own languages.
But I am not well read in linguistics and suspect that Noam Chomsky has already written a book on this topic.
>Do you have any more information on the abortion policy you're using as a comparison?
No, s/he doesn't because is talking nonsense: conscientious objectors rights/persons are protected in Argentina by its Constitution and plenty of case law.
Re: Abortion: Doctors can (and have) very much deny to perform or "facilitate" abortions on moral or religious grounds but by law ("Ley del Aborto") they also have the legal obligation to refer the woman/patient WITHOUT delay of any kind to another doctor or another hospital (mostly public ones) to have the procedure.
[0] https://biomediaproject.com/bmp/ [1] I don't have a link handy to the ebook, I'm also not sure if they had permission to upload all of that content in one file or not