<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_13_2146206</id>
	<title>Poorer Children More Likely To Get Antipsychotics</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1260700980000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>krou writes <i>"A <a href="http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/28/5/w770">new study</a> by a team from Rutgers and Columbia has discovered that poorer children are more likely to be given powerful antipsychotic drugs. According to the NY Times (login required), 'children covered by Medicaid are <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/12/health/12medicaid.html?\_r=6&amp;hp">given powerful antipsychotic medicines at a rate four times higher</a> than children whose parents have private insurance. And the Medicaid children are more likely to receive the drugs for less severe conditions than their middle-class counterparts.' It raises the question: 'Do too many children from poor families receive powerful psychiatric drugs not because they actually need them &mdash; but because it is deemed the most efficient and cost-effective way to control problems that may be handled much differently for middle-class children?' Two possible explanations are offered: 'insurance reimbursements, as Medicaid often pays much less for counseling and therapy than private insurers do,' and because of 'the challenges that families in poverty may have in consistently attending counseling or therapy sessions, even when such help is available.' The study is due to be published next year in the journal Health Affairs."</i> The full article is available behind a paywall from the first link. The lead author of the study said he "did not have clear evidence to form an opinion on whether or not children on Medicaid were being overtreated."</htmltext>
<tokenext>krou writes " A new study by a team from Rutgers and Columbia has discovered that poorer children are more likely to be given powerful antipsychotic drugs .
According to the NY Times ( login required ) , 'children covered by Medicaid are given powerful antipsychotic medicines at a rate four times higher than children whose parents have private insurance .
And the Medicaid children are more likely to receive the drugs for less severe conditions than their middle-class counterparts .
' It raises the question : 'Do too many children from poor families receive powerful psychiatric drugs not because they actually need them    but because it is deemed the most efficient and cost-effective way to control problems that may be handled much differently for middle-class children ?
' Two possible explanations are offered : 'insurance reimbursements , as Medicaid often pays much less for counseling and therapy than private insurers do, ' and because of 'the challenges that families in poverty may have in consistently attending counseling or therapy sessions , even when such help is available .
' The study is due to be published next year in the journal Health Affairs .
" The full article is available behind a paywall from the first link .
The lead author of the study said he " did not have clear evidence to form an opinion on whether or not children on Medicaid were being overtreated .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>krou writes "A new study by a team from Rutgers and Columbia has discovered that poorer children are more likely to be given powerful antipsychotic drugs.
According to the NY Times (login required), 'children covered by Medicaid are given powerful antipsychotic medicines at a rate four times higher than children whose parents have private insurance.
And the Medicaid children are more likely to receive the drugs for less severe conditions than their middle-class counterparts.
' It raises the question: 'Do too many children from poor families receive powerful psychiatric drugs not because they actually need them — but because it is deemed the most efficient and cost-effective way to control problems that may be handled much differently for middle-class children?
' Two possible explanations are offered: 'insurance reimbursements, as Medicaid often pays much less for counseling and therapy than private insurers do,' and because of 'the challenges that families in poverty may have in consistently attending counseling or therapy sessions, even when such help is available.
' The study is due to be published next year in the journal Health Affairs.
" The full article is available behind a paywall from the first link.
