This guy makes a lot of sense.

Posted by liz at 03:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Read more on

Want to live longer? If you're reading this blog, maybe not. But on the off chance that you're not depressed, see what a new study has to say about being organized and other crap I hate. From The Guardian UK:

People who are industrious, disciplined and ambitious live up to four years longer than those with more impulsive personalities, a new study has found.

Conscientious types, often seen as boring, actually have the right personality to ensure that they live to a ripe old age. Researchers found that their characteristics mean they are happier, more likely to lead stable lives and less tempted by drink, drugs or risk-taking - all of which helps guarantee their health.

The results are important because they suggest that psychological traits play at least as great a role in determining mortality as medical risk factors, socio-economic status and level of intelligence.

So if you're worried you're not a rigorous person, you might want to get religious, according to UPI International:

Religious people have more self-control than their less religious counterparts do, a University of Miami professor has concluded.

Michael McCullough said the findings imply that religious people may be better at pursuing and achieving long-term goals that are important to them and their religious groups. This, in turn, might help explain why religious people tend to have lower rates of substance abuse, better school achievement, less delinquency, better health behaviors, less depression and longer lives, McCullough said.

McCullough evaluated eight decades worth of research on religion, which has been conducted in diverse samples of people from around the world. He said he found persuasive evidence from a variety of domains within the social sciences -- including neuroscience, economics, psychology and sociology -- that religious beliefs and religious behaviors are capable of encouraging people to exercise self-control and more effectively regulate their emotions and behaviors so they can pursue valued goals.

Personally, I'd rather be the messy, creative, disorganized, non-religious agnostic I am and live a shorter life. I think I listened to the LP Free to Be You and Me too much as a child.

Ambition and discipline are key to longer and happier life

Study: Religious have more self-control

Posted by liz at 02:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Read more on

I suppose most of you have heard that Jett Travolta, son of John Travolta and Kelly Preston, died a few days ago, after having a seizure in the bathtub and hitting his head. Susan Schechter writes on her blog that Jett was taking Depakote for seizures before he died; Depakote is a med that's frequently prescribed as a mood stabilizer for bipolar disorder. I used to take it myself, but it didn't help. Now I take another anti-seizure med, Lamictal, which does help me.

Unfortunately, as Susan reports, Jett suffered from "drug poop out" with Depakote. It sounds like the poor kid struggled mightily with his symptoms and the family did what they could to keep him well. I know there will be attacks on Travolta and Preston because they're Scientologists and therefore may have strange ideas about medicine, but I'm thinking those kind of speculations should wait, if they're aired at all. This is a tragedy and Jett's parents did what they thought was best for him.

To read more from Susan, go here.

Posted by liz at 10:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Read more on

The Associated Press posted an update this week on the status of "mental patient" isolation in psychiatric hospitals.

STAUNTON, Va. - Mental patients sprinkled throughout the nation's psychiatric hospitals are being locked up alone for years despite laws aimed at preventing the practice, because medical workers say they're too dangerous to handle any other way.

Health officials call them outliers — rare, unpredictably violent people who don't respond to medication or other treatment. Advocates call them victims of a system that has lost patience and creativity in caring for those who are most difficult to treat.

In Virginia, one man was locked in a three-room suite for 15 years and another patient was held in a similar setup for five years. Connecticut and Florida have paid millions over allegations that they tethered patients to furniture for years.

At first, this seems like an open-and-shut case of human rights violations. Clearly, no human being deserves to live in isolation: the very definition of humanity implies social living. On the other hand, what further injustice can be done to those mentally ill patients who must live in hospitals than to further destabilize their environments by introducing the constant possibility of physical harm?

The controversy parallels the question of whether or not repeatedly violent mental health patients among the general population should be confined. Which rights need to be protected at what cost? Ideally, our fundamental human rights values would answer these questions in a clear-cut manner that favors the freedom of the individual. However, among a national population of over 300 million people, it seems possible that a mere 0.00000004% (a dozen psychiatric patients across the US) might be at least temporarily unfit to live with others, especially among those who are themselves in need of serious help.

Look at the case of Cesar Chumil:

At Western State Hospital in Staunton, Va., the state stepped in after staff placed Cesar Chumil in a three-room "limited containment suite" in 1993, where he has remained since. Chumil averaged 300 assaults against staff and another 100 against patients over seven years before he was placed in the suite, according to records from a closed administrative hearing obtained by the AP.

