gildings in this subreddit have paid for 14.78 months of server time

Doctors fear urgent care centers are wildly overusing antibiotics—for profit. Data from the analysis is concerning, the team notes, because such misuse of antibiotics can fuel the development and spread of drug-resistant bacteria by Wagamaga in science

[–]Ravager135 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You should shop around. Patients shouldn’t tolerate physicians that do not listen anymore than a physician shouldn’t tolerate a patient who does not listen.

I have had situations with patients where I could tell they were feeling frustrated after several appointments (this was when I was part of a larger university based practice). I simply asked, “I feel as though I am not really helping you; do you feel as though these visits are becoming a waste of both of our time?” With some patients we had breakthroughs then and there. Maybe they needed to unload. Maybe they needed to see I am not a robot and have a very human life outside of work. With others it resulted in amicable parting of ways. They respected that we weren’t on the same page and rather than be asked to leave the practice, they agreed we just weren’t connecting.

Underestimating the power of gratitude – recipients of thank-you letters are more touched than we expect, finds new study published in Psychological Science. by mveaMD-PhD-MBA | Clinical Professor/Medicine in science

[–]cinch123 2008 points2009 points  (0 children)

The company I work for allocates about $25 (2500 "points") per month, per employee, for peer recognition. We have a system where we log in, select the person we are recognizing, write a short description (e.g. "Thank you for the quick widget redesign. You're the best!"), and award a certain number of points. The points can be used to redeem things from a catalog like gift cards, small appliances, electronics, tools, vacations, etc. If you use up all your points by giving them to people, you get 5000 points to award the next month. It is absolutely amazing to me how much of a difference this makes in how willing people are to help each other out, and how a small recognition helps build relationships between people who work together.

Edit: Since people have asked me, the service is achievers.com. I do not work for that company (the company I work for uses their service).

Doctors fear urgent care centers are wildly overusing antibiotics—for profit. Data from the analysis is concerning, the team notes, because such misuse of antibiotics can fuel the development and spread of drug-resistant bacteria by Wagamaga in science

[–]Ravager135 520 points521 points  (0 children)

Urgent care medical director here. I am fortunate in that our CMO has never once pressured me or any of my providers to prescribe anything we didn’t feel was necessary. Every bad review I have ever personally received when I have seen patients myself regard not prescribing antibiotics for viral illnesses. Patients will literally scream and yell at you if you do not give antibiotics if they are convinced they require them.

It does not surprise me in the least that many urgent cares hand them out for any upper respiratory complaint. Urgent cares primarily lose their business over bad Yelp and Google reviews. The bulk of these bad reviews: you guessed it, patients complaining they did not get a Zpak. I have a friend who works at an urgent care in Florida who’s CMO fired an infectious disease doctor working there part time because he didn’t prescribe enough antibiotics. They literally set a policy where any upper respiratory complaint would result in antibiotics and steroids.

I tend to be pretty conservative when it comes to my prescribing habits. I do not know the patient. I do not have follow up with them. If I can justify a reason to prescribe something I will. I will not just hand out an antibiotic to a patient with a normal exam and short duration of symptoms. I am still called every name under the sun by patients. It’s exhausting and it’s why I plan to focus on my private boutique practice moving forward.

EDIT: Make no mistake urgent cares and their providers are complicit in this behavior, but also realize it is reactionary to patient demands. When a patient pays a copay (which is typically a larger amount than they would pay at their primary care office) they view that as paying for a service. The real service they are getting is almost instantaneous access to a board certified physician. What the patient thinks they are paying for is a prescription. Once the patient pays a 50 dollar copay, they don’t want to be told that the only thing that can help them is Tylenol, rest, and fluids. They are frustrated because many patients today have zero tolerance for being ill. It’s why it is not uncommon for a doctor to hear a patient say, “I can’t be sick this weekend” or “I need to feel better by tomorrow.” Patients are unrealistic.

