Child abuse and diabetes

G'day G'day Folks,

Often we are left wondering if there is a connection between diabetes
and other diseases. Here is one connection that most of us might not
have suspected.

************************************************** *******************
Child abuse heralds adult inflammation
A long-term study in New Zealand indicates that child abuse leads to a
disruption of part of the stress response in adulthood that has been
linked to heart disease, diabetes, and chronic lung disease.
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070203/note10.asp

************************************************** ********************
Unless you have a subscription to sciencenews you won't be able to
open the article. For this reason I haven't been able to read the
article. However the header probably gives us enough information to
get the gist of the matter and help us recognise situations inviting
our compassion.

Best wishes,
--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ /
New Zealand, >#,#< [
/ \ /\
"... and the blind dog was leading."

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 22:03:33 +1300, Quentin Grady
<quentin@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

>G'day G'day Folks,
>
> Often we are left wondering if there is a connection between diabetes
>and other diseases. Here is one connection that most of us might not
>have suspected.
>
>************************************************* ********************
>Child abuse heralds adult inflammation
>A long-term study in New Zealand indicates that child abuse leads to a
>disruption of part of the stress response in adulthood that has been
>linked to heart disease, diabetes, and chronic lung disease.
>http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070203/note10.asp
>
>************************************************* *********************
>Unless you have a subscription to sciencenews you won't be able to
>open the article. For this reason I haven't been able to read the
>article. However the header probably gives us enough information to
>get the gist of the matter and help us recognise situations inviting
>our compassion.
>
>Best wishes,

Hello Quentin... This one hits close to home.

I suspect that many who read this group may feel likewise.

Thanks,

Will, T2

This post not CC'd by email
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 19:58:32 -0500, "Will, T2" <wmmckee@cox.net>
wrote:

>On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 22:03:33 +1300, Quentin Grady
><quentin@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>G'day G'day Folks,
>>
>> Often we are left wondering if there is a connection between diabetes
>>and other diseases. Here is one connection that most of us might not
>>have suspected.
>>
>>************************************************ *********************
>>Child abuse heralds adult inflammation
>>A long-term study in New Zealand indicates that child abuse leads to a
>>disruption of part of the stress response in adulthood that has been
>>linked to heart disease, diabetes, and chronic lung disease.
>>http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070203/note10.asp
>>
>>************************************************ **********************
>>Unless you have a subscription to sciencenews you won't be able to
>>open the article. For this reason I haven't been able to read the
>>article. However the header probably gives us enough information to
>>get the gist of the matter and help us recognise situations inviting
>>our compassion.
>>
>>Best wishes,
>
>Hello Quentin... This one hits close to home.
>
>I suspect that many who read this group may feel likewise.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Will, T2

G'day G'day Will,

It must hit home close to anyone who has been beaten up by adults or
otherwise abused in their childhood, and there will be a lot of those.
I certainly recall hideous happenings too painful to relate from my
school days. Preventing other children being caned and strapped (the
milder of the physical punishments dished out) is why first became
involved in teaching.

Abuse of many kinds is said to leave psychological damage but what the
heck is psychological damage. My guess is that the stuff that really
is significant does things like disrupting stress responses through
into adulthood. It is one reason why I prefer to deal with physiology
than psychology. IMHO one is dealing with something that is more
substantial.

Best wishes,
--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ /
New Zealand, >#,#< [
/ \ /\
"... and the blind dog was leading."

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin

On 9 Feb, 07:33, Quentin Grady <quen...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

> Abuse of many kinds is said to leave psychological damage but what the
> heck is psychological damage. My guess is that the stuff that really
> is significant does things like disrupting stress responses through
> into adulthood. It is one reason why I prefer to deal with physiology
> than psychology. IMHO one is dealing with something that is more
> substantial.


Hello Quentin,

Thanks for bringing this area of research to our attention and
highlighting its importance. I'll stick my neck out here and say that
I
think it may be a mistake to separate psychological and physiological
effects, even though the latter are more clearly apparent -- I believe
that the connection between the two cannot be overestimated. There is
little doubt in my mind that psychological damage, particularly as a
result of childhood experiences, can manifest eventually as physical
illness and chronic conditions. Or, as Alice Miller (a leading voice
in healing childhood abuse) puts it, "the body never lies."

While, in some respects, it may be easier to deal with the physiology,
such illnesses are effectively a plea from the body to the mind to
deal with the damage caused. Therefore I think that, e.g., the
physical response to stress and the toll this takes on the body should
also be understood from a psychological perspective so that what is
causing these responses - and why - can be recognised and
acknowledged. Of course, this is no simple process and may involve
taking a long, hard, emotionally painful look at events which one
might prefer to leave in the past. I'll offer the thought, though,
that this process may be of equal therapeutic significance to benefits
conferred by any physical changes which are made - and that the two go
hand-in-hand.

For anyone who is doing this recovery work, I wholeheartedly recommend
reading Miller, as I think that the depths of her understanding and
empathy are unsurpassable.

http://www.alice-miller.com/books_en.php

Best wishes,

Amy

On 9 Feb 2007 02:36:45 -0800, "Amy (UK)"
<tesselate@googlemail.com> wrote:

>Best wishes,
>
>Amy

Hi Amy

Just saying g'day - missed you. Where've you been? :-)

Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 1000mg, ezetrol 10mg
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Epidaurus

This post not CC'd by email
On 9 Feb 2007 02:36:45 -0800, "Amy (UK)" <tesselate@googlemail.com>
wrote:

>
>On 9 Feb, 07:33, Quentin Grady <quen...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
>> Abuse of many kinds is said to leave psychological damage but what the
>> heck is psychological damage. My guess is that the stuff that really
>> is significant does things like disrupting stress responses through
>> into adulthood. It is one reason why I prefer to deal with physiology
>> than psychology. IMHO one is dealing with something that is more
>> substantial.
>
>
>Hello Quentin,
>
>Thanks for bringing this area of research to our attention and
>highlighting its importance. I'll stick my neck out here and say that
>I
>think it may be a mistake to separate psychological and physiological
>effects, even though the latter are more clearly apparent -- I believe
>that the connection between the two cannot be overestimated.