The lead author of the study said he "did not have clear evidence to form an opinion on whether or not children on Medicaid were being overtreated.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425960</id>
	<title>None of the Above</title>
	<author>grumpygrodyguy</author>
	<datestamp>1260705900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>A new study by a team from Rutgers and Columbia has discovered that poorer children are more likely to be given powerful antipsychotic drugs. According to the NY Times (login required), 'children covered by Medicaid are given powerful antipsychotic medicines at a rate four times higher than children whose parents have private insurance. And the Medicaid children are more likely to receive the drugs for less severe conditions than their middle-class counterparts.' It raises the question: 'Do too many children from poor families receive powerful psychiatric drugs not because they actually need them -- but because it is deemed the most efficient and cost-effective way to control problems that may be handled much differently for middle-class children?' Two possible explanations are offered: 'insurance reimbursements, as Medicaid often pays much less for counseling and therapy than private insurers do', and because of 'the challenges that families in poverty may have in consistently attending counseling or therapy sessions, even when such help is available'. The study is due to be published next year in the journal Health Affairs.</p></div></blockquote><p>Non of the above.</p><p>These people are beta-testing the atypical antipsychotics.</p><p>Poor people can't litigate.  It makes the drug companies look good by 'helping the poor', and gives them lots of people to test their new drugs on.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/I've taken these medications<nobr> <wbr></nobr>//as a class, after 6 months only 30\% of people prescribed atypical antipsychotics can remain on them, because the side-effects are so unbearable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A new study by a team from Rutgers and Columbia has discovered that poorer children are more likely to be given powerful antipsychotic drugs .
According to the NY Times ( login required ) , 'children covered by Medicaid are given powerful antipsychotic medicines at a rate four times higher than children whose parents have private insurance .
And the Medicaid children are more likely to receive the drugs for less severe conditions than their middle-class counterparts .
' It raises the question : 'Do too many children from poor families receive powerful psychiatric drugs not because they actually need them -- but because it is deemed the most efficient and cost-effective way to control problems that may be handled much differently for middle-class children ?
' Two possible explanations are offered : 'insurance reimbursements , as Medicaid often pays much less for counseling and therapy than private insurers do ' , and because of 'the challenges that families in poverty may have in consistently attending counseling or therapy sessions , even when such help is available' .
The study is due to be published next year in the journal Health Affairs.Non of the above.These people are beta-testing the atypical antipsychotics.Poor people ca n't litigate .
It makes the drug companies look good by 'helping the poor ' , and gives them lots of people to test their new drugs on .
/I 've taken these medications //as a class , after 6 months only 30 \ % of people prescribed atypical antipsychotics can remain on them , because the side-effects are so unbearable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A new study by a team from Rutgers and Columbia has discovered that poorer children are more likely to be given powerful antipsychotic drugs.
According to the NY Times (login required), 'children covered by Medicaid are given powerful antipsychotic medicines at a rate four times higher than children whose parents have private insurance.
And the Medicaid children are more likely to receive the drugs for less severe conditions than their middle-class counterparts.
' It raises the question: 'Do too many children from poor families receive powerful psychiatric drugs not because they actually need them -- but because it is deemed the most efficient and cost-effective way to control problems that may be handled much differently for middle-class children?
' Two possible explanations are offered: 'insurance reimbursements, as Medicaid often pays much less for counseling and therapy than private insurers do', and because of 'the challenges that families in poverty may have in consistently attending counseling or therapy sessions, even when such help is available'.
The study is due to be published next year in the journal Health Affairs.Non of the above.These people are beta-testing the atypical antipsychotics.Poor people can't litigate.
It makes the drug companies look good by 'helping the poor', and gives them lots of people to test their new drugs on.
/I've taken these medications //as a class, after 6 months only 30\% of people prescribed atypical antipsychotics can remain on them, because the side-effects are so unbearable.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30430042</id>
	<title>Re:Healtscare system..</title>
	<author>mayko</author>
	<datestamp>1260800100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here in the US. <br> <br>

Fees for going to war? That's what we've been paying taxes for. <br> <br>

We could have everything you list there and probably pay less tax, but we'd rather blow things up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here in the US .
Fees for going to war ?
That 's what we 've been paying taxes for .
We could have everything you list there and probably pay less tax , but we 'd rather blow things up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here in the US.
Fees for going to war?
That's what we've been paying taxes for.
We could have everything you list there and probably pay less tax, but we'd rather blow things up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427270</id>
	<title>Really now?</title>
	<author>scjohnno</author>
	<datestamp>1260717600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tagged correlationisnotcausation? And here I was, thinking that there was a Medicaid bureaucrat whose job was to run through a list of people with low income and schedule them all for antipsychotics.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tagged correlationisnotcausation ?