EDIT2: My obligatory first Reddit gold edit! I appreciate it immensely!

Massive study finds that a sizeable minority of us are in jobs that don’t fit our primary occupational interests (N= 67,000). by mveaMD-PhD-MBA | Clinical Professor/Medicine in science

[–]omegadeity 161 points162 points  (0 children)

Exactly. There are so many things I want to do with my life, but can't because I have a need to eat and a need for shelter. Just fulfilling those needs requires money, money that must be earned some how.

If money were not an issue I would have no problem saying goodbye to my job, and I'm one of the lucky few who has a job in my desired occupational field.

I'd love to be free to indulge in hobbies, I've always wanted to try and learn woodworking, blacksmithing, so many random things. But those interests require time(and money) I don't have to pursue them. Most of the limited time I do have away from work is dedicated to sleeping, of the remaining bit of "me time" is dedicated towards entertaining myself with those hobbies I've already pursued and paid the barrier of entry into.

Over 1/3 of my life is granted to a company, in exchange I'm paid a wage which barely allows me to afford food, clothing, shelter, utilities, gas, a vehicle, and the other things I absolutely require to survive...including costs related to being able to continue to work for said company.

My pre-work routine takes me an hour/hour and a half. My drive home is about another hour. That's 10-10.5 hours of every weekday that is dedicated to work, and I'm only paid for 8 of it. I know that I'm considered "lucky" because other people have it worse...Funny, I don't feel very lucky.

That only leaves me 13.5-14 hours in a day that actually belongs to me. Of those hours, I have to spend at least a little bit of time exercising in attempt to stave off the effects of a relatively sedentary job(IT Support).

Suffice to say just about every minute of my day is spoken for, and my days off(which again, I'm "lucky" to have) are spent recovering and pursuing the few hobbies I can make time for.

Do you know what one of most common things we talk about at family gatherings is? What we would do if we won the lottery. I'm sure many other people can relate to that. It's not about having the money to buy anything we want and having all the new toys and gadgets, it's about the freedom that money provides to do the things we want in life. Time is the only currency that really matters.

There's a reason that most people remember their childhoods as the best years of their life, because they didn't have the commitments and responsibilities that are forced upon us as adults.

New study finds CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing can cause greater genetic damage than was previously thought, including large deletions and rearrangements. by recentfish in science

[–]SirT6PhD|MBA|Biology|Biogerontology 3973 points3974 points  (0 children)

This is a pretty interesting result. I spent a lot of time in grad school thinking about DNA repair, so I can't say I am terribly surprised. I suspect there will be a rush by the science media to spin this as doomsday news for the field. I think a more nuanced take is warranted. I'm copying my comment from another thread (apparently it gets removed if I say where...):

So some quick basics:

  • CRISPR/Cas9 is one of the hottest technologies in biotech. It is no understatement to say that it has massively changed the way basic research is done - from screening, to making mouse models, to creating models of human disease. It's easy to use, and can be applied in thousands of different ways.

  • The success at the lab bench has gotten people excited about the prospect of using CRISPR/Cas9 in the clinic to treat human genetic diseases, and other conditions. There are three major CRISPR companies: Editas, Intellia and CRISPR Therapeutics. They have all licensed the technology from different academic labs (lots of drama!), and are working in partnership with other big pharma companies like Novartis, Regeneron and Vertex (just to name a few).

  • It's been a bit of a wild ride over the past 12 months for CRISPR/Cas9 as a medicine. Reports of concerns over immunogenicity, off-target mutations and clinical holds have rocked the boat a bit. Yet, optimism remains high (just look at the stock prices of these companies).

What did this current paper show?

CRISPR/Cas9, in most iterations, works by creating a DNA double strand break. There have long been concerns that this would create room for mutations.

What this paper shows is that you can detect certain complex forms of mutations at the target site, that you would otherwise miss by conventional testing methods.