G'day G'day Ami,

Thank you for having the courage to discuss such beliefs.

Many people don't so much as consider what is going on let alone
venture a hypothesis or two.

Let's take your belief "that the connection between the two cannot be
over estimated." Let's try and push that to the limit. Ultimately
we would arrive at the idea that they were manifestations of the SAME
thing. IMHO, the psychological manifestations were side effects of
physiological disturbances. I've said it this way around because
psychological effects are said to reside in the mind. IMHO it makes
sense to live one's life and think about things on a firmly grounded
basis. The physiology is therefore the reality and the psychology the
ghost in the machine as it were.

> There is
>little doubt in my mind that psychological damage, particularly as a
>result of childhood experiences, can manifest eventually as physical
>illness and chronic conditions. Or, as Alice Miller (a leading voice
>in healing childhood abuse) puts it, "the body never lies."

I'd jump a little further. Abuse or other trauma affects a child (or
adult for that matter) physiologically. Most events bend things and
they spring back with no permanent damage. However when it reaches
trauma level it will as you so aptly put it, manifest eventually as
physical illness or chronic conditions. Being a bit simplistic I'd
say sometimes the bending breaks things and at the very least
activates protective mechanisms to save the whole from the damaged
part.

>While, in some respects, it may be easier to deal with the physiology,
>such illnesses are effectively a plea from the body to the mind to
>deal with the damage caused. Therefore I think that, e.g., the
>physical response to stress and the toll this takes on the body should
>also be understood from a psychological perspective so that what is
>causing these responses - and why - can be recognised and
>acknowledged. Of course, this is no simple process and may involve
>taking a long, hard, emotionally painful look at events which one
>might prefer to leave in the past.

Ami. You have said so much it is difficult to know where to begin
just to hold a conversation on the matter. Please excuse the poverty
of my response if I mention only one thing that caught my attention.

>Of course, this is no simple process and may involve
>taking a long, hard, emotionally painful look at events which one
>might prefer to leave in the past.

IMHO it takes a VAST amount of energy to FORGET trauma. Some things
like the location of car keys requires almost no effort. But putting
out of awareness the crap that happened to one in childhood consumes
vast amounts of energy. As an electrical tutor I tend to think in
electrical terms. It is as though one has to maintain a permanent
short circuit to ground to isolate some thoughts from the rest of the
thinking process. That is costly. And is accompanied by the
equivalent of a lot of static.

> I'll offer the thought, though,
>that this process may be of equal therapeutic significance to benefits
>conferred by any physical changes which are made - and that the two go
>hand-in-hand.

I believe they do. For me, the biggest mistake is to think such
matters are ONLY psychological and therefore not real. It is the
sort of idiot thinking that belongs in the idiot guide to being an
idiot. We couldn't have a psychology or at least a belief we have a
psychology without having an extraordinarily advanced physiology.

>For anyone who is doing this recovery work, I wholeheartedly recommend
>reading Miller, as I think that the depths of her understanding and
>empathy are unsurpassable.
>
>http://www.alice-miller.com/books_en.php

Thank you for the reference.

>Best wishes,
>
>Amy

Best wishes and thank you for discussing something many people would
run a mile from.

(We still run miles from things even though we are fully metricated.)

--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ /
New Zealand, >#,#< [
/ \ /\
"... and the blind dog was leading."

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin

Very interesting topic. I would offer yet another opinion: in the
physiological versus psychological, I believe you are splitting hairs. The
two cannot be separated. And yet society continues to believe somehow
psychology is a separate issue from physiology. It's this kind of thinking
that prevents those with bipolar conditions, depressive states, etc. from
seeking treatment. Some people mistakenly believe that because their
illness involves a mental process they should be able to control it.
However, when the body fails to make insulin, we do not say, gee, if you
just think the right thoughts about this, your pancreas would do its job.
Yet often when someone is depressed, we tell them the answer is to just
think the right thoughts. Science has shown that mental states often have a
phsyiological cause that can be treated.
Okay, having said that, I honestly do believe that when a person is
psychologically traumatized, it can make him/her sick. We see signs of that
in minor everyday instances. How often does it come to pass that bad news
makes a person physically ill? The knot in your stomach, the rapid
breathing, etc. Deep and long-standing psychological trauma by keeping one
in a constant state of stress can no doubt cause illness.
Hence my initial hypothesis that psychology and physiology are just two
aspects of the same thing.
--
Michelle, T2
diet & exercise