And here I was , thinking that there was a Medicaid bureaucrat whose job was to run through a list of people with low income and schedule them all for antipsychotics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tagged correlationisnotcausation?
And here I was, thinking that there was a Medicaid bureaucrat whose job was to run through a list of people with low income and schedule them all for antipsychotics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426222</id>
	<title>Re:Parent pushback</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260708000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Could it be because middle class parents are more likely to push back against drug recommendations?</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Or could it be that lower class parents are more likely to blame anything but their poor parenting skills for their children's behavior and seek the "cure" in a pill?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could it be because middle class parents are more likely to push back against drug recommendations ?
      Or could it be that lower class parents are more likely to blame anything but their poor parenting skills for their children 's behavior and seek the " cure " in a pill ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could it be because middle class parents are more likely to push back against drug recommendations?
      Or could it be that lower class parents are more likely to blame anything but their poor parenting skills for their children's behavior and seek the "cure" in a pill?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30429950</id>
	<title>Meds to control the smartline of people?</title>
	<author>freaker\_TuC</author>
	<datestamp>1260799200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm having a very heavy form of ADHD which I control myself, without medication.<br>It's not always as easy because solutions often just don't fall into your hands, so, repetitive thinking is sometimes healthy.</p><p>I think like a tree forms it's branches; Start with the roots (problem) and start to see every possibility as a branch (solution) which has each it's negative and positive sides. When I reach the point to take the most neutral solution of all branches; I choose...</p><p>I've tried Relatine and Concerta<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. The relatine was the worst of them kinds; disabling me from any artistic functions like drawing, creating music, writing and even programming. It took me about 9 months, AFTER stopping taking the medication to recover; because my brain seemed to be rewired to see mostly only one straight path, one option, solution or direction to watch &amp; live to. Basically, all branches to alternative thinking where gone, destroyed, erased<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... for a long moment even after stopping these darn pills.</p><p>Variety gets killed in high numbers; where kids mistreated in ADHD often get such medication where their brain doesn't think about alternative options anymore. Sounds, almost they want to create mindless thinkers.</p><p>Basically<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. I felt "more stupid" when under three different medications.<br>mods: I think the parent post is not rendundant at all...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm having a very heavy form of ADHD which I control myself , without medication.It 's not always as easy because solutions often just do n't fall into your hands , so , repetitive thinking is sometimes healthy.I think like a tree forms it 's branches ; Start with the roots ( problem ) and start to see every possibility as a branch ( solution ) which has each it 's negative and positive sides .
When I reach the point to take the most neutral solution of all branches ; I choose...I 've tried Relatine and Concerta .. The relatine was the worst of them kinds ; disabling me from any artistic functions like drawing , creating music , writing and even programming .
It took me about 9 months , AFTER stopping taking the medication to recover ; because my brain seemed to be rewired to see mostly only one straight path , one option , solution or direction to watch &amp; live to .
Basically , all branches to alternative thinking where gone , destroyed , erased ... for a long moment even after stopping these darn pills.Variety gets killed in high numbers ; where kids mistreated in ADHD often get such medication where their brain does n't think about alternative options anymore .
Sounds , almost they want to create mindless thinkers.Basically .. I felt " more stupid " when under three different medications.mods : I think the parent post is not rendundant at all.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm having a very heavy form of ADHD which I control myself, without medication.It's not always as easy because solutions often just don't fall into your hands, so, repetitive thinking is sometimes healthy.I think like a tree forms it's branches; Start with the roots (problem) and start to see every possibility as a branch (solution) which has each it's negative and positive sides.
When I reach the point to take the most neutral solution of all branches; I choose...I've tried Relatine and Concerta .. The relatine was the worst of them kinds; disabling me from any artistic functions like drawing, creating music, writing and even programming.