Cumulatively, across the studies they found that between 20-35% of all clones exhibited evidence of large/complex genomic rearrangement that might be missed by conventional sequencing.

What does this mean for basic biology?

This is something to be aware of. And any good paper should properly validate their finding using several orthogonal approaches to rule out the possibility that mutations are driving the phenotype.

I suspect a lot of the potential for rearrangement will come down to methodology: what type of cells were used? how much Cas9 complex was present? how optimized were the guides? etc.

What does this mean for CRISPR in medicine?

Here the concern is more real. Inducing mutations in patient genomes is risky, opening up the possibility for tumorigenesis and similarly nasty outcomes.

Intellia, one of the major CRISPR companies, has already commented on the paper:

Similarly, at Intellia, another firm in Cambridge that is developing CRISPR–based therapies, scientists have looked for large deletions in gene-editing studies in mouse livers. So far they have found no evidence of such deletions, says senior vice president Thomas Barnes. This, he says, may be because the cells his team works with do not divide often. Bradley and colleagues' study, by contrast, used actively dividing cells.

I'm inclined to trust these companies at this point (they can face stiff penalties for lying - especially stay tuned to how they answer questions during end of quarter conference calls next month). Further, there are a number of in vivo mechanisms that might work against some of the in vitro results reported here.

Either way, it is an interesting result, though. And one that definitely bears paying attention to. This data also probably warrants a close look by third parties. There was a bit of an embarrassing SNAFU last year when a group reported that CRISPR/Cas9 caused thousands of off-target mutations, but upon closer inspection it was revealed their methodology was woefully inadequate and the paper was retracted.

I'll add in more details as I get a chance to read the paper more closely!

HPV vaccine eliminates skin cancer in 97-year-old, doctors report in a new paper in JAMA Dermatology. The woman had developed a severe case of squamous cell carcinoma, and chemotherapy and surgery were ruled out as treatments. Each tumor was injected with Gardasil, and all of them disappeared. by mveaMD-PhD-MBA | Clinical Professor/Medicine in science

[–]SirT6PhD|MBA|Biology|Biogerontology 1122 points1123 points  (0 children)

I don’t have access to the paper right now. What was the “hunch” that motivated going off-label like this?

Edit: I read the paper (PM if you want a sci hub link).

The “hunch” described in the article was that they had previously tested the idea in two previous patients and seen promising results.

That doesn’t really answer where the “hunch” came from, though. So, I read that paper as well (PM if you want a sci hub link). Tbh, they don’t do a good job rationalizing the choice of therapy - really the best they could do was saying that immunocompromised patients are at higher risk of SCC driven by HPV (these patients weren’t immunocomprised though).

Edit 2: I’m seeing a lot of people down-thread confusing prophylactic vaccines (trying to prevent a disease from occurring) and therapeutic vaccines (trying to treat a disease once it has established). This case report was therapeutic vaccine. It is one thing to propose that a vaccine will lower the incidence of certain virally driven tumors, it is quite another to propose that the same vaccine will have an anti-tumor effect in a patient who for all we know of not infected by that virus. The authors themselves are a bit puzzled, concluding the paper:

It is not known what part, if any, the systemic doses of the vac- cine played in the therapeutic benefit that we observed after the intratumoral injections in the patient. The prophylactic role of HPV vaccination is well understood; however, the mecha- nisms of its therapeutic efficacy in cutaneous malignant tu- mors are not yet clear. The potent therapeutic benefit may re- flect a combination of immunologic, antiviral, and antitumor effects of 9-valent HPV vaccine.

If people are interested, I’m happy to do a discussion post on this sort of immunotherapy down the road. It’d probably have to be on a different subreddit, though.

Ammonia—a renewable fuel made from sun, air, and water—could power the globe without carbon by mynameis_neo in science

[–]Goof512 13 points14 points  (0 children)

There is no such thing as a bad idea. There are difficult ideas, ideas that require research, ideas that may not be possible without large amounts of energy, ideas that may require a spot of tea before they really seem to be useful.