"Quentin Grady" <quentin@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:0dcps29d7adeada4fksa9s48hhn473prj8@4ax.com...
> This post not CC'd by email
> On 9 Feb 2007 02:36:45 -0800, "Amy (UK)" <tesselate@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>On 9 Feb, 07:33, Quentin Grady <quen...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>> Abuse of many kinds is said to leave psychological damage but what the
>>> heck is psychological damage. My guess is that the stuff that really
>>> is significant does things like disrupting stress responses through
>>> into adulthood. It is one reason why I prefer to deal with physiology
>>> than psychology. IMHO one is dealing with something that is more
>>> substantial.
>>
>>
>>Hello Quentin,
>>
>>Thanks for bringing this area of research to our attention and
>>highlighting its importance. I'll stick my neck out here and say that
>>I
>>think it may be a mistake to separate psychological and physiological
>>effects, even though the latter are more clearly apparent -- I believe
>>that the connection between the two cannot be overestimated.
>
> G'day G'day Ami,
>
> Thank you for having the courage to discuss such beliefs.
>
> Many people don't so much as consider what is going on let alone
> venture a hypothesis or two.
>
> Let's take your belief "that the connection between the two cannot be
> over estimated." Let's try and push that to the limit. Ultimately
> we would arrive at the idea that they were manifestations of the SAME
> thing. IMHO, the psychological manifestations were side effects of
> physiological disturbances. I've said it this way around because
> psychological effects are said to reside in the mind. IMHO it makes
> sense to live one's life and think about things on a firmly grounded
> basis. The physiology is therefore the reality and the psychology the
> ghost in the machine as it were.
>
>> There is
>>little doubt in my mind that psychological damage, particularly as a
>>result of childhood experiences, can manifest eventually as physical
>>illness and chronic conditions. Or, as Alice Miller (a leading voice
>>in healing childhood abuse) puts it, "the body never lies."
>
> I'd jump a little further. Abuse or other trauma affects a child (or
> adult for that matter) physiologically. Most events bend things and
> they spring back with no permanent damage. However when it reaches
> trauma level it will as you so aptly put it, manifest eventually as
> physical illness or chronic conditions. Being a bit simplistic I'd
> say sometimes the bending breaks things and at the very least
> activates protective mechanisms to save the whole from the damaged
> part.
>
>>While, in some respects, it may be easier to deal with the physiology,
>>such illnesses are effectively a plea from the body to the mind to
>>deal with the damage caused. Therefore I think that, e.g., the
>>physical response to stress and the toll this takes on the body should
>>also be understood from a psychological perspective so that what is
>>causing these responses - and why - can be recognised and
>>acknowledged. Of course, this is no simple process and may involve
>>taking a long, hard, emotionally painful look at events which one
>>might prefer to leave in the past.
>
> Ami. You have said so much it is difficult to know where to begin
> just to hold a conversation on the matter. Please excuse the poverty
> of my response if I mention only one thing that caught my attention.
>
>>Of course, this is no simple process and may involve
>>taking a long, hard, emotionally painful look at events which one
>>might prefer to leave in the past.
>
> IMHO it takes a VAST amount of energy to FORGET trauma. Some things
> like the location of car keys requires almost no effort. But putting
> out of awareness the crap that happened to one in childhood consumes
> vast amounts of energy. As an electrical tutor I tend to think in
> electrical terms. It is as though one has to maintain a permanent
> short circuit to ground to isolate some thoughts from the rest of the
> thinking process. That is costly. And is accompanied by the
> equivalent of a lot of static.
>
>> I'll offer the thought, though,
>>that this process may be of equal therapeutic significance to benefits
>>conferred by any physical changes which are made - and that the two go
>>hand-in-hand.
>
> I believe they do. For me, the biggest mistake is to think such
> matters are ONLY psychological and therefore not real. It is the
> sort of idiot thinking that belongs in the idiot guide to being an
> idiot. We couldn't have a psychology or at least a belief we have a
> psychology without having an extraordinarily advanced physiology.
>
>>For anyone who is doing this recovery work, I wholeheartedly recommend
>>reading Miller, as I think that the depths of her understanding and
>>empathy are unsurpassable.
>>
>>http://www.alice-miller.com/books_en.php
>
> Thank you for the reference.
>
>>Best wishes,
>>
>>Amy
>
> Best wishes and thank you for discussing something many people would
> run a mile from.
>
> (We still run miles from things even though we are fully metricated.)
>
> --
> Quentin Grady ^ ^ /
> New Zealand, >#,#< [
> / \ /\
> "... and the blind dog was leading."
>
> http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin

"Michelle" <bookbug2005@gmail.com> wrote in
news:e82v94-6tq.ln1@news.air-internet.com:

> Very interesting topic. I would offer yet another opinion: in
> the
> physiological versus psychological, I believe you are splitting hairs.
> The two cannot be separated. And yet society continues to believe
> somehow psychology is a separate issue from physiology. It's this
> kind of thinking that prevents those with bipolar conditions,
> depressive states, etc. from seeking treatment. Some people
> mistakenly believe that because their illness involves a mental
> process they should be able to control it. However, when the body
> fails to make insulin, we do not say, gee, if you just think the right
> thoughts about this, your pancreas would do its job. Yet often when
> someone is depressed, we tell them the answer is to just think the
> right thoughts. Science has shown that mental states often have a
> phsyiological cause that can be treated.
> Okay, having said that, I honestly do believe that when a person
> is
> psychologically traumatized, it can make him/her sick. We see signs
> of that in minor everyday instances. How often does it come to pass
> that bad news makes a person physically ill? The knot in your
> stomach, the rapid breathing, etc. Deep and long-standing
> psychological trauma by keeping one in a constant state of stress can
> no doubt cause illness.
> Hence my initial hypothesis that psychology and physiology are
> just two
> aspects of the same thing.

Stress is recoginized by the Military flight surgeons and pilots are
grounded because of it. Things like a divorce, death in the family or
financial problems can effect your physical well being. I thought that was
widely known?