Hospital officials claim the 58-year-old has more freedom than before, when records show he spent thousands of hours in a small seclusion cell or restrained to a bed or chair.

"It's a big step to put somebody in a room like this and say, 'You can't come out,' but we had so many people getting injured and so many staff were out of work," said Stephen Johnson, the psychologist on Chumil's ward. "It just got to the point where it was just untenable ... so we had this one solution."

One hundred patients were assaulted by one man over the course of seven years? I think that after the first five assaults, some actions should have been taken. Advocates assert that with intensive treatment, individuals like Chumil can reach the point where they are not a serious threat to those around them. But until that point is reached, the first goal of any mental hospital should be to ensure the basic safety of its patients.

Chumil is now being treated more humanely after a state oversight committee saw that he was given his own ward where he can interact with staff members who wear helmets and padded gear. We can only hope that the same sensitivities are being given to him at the mental/emotional level so that one day he can prove the advocates right.

Posted by liz at 10:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
Read more on

Hi guys. Sorry it's been spotty the last couple days. That's because I thought the blog was being given a new design, but various things have held up the process. So here we are, with our same template, ready to blog.

Yesterday Becca wrote a post about isolation and protecting rights. I'll post it next.

Posted by liz at 10:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
Read more on

Researchers at Indiana University were recently surprised to learn that contrary to popular belief, suicide rates do not increase during the holidays.

The holidays can bring out the worst in people, and the stresses of family get-togethers, loneliness, and the cold, dark winter months are commonly thought to increase the number of suicides at Yule time. But studies conducted around the globe show that, while the holidays may be a difficult time for some, there is no scientific evidence to suggest a holiday peak in suicides, according to Dr. Vreeman and Dr. Carroll. Furthermore, suicides are actually more common during warm and sunny times of the year.

You know what that means, readers – no excuse to be bleak. Certainly, social expectations to be cheerful when you don’t feel cheerful can be alienating. But as we Chanukah-inclined people say, “It could always be worse.” Although it might seem trite, I’ve managed to climb my way out of a few depressive holes by really sincerely counting my blessings. If you fall into the doomsday tunnel vision, keep searching for the better-feeling thought and watch it pay off.

But more importantly, the researchers also found that eating at night does not cause weight gain any more than eating during the day. So buck up, delve into those midnight leftover, and have a happy holidays.

Posted by liz at 03:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)
Read more on

I will not even go into the bizarre-ness that was the Moo Shu Jew Show, which included an elderly man at my table making reference to "black pipe" (meaning African-American penises), the insistent use of the word "schvartze," mocking of retarded people and people with Tourette's, and enough ageism to turn Methusulah into Benjamin Button. I don't think I'll be going back.

Additionally, I had the misfortune of seeing Marley & Me, which completely confused me. It would be like if you made a movie of my life. Me talking about my column. Me worrying about my pets. Me fighting with my partner. Me thinking about moving. The most boring-ass life you could imagine. Why do I want to watch that? No drama. No conflict. No suspense. Plus, what up with the saddest ending in the world? The poor kids at Riverview were all Bambi-traumatized.

Posted by liz at 11:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)
Read more on

I know the holidays can be rough. I made a lovely video describing that but it won't upload. So I guess I'll just say if you're celebrating between now and Jan. 2, take care of yourselves. I'll be on and off, depending on the redesign and my own celebratory proclivities. Tomorrow my Muslim friend and I are going to the movies. We are going to save the world.

Posted by liz at 02:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)
Read more on

Thanks to Joe for sending me this link. This is absolutely appalling. Anyone who's ever taken Seroquel knows it shouldn't be approved for depression. I'm ready to go to the FDA and knock down the doors until they listen to me. Can you imagine taking Thorazine or Risperdal or Zyprexa for depression? Think about it, my friends. If you've taken an antipsychotic, you know how ridiculous this is.

AstraZeneca says FDA asks for Seroquel detail

Posted by liz at 11:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (7)
Read more on

This is in response to the statement Fred Goodwin made that I posted several days ago. (The site is undergoing a redesign; please be patient if we go offline in the next couple days or hours.) Again, to remind everyone in the interest of full disclosure, I was on the radio show once and was asked to be on once more. I met Bill Lichtenstein, president of LCMedia, a couple times in person.