But there are no bad ideas.

It was obviously a bad idea to put powerful alternating electrical lines over people's heads. Imagine the number of people killed by messing with the damned things! Unthinkable. But someone went ahead and tried it out anyways. Turns out it works when you mount it up on poles and tell all the people not to touch it or they'll end up like a turkey on Thanksgiving.

But there are no bad ideas.

Spreading out your forces when the Roman legions outnumber you is a really dumb idea. Hannibal was definitely daft when he was waking at Cannae that day. Except that the envelopement he used is now widely regarded as a genius manuever which allowed him to win the skirmish and gain traction in his war.

But there are no bad ideas.

Putting highly reactive metals in a glass case and selling them to people seems idiotic. But I'm typing from one right now and it's not combusting very quickly at all. (More a gentle simmer really). Lithium is dangerous, and can be explosive in the right circumstances, yet my phone does a reasonable job of containing it. Yet if someone like you had heard that they were using explosive metals to make power storage, they would have recommended we stick with lead-acid batteries. After all, they're a proven technology that works in our cars, there's no reason to research these dangerous metals. 'No, we should focus our research on making lead acid batteries better. Lithium batteries are a bad idea.'

And yet, there are no bad ideas.

Lithium batteries, The battle of Cannae, AC mains: many people thought they were a bad idea. A lost cause. Useless.

But there are no bad ideas. They were rough ideas, unrefined, in need of research and experiment, but they were not bad, merely novel and not understood well enough.

Maybe ammonia will turn out to be efficient in ways we don't expect. It's possible there's a reaction process that we can optimize that puts our current tech to shame. Maybe it's storage can be made easy using a special container.

Perhaps it's a useless idea.

But it is not a bad idea.

There, after all, are no bad ideas.

Harvard study finds that during heat waves, people can’t think straight - The test results showed that during the heat wave students without air conditioning experienced decreases across five measures of cognitive function. by pnewellNGO|Climate Science in science

[–]sand5375 227 points228 points  (0 children)

One of the factors of good sleep is the ability for your body to lower its temperature, particularly in your brain. (I hope I got that right). So this stuff ties together. The fact that they saw increased effect on kids (I'm old now) who don't have air conditioning doesn't prove it is sleep related since those kids also are spending simply more time in the heat. But the study would perhaps imply that your brain doesn't merely slow down when you are hot.

I'll admit though, this is so straightforward that part of me feels like there are likely a ton of other papers already addressing this.

This report reminds me of a shocking graph I saw once which showed the relationship between average daily temperature and violent crime. Clear correlation was visible when comparing all cold with all hot nations, and everything between. There were trends when looking at very large nations and comparing the hotter regions to the colder regions. And trends even existed within individual cities and neighborhoods, when comparing cooler seasons to hot. There were outliers, but also clear trends that were hard to ignore, especially since they transcended different ways of classifying hot vs cold weather regionally and seasonally.

At that time I assumed the heat was impacting emotions. I also saw discussions there about how even insects and bacteria tend to be more aggressive in the heat. So I was leaning towards this being some universal truth with animals, perhaps dating back in evolution all the way to dinosaurs or some damn thing. But it is also possible that it is related to sleep. I'm a very non-violent person, but I do sleep very poorly in the heat and I am much more prone to anger when low on sleep.

But back to what I am replying to. It seems it would be very difficult to study or control separately for good sleep and nonstop heat, since it seems almost universal that people sleep better where/when it is cool.

Your doctor’s mental health and well-being affect the care you receive -- burnout, fatigue and depression may affect major medical errors. Medical errors contribute to an estimated 100,000 to 200,000 deaths per year by ekser in science

[–]Uglybass 87 points88 points  (0 children)

We cant approach healthcare, especially direct patient care, like a business venture or corporate industry akin to selling paper or manufacturing cars, yet that's exactly what we do. Clinics are set up to cram as many patients into an 8-10 hour time frame as possible, resulting in 5 minute appointment slots and a provider seeing over 30-40 patients a day. The only person or people this benefits are the owners of the clinic who usually aren't doing any hands on care, they only see dollar signs without worrying about patient outcomes, much less the stress it puts on the provider. The hospital will hire one less doctor to make more money, making their current doctors have to take on an extra 10 patients at a time, resulting in burnout and errors.