Michelle <bookbug2005@gmail.com> wrote:
: makes a person physically ill? The knot in your stomach, the rapid
: breathing, etc. Deep and long-standing psychological trauma by keeping one
: in a constant state of stress can no doubt cause illness.
: Hence my initial hypothesis that psychology and physiology are just two
: aspects of the same thing.
: --
: Michelle, T2
: diet & exercise

Interesting that you say this. I know quite a few older women(these were
some ears ago and were friends of my Mother and included my Mother)) who
got shingles a few months after their usbands passed away. As shingles is
a disease tht results when the long dormant chicken pox virus reemereges
in the nerves, I wonder if the great saddness and depression that these
women were suffering didn't contribute to the disease.

Wendy

Stress surely does. I imagine it all goes hand and hand.

Cheri


W. Baker wrote in message ...

>Interesting that you say this. I know quite a few older women(these
were
>some ears ago and were friends of my Mother and included my Mother))
who
>got shingles a few months after their usbands passed away. As shingles
is
>a disease tht results when the long dormant chicken pox virus
reemereges
>in the nerves, I wonder if the great saddness and depression that these
>women were suffering didn't contribute to the disease.
>
>Wendy

This post not CC'd by email
On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 12:30:07 -0800, "Michelle" <bookbug2005@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Very interesting topic. I would offer yet another opinion: in the
>physiological versus psychological, I believe you are splitting hairs.

G'day G'day Michelle,

If I find any split hairs I'll get one of those expensive shampoos.

This is just a personal thing. For me there is no physiology vs
psychology. Physiology has a well grounded basis. Psychology talks
about thinks like the mind. Something separate from the brain. For me
psychology has as many factions as religions or politics. It seems
like the fast road to getting nowhere. Some people like getting
nowhere. They often get paid large amounts or would rather not move
on. It simply isn't my style.

These are just my personal opinions and others are free to think
differently.

> The two cannot be separated.

People try.

> And yet society continues to believe somehow
>psychology is a separate issue from physiology. It's this kind of thinking
>that prevents those with bipolar conditions, depressive states, etc. from
>seeking treatment. Some people mistakenly believe that because their
>illness involves a mental process they should be able to control it.

I don't. It doesn't fit my experience.

>However, when the body fails to make insulin, we do not say, gee, if you
>just think the right thoughts about this, your pancreas would do its job.
>Yet often when someone is depressed, we tell them the answer is to just
>think the right thoughts. Science has shown that mental states often have a
>phsyiological cause that can be treated.
> Okay, having said that, I honestly do believe that when a person is
>psychologically traumatized, it can make him/her sick. We see signs of that
>in minor everyday instances. How often does it come to pass that bad news
>makes a person physically ill? The knot in your stomach, the rapid
>breathing, etc. Deep and long-standing psychological trauma by keeping one
>in a constant state of stress can no doubt cause illness.
> Hence my initial hypothesis that psychology and physiology are just two
>aspects of the same thing.

Glad we agree. If we ever actually disagreed about something it has
escaped me. The neatest thing is we don't need to disagree to be able
to discuss important issues. The bloke who wrote about lateral
thinking describe in detail how one could converse by extending
conversation without wasting time on disagreement.

Whether one chooses psychology or physiology as ones window depends on
which way we decide to look at the issues. Here is how I arrived at
my view point. When I was about eleven I read a translation of one of
Freud's books. Hey, I lived in a house where the literature was for
adults. I don't recall many children's books. When I was twelve I
read one by Jung and another by Adler. At thirteen I decided it made
more sense to study chemistry and physics which to my innocent mind
didn't indulge in so much thinking riddled with a common form of
dishonest argument called cyclic proofs. You can see why I positively
love mathematics.

Best wishes,
--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ /
New Zealand, >#,#< [
/ \ /\
"... and the blind dog was leading."

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin

This post not CC'd by email
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 17:36:00 -0600, Gene <CW4@USA.RET> wrote:

>Stress is recoginized by the Military flight surgeons and pilots are
>grounded because of it. Things like a divorce, death in the family or
>financial problems can effect your physical well being. I thought that was
>widely known?

G'day G'day Gene,

Even in WW@ they had a way of working out when to pull a fighter
pilot as a risk to his fellow pilots.

Best wishes,
--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ /
New Zealand, >#,#< [
/ \ /\
"... and the blind dog was leading."

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin

This post not CC'd by email
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 02:18:10 +0000 (UTC), "W. Baker"
<wbaker@panix.com> wrote:

>Interesting that you say this. I know quite a few older women(these were
>some ears ago and were friends of my Mother and included my Mother)) who
>got shingles a few months after their usbands passed away. As shingles is
>a disease tht results when the long dormant chicken pox virus reemereges
>in the nerves, I wonder if the great saddness and depression that these
>women were suffering didn't contribute to the disease.
>
>Wendy

G'day G'day Wendy,

Thanks for this little tidbit. It all helps our understanding of
what it is to be human.

Best wishes,
--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ /
New Zealand, >#,#< [
/ \ /\
"... and the blind dog was leading."

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin

Michelle <bookbug2005@gmail.com> wrote:

[discussion snipped and chronologically rearranged to follow a specific topic]

> "Quentin Grady" <quentin@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:0dcps29d7adeada4fksa9s48hhn473prj8@4ax.com...
>> On 9 Feb 2007 02:36:45 -0800, "Amy (UK)" <tesselate@googlemail.com>
>> wrote:

>>>I
>>>think it may be a mistake to separate psychological and physiological
>>>effects, even though the latter are more clearly apparent -- I believe
>>>that the connection between the two cannot be overestimated.