It took me about 9 months, AFTER stopping taking the medication to recover; because my brain seemed to be rewired to see mostly only one straight path, one option, solution or direction to watch &amp; live to.
Basically, all branches to alternative thinking where gone, destroyed, erased ... for a long moment even after stopping these darn pills.Variety gets killed in high numbers; where kids mistreated in ADHD often get such medication where their brain doesn't think about alternative options anymore.
Sounds, almost they want to create mindless thinkers.Basically .. I felt "more stupid" when under three different medications.mods: I think the parent post is not rendundant at all...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426326</id>
	<title>Absolutely</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260709080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now if we could only put it in the water so everyone got them equally</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now if we could only put it in the water so everyone got them equally</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now if we could only put it in the water so everyone got them equally</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426524</id>
	<title>I hadn't realized...</title>
	<author>praksys</author>
	<datestamp>1260711420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hadn't realized there were so many advantages to having money. Next they'll be telling us that rich people get all the best houses too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had n't realized there were so many advantages to having money .
Next they 'll be telling us that rich people get all the best houses too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hadn't realized there were so many advantages to having money.
Next they'll be telling us that rich people get all the best houses too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425904</id>
	<title>is this restricted to medicare?</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1260705420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this also happen with other public health care systems or is this mostly limited to Medicare in the US?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this also happen with other public health care systems or is this mostly limited to Medicare in the US ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this also happen with other public health care systems or is this mostly limited to Medicare in the US?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426724</id>
	<title>And Rich Kids Get Speed</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1260713100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A study done around 10+ years ago by Eastern Virginia Medical School looked at diagnosis and misdiagnosis of ADD in communities near them (Norfolk VA). They found the richer the community the more kids were diagnosed with ADD. they also found that while there is underdiagnosis equal to about 10\% of the current number of those so diagnosed, there is about 20\% overdiagnosed.</p><p>The most disturbing fact they uncovered, one that helps make sense of the overdiagnosis part, comes from looking at grade level and age. They classified kids as to grade, and then age within that grade. One group, kids who were more than 1 years younger than average for that grade (ie. had been bumped foward, skipping one or more grades at some time) were particularly troublesome. Kids more than a year young form their grade were prescribed meds for a diagnosis of ADD 67\% of the time. These are the smart kids. No way they could that many have ADD and be set forward one opr more grades.</p><p>The only possible explanation for this is their parents were dosing them with speed in order to improve their scores, grades, abilities, etc.  And doctors and schools were going along with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A study done around 10 + years ago by Eastern Virginia Medical School looked at diagnosis and misdiagnosis of ADD in communities near them ( Norfolk VA ) .
They found the richer the community the more kids were diagnosed with ADD .
they also found that while there is underdiagnosis equal to about 10 \ % of the current number of those so diagnosed , there is about 20 \ % overdiagnosed.The most disturbing fact they uncovered , one that helps make sense of the overdiagnosis part , comes from looking at grade level and age .
They classified kids as to grade , and then age within that grade .
One group , kids who were more than 1 years younger than average for that grade ( ie .
had been bumped foward , skipping one or more grades at some time ) were particularly troublesome .
Kids more than a year young form their grade were prescribed meds for a diagnosis of ADD 67 \ % of the time .
These are the smart kids .
No way they could that many have ADD and be set forward one opr more grades.The only possible explanation for this is their parents were dosing them with speed in order to improve their scores , grades , abilities , etc .
And doctors and schools were going along with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A study done around 10+ years ago by Eastern Virginia Medical School looked at diagnosis and misdiagnosis of ADD in communities near them (Norfolk VA).
They found the richer the community the more kids were diagnosed with ADD.
they also found that while there is underdiagnosis equal to about 10\% of the current number of those so diagnosed, there is about 20\% overdiagnosed.The most disturbing fact they uncovered, one that helps make sense of the overdiagnosis part, comes from looking at grade level and age.
They classified kids as to grade, and then age within that grade.