This is where government intervention is not a bad thing. Create strict provider to client ratios, make mandatory max patient load for a day at a clinic depending on the amount of providers etc... remove corporations from the equation and healthcare would improve.

When a person wants understanding, but their partner gives solutions, things do not usually go well. A new study with 114 newlywed couples suggests people who receive emotional support, instead of informational support, feel better and have higher relationship satisfaction. by mveaMD-PhD-MBA | Clinical Professor/Medicine in science

[–]ajustice83 300 points301 points  (0 children)

I empathize with my wife, but when she constantly brings up the same issues over and over again, it stresses me out. She doesn't want a solution because, "I know how to fix it."

This is where the divide kicks in. To me, it's irrational to know there's a problem, yet do nothing to fix it, and instead insist on complaining about it to spread stress on people who don't handle situations the same way.

I love my wife dearly and listen to her problems at work, with family, with friends constantly. Once it becomes a broken record, I try to fix the needle.

New study finds a relationship between US police department receipt of military excess hardware and increased suspect deaths. by ImNotJesusGrad Student | Personality and Social Psychology in science

[–]DijonPepperberryMD|Child and Adolescent Psychiatry|Suicidology 59 points60 points  (0 children)

A critical analysis:

Hey folks, yes, it's true that Correlation != causation, but correlation is a part of causation, and this headline is literally titled "a relationship between" (ie: correlation). It is important data, it is a part of establishing or investigating causation (though not sufficient), and we will NEVER have a randomized controlled trial where we give randomized police departments a whole bunch of hardware and measure deaths, so the types of trials that would establish cause aren't going to happen.

This article is not investigating causation. It is designed specifically to test an association, which is a component of (but neither definitive nor exclusion) aspect of causation.

I accessed the full text article, and here's what I can state about it:

a) The source of fatal police encounters is from the free online resource: Fatal Encounters. (fatalencounters.org)

b) militarization was measured through a freedom of information request made to Defense Logistics Agency, a U.S. Military (dla.mil) Organization that measures and tracks transfers of military equipment to law enforcment precincts (the 1033 program).

c) the controlled-for-variables are: population density, total population of a district, poverty in that district, violent crime rates in that district, race, budgetary resources, and countywide jurisdiction. Each of these was collected via various legitimate public records. 11,800 precincts were analysed

d) The results were relatively compelling that, controlled for the other variables, the association of militarization to the kill rate of suspects was highly implicated (p<0.001). It wasn't even really close; the assocation was strong, and even somewhat exponential. It's important to note that these results were independent of violent crime rate in that precinct, density, racial demographics, and poverty rates.

e) An interesting (and politically relevant) side finding is that racial breakdown of each precinct did not seem to contribute to how often lethal force is used against suspects. As this was not the primary outcome of the study, it's at best an interesting side note, but one that bears further research, especially given todays political climate.

f) I am not impressed by the lack of self-declared limitations to the study (a staple of a thoughtful investigative process), the introduction and conclusion truly read like a researcher who took their results and interpreted it only according to their own previously held idea/agenda, rather than considering other possibilities. There wasn't even mention of unstudied third variables (avg hours of police training, police hiring requirements, urbanization, firearms used in committing crimes, etc), which i just spitballed in about 30 seconds and already are relevant to the study.


My conclusion: somewhat compelling strong linear association, but the third variable effect is still highly suspect and at best, this is a preliminary, robust, and well designed and resourced study (all of the sources are publicly available or from government institutions) to test a hypothesis. Unfortunately, it kind of reads like the researcher did not really spend a lot of time considering alternative hypotheses or limitations to the study, which has me very concerned about researcher bias.