>> Let's take your belief "that the connection between the two cannot be
>> over estimated." Let's try and push that to the limit. Ultimately
>> we would arrive at the idea that they were manifestations of the SAME
>> thing. IMHO, the psychological manifestations were side effects of
>> physiological disturbances. I've said it this way around because
>> psychological effects are said to reside in the mind. IMHO it makes
>> sense to live one's life and think about things on a firmly grounded
>> basis. The physiology is therefore the reality and the psychology the
>> ghost in the machine as it were.


> Very interesting topic. I would offer yet another opinion: in the
> physiological versus psychological, I believe you are splitting hairs. The
> two cannot be separated. And yet society continues to believe somehow
> psychology is a separate issue from physiology. It's this kind of thinking
> that prevents those with bipolar conditions, depressive states, etc. from
> seeking treatment. Some people mistakenly believe that because their
> illness involves a mental process they should be able to control it.
> However, when the body fails to make insulin, we do not say, gee, if you
> just think the right thoughts about this, your pancreas would do its job.

[snip]

> Hence my initial hypothesis that psychology and physiology are just two
> aspects of the same thing.

Exactly. A long time ago in an idle moment I constructed the following
image of the relationship between mind and body :-)

http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/body_mind.html

--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

W. Baker wrote:
> Michelle <bookbug2005@gmail.com> wrote:
> : makes a person physically ill? The knot in your stomach, the rapid
> : breathing, etc. Deep and long-standing psychological trauma by keeping one
> : in a constant state of stress can no doubt cause illness.
> : Hence my initial hypothesis that psychology and physiology are just two
> : aspects of the same thing.
> : --
> : Michelle, T2
> : diet & exercise
>
> Interesting that you say this. I know quite a few older women(these were
> some ears ago and were friends of my Mother and included my Mother)) who
> got shingles a few months after their usbands passed away. As shingles is
> a disease tht results when the long dormant chicken pox virus reemereges
> in the nerves, I wonder if the great saddness and depression that these
> women were suffering didn't contribute to the disease.
>
> Wendy

This is the connection between stress and the immune system. My
brother-in-law developed shingles. About the same time he had problems
with fungus infection. Shortly after he was diagnosed with diabetes.
Then he had cancer in one of his kidneys. He did not undergo
chemotherapy and it was not long before the cancer that may have started
in his kidney spread all over his body. This off topic from the child
abuse and diabetes issue, but not isolated from the diabetes one.

Frank

Chris Malcolm wrote:

> Michelle <bookbug2005@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [discussion snipped and chronologically rearranged to follow a specific topic]
>
>
>>"Quentin Grady" <quentin@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>>news:0dcps29d7adeada4fksa9s48hhn473prj8@4ax.com. ..
>>
>>>On 9 Feb 2007 02:36:45 -0800, "Amy (UK)" <tesselate@googlemail.com>
>>>wrote:
>
>
>>>>I
>>>>think it may be a mistake to separate psychological and physiological
>>>>effects, even though the latter are more clearly apparent -- I believe
>>>>that the connection between the two cannot be overestimated.
>
>
>>>Let's take your belief "that the connection between the two cannot be
>>>over estimated." Let's try and push that to the limit. Ultimately
>>>we would arrive at the idea that they were manifestations of the SAME
>>>thing. IMHO, the psychological manifestations were side effects of
>>>physiological disturbances. I've said it this way around because
>>>psychological effects are said to reside in the mind. IMHO it makes
>>>sense to live one's life and think about things on a firmly grounded
>>>basis. The physiology is therefore the reality and the psychology the
>>>ghost in the machine as it were.
>
>
>
>> Very interesting topic. I would offer yet another opinion: in the
>>physiological versus psychological, I believe you are splitting hairs. The
>>two cannot be separated. And yet society continues to believe somehow
>>psychology is a separate issue from physiology. It's this kind of thinking
>>that prevents those with bipolar conditions, depressive states, etc. from
>>seeking treatment. Some people mistakenly believe that because their
>>illness involves a mental process they should be able to control it.
>>However, when the body fails to make insulin, we do not say, gee, if you
>>just think the right thoughts about this, your pancreas would do its job.
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>> Hence my initial hypothesis that psychology and physiology are just two
>>aspects of the same thing.
>
>
> Exactly. A long time ago in an idle moment I constructed the following
> image of the relationship between mind and body :-)
>
> http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/body_mind.html
>
The January 19, 2007 issue of Time magazine had a series of which the
following is only one of the links. The other links are on that page.
The connection between the mind and the brain are gradually being
revealed. what ever?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...580416,00.html

Frank

Very interesting observation, Wendy. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a
direct relationship between the sadness/depression and the development of
shingles. When I was a lab tech, I was told that shingles often showed up
on the heels of another illness, when the immune system was compromised.
Several articles I've read over the years intimated that stress also causes
the immune system to be compromised. It would seem that your example(s)
fits the hypothesis perfectly.
--
Michelle, T2
diet & exercise