I am writing as executive producer of the national, weekly public radio series, The Infinite Mind, in response to the statement posted [on The Trouble With Spikol] from Dr. Fred Goodwin regarding the disclosures in the November 22, 2008 New York Times article that Goodwin, former host of The Infinite Mind, had accepted $1.2 million to speak on behalf of the pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline. Most of Goodwin’s statement attacks the New York Times’ Gardiner Harris for his reporting. In doing so, Goodwin adds Harris, a seasoned New York Times reporter, to the growing list of people, including Sen. Grassley, whom Goodwin claims have not gotten the story straight.

The issue at the heart of The Infinite Mind matter is Goodwin’s admitted acceptance of $1.2 million in fees from GlaxoSmithKline from 2000 to 2008 to speak on behalf of the drug company. According to the November 22, 2008 New York Times article that first disclosed Dr. Goodwin’s activities (“Radio Host has Drug Company Ties”), this included giving talks to medical professionals on behalf of GlaxoSmithKline at such locations as steak houses and resorts.

The New York Times article reported Dr. Goodwin’s disclosure (or lack of disclosure) as a "he said/she said" situation, with Goodwin asserting that I, as executive producer, was aware of his activities, and my denial at no point was I aware of the work he was doing behalf of GlaxoSmithKline. However, to date, reporters have failed to press Goodwin for any proof of his claim that he disclosed his activities, nor has Goodwin produced any evidence or basis in fact to support his claim that he disclosed his activities. The fact is he didn't, despite strict conflict of interest and disclosure language in his contract (See signed June 12, 2006 contract posted on-line at http://www.LCMedia.com/agreement.pdf )

At the same time, Goodwin's position with regard to his conflict of interest has changed almost daily.

On December 2, 2008, the "GW Hatchet" (the student newspaper at George Washington University where Dr. Goodwin teaches) reported that Goodwin denied that there had been a conflict of interest, and he essentially proposed a novel concept of conflict of interest: "I frankly do not see these things as a conflict of interest. It was my judgment," said Goodwin. "Like most experts in my field, I have relationships as a consultant with a number of pharmaceutical companies. I've always thought that if you have multiple relationships they sort of cancel each other out."

Additionally, the "GW Hatchet" reported that "[Goodwin] maintains he did not violate any contracts with 'The Infinite Mind' because . . . it was never required for him to disclose information,” despite the fact that his signed contract included strict language with regard to his disclosure of any potential conflicts of interest.

The "GW Hatchet" also reported that Goodwin said Sen. Charles Grassley was mistaken when he asserted, based on GlaxoSmithKline records, that Goodwin had received $1,226,300 in speaking fees and $117,300 in travel reimbursement from the pharmaceutical company. Goodwin now maintains he received less than $1 million from GlaxoSmithKline. Goodwin also disputes the New York Times' inclusion of travel fees as part of his “compensation” from GlaxoSmithKline, to which New York Times reporter, Gardiner Harris, replied, "I think most people would see travel expenses to very nice places as a benefit worthy of citing."

On December 9, 2008, the prestigious British Medical Journal published an article on this matter, in which Goodwin again asserted there had been no conflict of interest in his accepting pharmaceutical fees while hosting The Infinite Mind. The journal reported that "besides GlaxoSmithKline [Goodwin] has been paid by Pfizer, Solvay, Janssen, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. He said he believed that this cancelled out the possible influence of any one company." (See British Medical Journal article at: http://www.LCMedia.com/BMJ.pdf )

Finally, Dr. Goodwin cites The Infinite Mind’s hiring of another primary host from 2004 to 2006 as an indication that we were aware he was working for pharmaceutical companies. In fact, we were aware of Goodwin’s prior research funded by the pharmaceutical industry, which according to Goodwin ended in 2001, and that Goodwin spoke at Continuing Medical Education programs sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry, which are highly regulated with regard to conflicts of interest. Goodwin continued to guest host programs during this period, and when Goodwin returned to the program as primary host in 2006, he negotiated and signed the contract that provided he disclose any possible conflicts of interest, including those going back to 1997, which he failed to do.

Posted by liz at 11:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)
Read more on