New study finds a relationship between US police department receipt of military excess hardware and increased suspect deaths. by ImNotJesusGrad Student | Personality and Social Psychology in science

[–]ImNotJesusGrad Student | Personality and Social Psychology[S] 1058 points1059 points  (0 children)

To test my hypothesis, I began with a master list of all nonfederal and non-state law enforcement agencies in the United States from the 2008 Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies. The number of suspect killings is from Fatal Encounters,2 a database created with the goal of collecting information on law-enforcementrelated deaths. This is currently the most comprehensive database of the use of lethal force by police available.


n. The final data for analysis consist of 11,848 observations of law enforcement agencies with either countywide or subcounty jurisdiction from the fourth quarter of 2014 through the fourth quarter of 2016.

Editing in here because a lot of people are asking about how militiarisation was measured

I constructed a militarization variable that accounts for military equipment in a law enforcement agency’s possession by quarter from the fourth quarter of 2014 through the fourth quarter of 2016. I focus on the amount of military equipment law enforcement agencies receive from the Department of Defense as an appropriate measure of police militarization, as it explicitly reflects at least part of a cooperative relationship between the military and police. I use data from DLA, which provides an itemized list, by agency and date, of all such equipment. However, a simple count of the number of items is insufficient to properly capture the concept of militarization. If military equipment represents militarization, different types of equipment likely represent varying levels of militarization. An armored personnel carrier provides a much more striking image than a pair of combat boots. A military rifle is likely somewhere in between, and probably represents a greater level of militarization than an infrared sight. In other words, larger, more high-tech or intimidating equipment should represent more militarization than smaller, lowtech, generic items, and should also be more expensive. I use the dollar value, adjusted for inflation, of each item as a measure of the militarization that item represents.7

New study finds a relationship between US police department receipt of military excess hardware and increased suspect deaths. by ImNotJesusGrad Student | Personality and Social Psychology in science

[–]ImNotJesusGrad Student | Personality and Social Psychology[S] 1206 points1207 points  (0 children)

This is what we generally call "big data" work where you get a large amount of publicly available data and analyse it. Fundamentally, social science data falls into the broad categories of "descriptive" and "experimental". Descriptive "describes" the world as it is. You take data about how things are and you describe how things relate (or don't) which each other. Experimental data involves changing something to see what effect that change has. All of the classic experiments are of this type. Group A does one thing, group B does a different thing and you see the difference in results.

Causal claims always exist on a continuum. We can only ever be so sure about causality but different types of data are better for showing causation than others. Descriptive data (such as this) is much harder to show causation with because you're not manipulating key variables, even if you're statistically controlling for them. One way to make descriptive data claims of causality more convincing is using time lag data (which I would have liked to see here) where you compare different time points. For example, it would be have been good to show that a change of militiarisation in time point 1 relates to a change in deaths in time point 2. That would have made it clearer whether particularly violent police forces (who already kill more suspects) tend to buy more of this hardware or whether the hardware availability was causing future deaths. Experimental data is generally better for claims of causality.

All that said, the aim of research isn't always to make causal claims. No individual study is ever "proof" of causality but instead an addition to a conversation about how the world is. Correlational data with no proof of causality is still useful. This still tells us something interesting, even if we can't show from the data that A causes B directly.

For The First Time, Scientists Tracked a Wolf Leaving The Radioactive Chernobyl Zone. by kbilal7454 in science

[–]reubenvm 3567 points3568 points  (0 children)

So, when you're in an airplane you're exposed to more radiation due to the thinness of the atmosphere at elevation. In a typical day, you're exposed to less than 0.01 milliSieverts (SV) of radiation. Sieverts are a unit used for calculating cancer and other risks due to radioactive exposure. When flying, you're exposed to approximately 0.003mSv/hour. When getting a chest x-ray, your approximate exposure is 0.1 mSv. Tours around Chernobyl claim doses of 0.01-0.015 mSv. The maximum exposure allowed for nuclear workers here in Canada is 50mSv/year, and 100mSv/5 years. The average person is exposed to 2.4 mSv/year, and non-nuclear workers are limited to a maximum occupational exposure of 1mSv/year.