"W. Baker" <wbaker@panix.com> wrote in message
news:eqja12$kbf$1@reader2.panix.com...
> Michelle <bookbug2005@gmail.com> wrote:
> : makes a person physically ill? The knot in your stomach, the rapid
> : breathing, etc. Deep and long-standing psychological trauma by keeping
> one
> : in a constant state of stress can no doubt cause illness.
> : Hence my initial hypothesis that psychology and physiology are just
> two
> : aspects of the same thing.
> : --
> : Michelle, T2
> : diet & exercise
>
> Interesting that you say this. I know quite a few older women(these were
> some ears ago and were friends of my Mother and included my Mother)) who
> got shingles a few months after their usbands passed away. As shingles is
> a disease tht results when the long dormant chicken pox virus reemereges
> in the nerves, I wonder if the great saddness and depression that these
> women were suffering didn't contribute to the disease.
>
> Wendy

"Quentin Grady" <quentin@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:tnsqs2h2jtnm7b1sur9q2hspstiujptbpe@4ax.com...
> This post not CC'd by email
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 12:30:07 -0800, "Michelle" <bookbug2005@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Very interesting topic. I would offer yet another opinion: in the
>>physiological versus psychological, I believe you are splitting hairs.
>
> G'day G'day Michelle,
>
> If I find any split hairs I'll get one of those expensive shampoos.

Hi Quentin,
Glad to hear your hairs are safe. ;-)

>
> This is just a personal thing. For me there is no physiology vs
> psychology. Physiology has a well grounded basis. Psychology talks
> about thinks like the mind. Something separate from the brain. For me
> psychology has as many factions as religions or politics. It seems
> like the fast road to getting nowhere. Some people like getting
> nowhere. They often get paid large amounts or would rather not move
> on. It simply isn't my style.

Ahh, you're talking about "classic psychology" in the vein of Freud, et al.
A bunch of hocus-pocus, imho. No, this is not what I mean. I do however,
think that if a person suffers a trauma, and continues to feel the fear
years later when no longer in danger, his/her obsessive thoughts keep the
trauma current, affecting physiology. Now, you would probably say, and I
would agree, that the trauma caused a physiological response that is
initiating the obsession (among other things). Like post-traumatic stress
disorder. However, I do believe that in conjunction with drug therapy a
person can help the medication work by being given a cognitive way to cope.
(I am talking about mental exercises to put the issue in perspective; not
trying to find out if the patient was toilet trained too early.) Even
though I am stating two methods to approach the problem, I in no way mean to
suggest the problem is two separate issues.

Hope that doesn't sound too convoluted.

>
> These are just my personal opinions and others are free to think
> differently.
>
>> The two cannot be separated.
>
> People try.

Yes, much to my disappointment.
>
>> And yet society continues to believe somehow
>>psychology is a separate issue from physiology. It's this kind of
>>thinking
>>that prevents those with bipolar conditions, depressive states, etc. from
>>seeking treatment. Some people mistakenly believe that because their
>>illness involves a mental process they should be able to control it.
>
> I don't. It doesn't fit my experience.

Unfortunately, I know of examples where this attitude came into play.
Perhaps New Zealanders are less like Neanderthals about mental illness than
some people in the US are. I'll admit it is changing, but slowly.

>
>>However, when the body fails to make insulin, we do not say, gee, if you
>>just think the right thoughts about this, your pancreas would do its job.
>>Yet often when someone is depressed, we tell them the answer is to just
>>think the right thoughts. Science has shown that mental states often have
>>a
>>phsyiological cause that can be treated.
>> Okay, having said that, I honestly do believe that when a person is
>>psychologically traumatized, it can make him/her sick. We see signs of
>>that
>>in minor everyday instances. How often does it come to pass that bad news
>>makes a person physically ill? The knot in your stomach, the rapid
>>breathing, etc. Deep and long-standing psychological trauma by keeping
>>one
>>in a constant state of stress can no doubt cause illness.
>> Hence my initial hypothesis that psychology and physiology are just
>> two
>>aspects of the same thing.
>
> Glad we agree. If we ever actually disagreed about something it has
> escaped me.

No, I don't think we have ever disagreed. That would be illogical. ;-) I
think perhaps our terminology was affecting interpretation, but we have been
saying the same thing.

The neatest thing is we don't need to disagree to be able
> to discuss important issues. The bloke who wrote about lateral
> thinking describe in detail how one could converse by extending
> conversation without wasting time on disagreement.

Yes, extending a point and bringing in applicable tangents.

>
> Whether one chooses psychology or physiology as ones window depends on
> which way we decide to look at the issues. Here is how I arrived at
> my view point. When I was about eleven I read a translation of one of
> Freud's books. Hey, I lived in a house where the literature was for
> adults. I don't recall many children's books. When I was twelve I
> read one by Jung and another by Adler. At thirteen I decided it made
> more sense to study chemistry and physics which to my innocent mind
> didn't indulge in so much thinking riddled with a common form of
> dishonest argument called cyclic proofs. You can see why I positively
> love mathematics.

;-) :-) I think already stated my opinion of classic psychology. Um...,
you want to talk about neutron stars? ;-)

Best regards,
Michelle


>
> Best wishes,
> --
> Quentin Grady ^ ^ /
> New Zealand, >#,#< [
> / \ /\
> "... and the blind dog was leading."
>
> http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin

"Quentin Grady" <quentin@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:tnsqs2h2jtnm7b1sur9q2hspstiujptbpe@4ax.com...
> This post not CC'd by email
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 12:30:07 -0800, "Michelle" <bookbug2005@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Very interesting topic. I would offer yet another opinion: in the
>>physiological versus psychological, I believe you are splitting hairs.
>
> G'day G'day Michelle,
>
> If I find any split hairs I'll get one of those expensive shampoos.

Hi Quentin,
Glad to hear your hairs are safe. ;-)

>
> This is just a personal thing. For me there is no physiology vs
> psychology. Physiology has a well grounded basis. Psychology talks
> about thinks like the mind. Something separate from the brain. For me
> psychology has as many factions as religions or politics. It seems
> like the fast road to getting nowhere. Some people like getting
> nowhere. They often get paid large amounts or would rather not move
> on. It simply isn't my style.

Ahh, you're talking about "classic psychology" in the vein of Freud, et al.
A bunch of hocus-pocus, imho. No, this is not what I mean. I do however,
think that if a person suffers a trauma, and continues to feel the fear
years later when no longer in danger, his/her obsessive thoughts keep the
trauma current, affecting physiology. Now, you would probably say, and I
would agree, that the trauma caused a physiological response that is
initiating the obsession (among other things). Like post-traumatic stress
disorder. However, I do believe that in conjunction with drug therapy a
person can help the medication work by being given a cognitive way to cope.
(I am talking about mental exercises to put the issue in perspective; not
trying to find out if the patient was toilet trained too early.) Even
though I am stating two methods to approach the problem, I in no way mean to
suggest the problem is two separate issues.

Hope that doesn't sound too convoluted.

>
> These are just my personal opinions and others are free to think
> differently.
>
>> The two cannot be separated.
>
> People try.

Agreed.

>
>> And yet society continues to believe somehow
>>psychology is a separate issue from physiology. It's this kind of
>>thinking
>>that prevents those with bipolar conditions, depressive states, etc. from
>>seeking treatment. Some people mistakenly believe that because their
>>illness involves a mental process they should be able to control it.
>
> I don't. It doesn't fit my experience.

Unfortunately, I know of examples where this attitude came into play.
Perhaps New Zealanders are less like Neanderthals about mental illness than
some people in the US are. I'll admit it is changing, but slowly.

>
>>However, when the body fails to make insulin, we do not say, gee, if you
>>just think the right thoughts about this, your pancreas would do its job.
>>Yet often when someone is depressed, we tell them the answer is to just
>>think the right thoughts. Science has shown that mental states often have
>>a
>>phsyiological cause that can be treated.
>> Okay, having said that, I honestly do believe that when a person is
>>psychologically traumatized, it can make him/her sick. We see signs of
>>that
>>in minor everyday instances. How often does it come to pass that bad news
>>makes a person physically ill? The knot in your stomach, the rapid
>>breathing, etc. Deep and long-standing psychological trauma by keeping
>>one
>>in a constant state of stress can no doubt cause illness.
>> Hence my initial hypothesis that psychology and physiology are just
>> two
>>aspects of the same thing.
>
> Glad we agree. If we ever actually disagreed about something it has
> escaped me.

No, I don't think we have ever disagreed. That would be illogical. ;-) I
think perhaps our terminology was affecting interpretation, but we have been
saying the same thing.

The neatest thing is we don't need to disagree to be able
> to discuss important issues. The bloke who wrote about lateral
> thinking describe in detail how one could converse by extending
> conversation without wasting time on disagreement.

Yes, extending a point and bringing in applicable tangents.

>
> Whether one chooses psychology or physiology as ones window depends on
> which way we decide to look at the issues. Here is how I arrived at
> my view point. When I was about eleven I read a translation of one of
> Freud's books. Hey, I lived in a house where the literature was for
> adults. I don't recall many children's books. When I was twelve I
> read one by Jung and another by Adler. At thirteen I decided it made
> more sense to study chemistry and physics which to my innocent mind
> didn't indulge in so much thinking riddled with a common form of
> dishonest argument called cyclic proofs. You can see why I positively
> love mathematics.

;-) :-) I think already stated my opinion of classic psychology.

Best regards,
Michelle


>
> Best wishes,
> --
> Quentin Grady ^ ^ /
> New Zealand, >#,#< [
> / \ /\
> "... and the blind dog was leading."
>
> http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin

On 9 Feb, 18:08, Quentin Grady <quen...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

> IMHO, the psychological manifestations were side effects of
> physiological disturbances. I've said it this way around because
> psychological effects are said to reside in the mind. IMHO it makes
> sense to live one's life and think about things on a firmly grounded
> basis. The physiology is therefore the reality and the psychology the
> ghost in the machine as it were.

Quentin, thank you for your thoughts. I have little to add to my
previous post, except a comment or two on the above.

The residual emotional pain which stems from childhood abuse is very
real indeed. It can be crippling and it can greatly impede living
life fully. One might even say, in those circumstances, that "the
ghost in the machine" is RUNNING the machine -- in which case, simply
dealing with the physiology is not enough.

Everyone in this situation must find their own way through negotiating
the difficulties (hint: saying "it's in the past, so move on" doesn't
do it....). I will say, though, that I very much, sincerely hope
that any readers here will not be put off seeking or exploring therapy
after they've read the derogatory comments about psychology in this
thread.

Thank you again, Quentin, for raising an important topic. To all who
suffered cruelty and mistreatment as children, I wish good healing and
good health.

Best wishes,

Amy


"You were born with potential

You were born with goodness and trust

You were born with ideals and dreams

You were born with greatness

You have wings

Learn to use them and fly!"


--- Rumi (13th C.)

On 9 Feb, 12:37, Alan S <loralgtweightandca...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Amy
>
> Just saying g'day - missed you. Where've you been? :-)

Hi Alan, just wanted to say thanks for the g'day -- made my day much
more g' :-)

Hope you enjoyed your travels.