It sounds like you're correct, although exposure to radiation in an airplane is probably higher than most people would expect, and this would apply to flights which are at cruising altitude for 4+ hours. These are of course still completely harmless levels, as a chest x-ray exposes you to the equivalent of 90+ hours of Chernobyl touring or 30+ hours of flight time. In perspective, that is still only 10 days of typical exposure, and there is a 4.4% increased risk of cancer per 1000mSv of exposure, which is 10,000 chest x-rays and 10 times the 5-year limit for nuclear workers.

Source: I had time to spend Googling exposure values and I once took an 8 hour radiation course for a job.

New research suggests that as social problems such as extreme poverty or violence become less prevalent, people may be prone to perceive that they linger—and are perhaps even getting worse. by mikepetroff in science

[–]BioLogicPodcast 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Who gives a shit if the rich are richer by comparison?

You should, if you read a history book and look at any case where wealth inequality spiraled out of control.

As long as things are continually improving for everyone, it shouldn’t matter how rich the ones at the top are.

When some people become so rich that they can buy governments / senators and undemocratically push through their own legislation against the will of the people, that's bad.

When some people become so rich that they can establish their own nation-spanning propaganda network that whips a third of the modern world into a blathering frenzy of misinformation and lies, that's bad.

If people are generally leading better lives, but you’re bitching about some people being super successful, that’s not a valid complaint about the distribution of wealth, that’s just jealousy and envy.

Ahh yes, the well-worn ad hominem to attack people who point out the dangers of extreme wealth inequality. "You're not actually concerned about democracy, you're just jealous!"

The world is so much better for everyone.

And yet, we still have children going to bed hungry and we still have people dying because they can't access healthcare. It's almost like your extremely broad-stroke generalization isn't entirely accurate.

The rich will always be gaining wealth faster than the poor, they have the resources to create more wealth sources. But as long as the world as a whole improves, it shouldn’t matter.

I don't know about that, this last sentence kind of points out an inherent flaw in a capitalist system (where those with capital continue to accumulate it until they own everything), that ultimately leads to the collapse of that capitalist system. It's like you think the system will just stay the way it is forever.

Extreme Stress During Childhood Stunts a Crucial Type of Learning For Years Afterwards by MushtahaDroid in science

[–]suesea2007 664 points665 points  (0 children)

Research has shown that abuse/neglect during critical periods of brain development may cause significant changes to brain structure. The areas of the brain that may be significantly impacted are the amygdala, the hippocampus region and the frontal lobe. Other areas may also be altered.

These brain areas are involved with executive function, decision making, impulse control, and emotion regulation. A person who has suffered through abuse and/or neglect may not only have to overcome the abuse in the moment, but he/she may feel the effects of it for a lifetime. The abuse very possibly has changed the person's ability and personality, and therefore may have changed his/her behavior for life. One problem then may continually compound into a lifetime of complicated, cascading dominoes of problems both internal and external.

There is also the possibility that the fight or flight response gets switched on and never fully goes off. A person living in this heightened response state never truly relaxes or feels calm. The slightest stress can put them at peak levels of stress where someone who had a secure upbringing would typically let the stress go normally or find healthy coping mechanisms. It is believed that this heightened state of awareness leads to anxiety disorders such as PTSD. Once someone's brain is full grown, currently, there is little that can be done to reverse the damage. Medication, therapy, love and support and a healthy lifestyle, can improve outcomes. However, it is important people realize child neglect/abuse and other forms of childhood trauma can cause permanent changes to the brain, brain damage, and this may cause a person to carry the burden of abuse for life.