All the best

Amy

Hi Chris,

Went to take a look at your website. Unfortunately, it's not loading up
completely for me. Anyone else having trouble?
--
Michelle, T2
diet & exercise

"Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:535ufcF1qou7lU2@mid.individual.net...
> Michelle <bookbug2005@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [discussion snipped and chronologically rearranged to follow a specific
> topic]
>
>> "Quentin Grady" <quentin@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>> news:0dcps29d7adeada4fksa9s48hhn473prj8@4ax.com...
>>> On 9 Feb 2007 02:36:45 -0800, "Amy (UK)" <tesselate@googlemail.com>
>>> wrote:
>
>>>>I
>>>>think it may be a mistake to separate psychological and physiological
>>>>effects, even though the latter are more clearly apparent -- I believe
>>>>that the connection between the two cannot be overestimated.
>
>>> Let's take your belief "that the connection between the two cannot be
>>> over estimated." Let's try and push that to the limit. Ultimately
>>> we would arrive at the idea that they were manifestations of the SAME
>>> thing. IMHO, the psychological manifestations were side effects of
>>> physiological disturbances. I've said it this way around because
>>> psychological effects are said to reside in the mind. IMHO it makes
>>> sense to live one's life and think about things on a firmly grounded
>>> basis. The physiology is therefore the reality and the psychology the
>>> ghost in the machine as it were.
>
>
>> Very interesting topic. I would offer yet another opinion: in the
>> physiological versus psychological, I believe you are splitting hairs.
>> The
>> two cannot be separated. And yet society continues to believe somehow
>> psychology is a separate issue from physiology. It's this kind of
>> thinking
>> that prevents those with bipolar conditions, depressive states, etc. from
>> seeking treatment. Some people mistakenly believe that because their
>> illness involves a mental process they should be able to control it.
>> However, when the body fails to make insulin, we do not say, gee, if you
>> just think the right thoughts about this, your pancreas would do its job.
>
> [snip]
>
>> Hence my initial hypothesis that psychology and physiology are just
>> two
>> aspects of the same thing.
>
> Exactly. A long time ago in an idle moment I constructed the following
> image of the relationship between mind and body :-)
>
> http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/body_mind.html
>
> --
> Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
> IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
> [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
>

This post not CC'd by email
On 11 Feb 2007 04:46:47 -0800, "Amy (UK)" <tesselate@googlemail.com>
wrote:

>
>
>On 9 Feb, 18:08, Quentin Grady <quen...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
>> IMHO, the psychological manifestations were side effects of
>> physiological disturbances. I've said it this way around because
>> psychological effects are said to reside in the mind. IMHO it makes
>> sense to live one's life and think about things on a firmly grounded
>> basis. The physiology is therefore the reality and the psychology the
>> ghost in the machine as it were.
>
>Quentin, thank you for your thoughts. I have little to add to my
>previous post, except a comment or two on the above.
>
>The residual emotional pain which stems from childhood abuse is very
>real indeed.

G'day G'day Amy,

Yes. The pain is very real. The affects on physiology are very
real such as affects in derailing the stress response. A great deal
of energy is often diverted in the brain to suppressing memories of
those abusive events.

> It can be crippling and it can greatly impede living
>life fully.

Agreed.

>One might even say, in those circumstances, that "the
>ghost in the machine" is RUNNING the machine -- in which case, simply
>dealing with the physiology is not enough.

Psychology might well be the right approach to dealing with the
situation. Though we have moved on from talking about the mind to
talking about the machine, we are talking about abstracts. How
exactly does the ghost run the machine. Ultimately it is physiology
that has to be run.

>Everyone in this situation must find their own way through negotiating
>the difficulties (hint: saying "it's in the past, so move on" doesn't
>do it....). I will say, though, that I very much, sincerely hope
>that any readers here will not be put off seeking or exploring therapy
>after they've read the derogatory comments about psychology in this
>thread.

Hmm! I wasn't aware there had been any derogatory remarks about
psychology. Perhaps that is because I was making them. <grin>

For all I know you might find pointing out that Freud (all sex), Jung
(all archetypes) and Adler (all power) differed widely in their
assessment of what was important, derogatory. Who knows.

>Thank you again, Quentin, for raising an important topic. To all who
>suffered cruelty and mistreatment as children, I wish good healing and
>good health.

So do I, fervently.

>Best wishes,
>
>Amy
>
Best wishes,
--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ /
New Zealand, >#,#< [
/ \ /\
"... and the blind dog was leading."

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin

Michelle <bookbug2005@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Exactly. A long time ago in an idle moment I constructed the following
>> image of the relationship between mind and body :-)
>>
>> http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/body_mind.html

> Hi Chris,

> Went to take a look at your website. Unfortunately, it's not loading up
> completely for me. Anyone else having trouble?

Sometimes it goes down for a few hours, or longer at the weekend when
support staff are absent. Just try again. It's just a simple image.

--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Okay, I'll keep checking. It's still being temperamental today. ;-)
--
Michelle, T2
diet & exercise

"Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:53a3e6F1qtc4vU1@mid.individual.net...
> Michelle <bookbug2005@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Exactly. A long time ago in an idle moment I constructed the following
>>> image of the relationship between mind and body :-)
>>>
>>> http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/body_mind.html
>
>> Hi Chris,
>
>> Went to take a look at your website. Unfortunately, it's not loading up
>> completely for me. Anyone else having trouble?
>
> Sometimes it goes down for a few hours, or longer at the weekend when
> support staff are absent. Just try again. It's just a simple image.
>
> --
> Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
> IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3J