One group, kids who were more than 1 years younger than average for that grade (ie.
had been bumped foward, skipping one or more grades at some time) were particularly troublesome.
Kids more than a year young form their grade were prescribed meds for a diagnosis of ADD 67\% of the time.
These are the smart kids.
No way they could that many have ADD and be set forward one opr more grades.The only possible explanation for this is their parents were dosing them with speed in order to improve their scores, grades, abilities, etc.
And doctors and schools were going along with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427506</id>
	<title>Re:Healtscare system..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260720180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>way to pull support for government run healthcare out of pure speculation and preconceptions.  the downside of such a system is that people become dependent upon the government for basic necessities, self reliance within a society starts to atrophy and pretty soon people aren't allowed to do things that are deemed risky to their own health and safety because the state has to pay to fix them when they break.  look at the UK, story after story about something being banned for health and safety reasons.  nothing great has ever come from a socialist nation, and there is a reason for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>way to pull support for government run healthcare out of pure speculation and preconceptions .
the downside of such a system is that people become dependent upon the government for basic necessities , self reliance within a society starts to atrophy and pretty soon people are n't allowed to do things that are deemed risky to their own health and safety because the state has to pay to fix them when they break .
look at the UK , story after story about something being banned for health and safety reasons .
nothing great has ever come from a socialist nation , and there is a reason for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>way to pull support for government run healthcare out of pure speculation and preconceptions.
the downside of such a system is that people become dependent upon the government for basic necessities, self reliance within a society starts to atrophy and pretty soon people aren't allowed to do things that are deemed risky to their own health and safety because the state has to pay to fix them when they break.
look at the UK, story after story about something being banned for health and safety reasons.
nothing great has ever come from a socialist nation, and there is a reason for that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427128</id>
	<title>Re:Confounding Variables</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260716280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last night I had a very enlightening conversation with a friend who treats a lot of low income patients in a clinical setting.  Her insight from a first hand perspective is that a lot of her poorer patients, especially children, come from parents with serious substance abuse problems.  Its common to see children with fetal alcohol syndrome as well as children from parents who used meth, crack and heroin.  The effects are devastating but add to that extremely poor nutrition and all the conditions mentioned above and you have children with very mental health problems.  This may be a very legit reason for the difference in rates of medication.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last night I had a very enlightening conversation with a friend who treats a lot of low income patients in a clinical setting .
Her insight from a first hand perspective is that a lot of her poorer patients , especially children , come from parents with serious substance abuse problems .
Its common to see children with fetal alcohol syndrome as well as children from parents who used meth , crack and heroin .
The effects are devastating but add to that extremely poor nutrition and all the conditions mentioned above and you have children with very mental health problems .
This may be a very legit reason for the difference in rates of medication .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last night I had a very enlightening conversation with a friend who treats a lot of low income patients in a clinical setting.
Her insight from a first hand perspective is that a lot of her poorer patients, especially children, come from parents with serious substance abuse problems.
Its common to see children with fetal alcohol syndrome as well as children from parents who used meth, crack and heroin.
The effects are devastating but add to that extremely poor nutrition and all the conditions mentioned above and you have children with very mental health problems.
This may be a very legit reason for the difference in rates of medication.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426316</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1260709020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Compared to classic Mendelian stuff like Huntington's disease, the heritability of most psychological disorders is fairly modest, and the exact genetic basis rather obscure; but there is a substantial body of evidence that it isn't zero(for a fair number of conditions).<br> <br>

Further, there is a fair amount of evidence that early life stresses(and even prenatal exposure to maternal stress) can have a number of permanent effects, most of them not good, on individuals.<br> <br>

And, of course, your risk of eating lead-paint chips, or living next to some sort of exciting toxin smelter as a child is pretty strongly correlated with class.<br> <br>

You could see this as ammunition for a second round of the eugenics movement(as well as something for would-be parents with these conditions to think very seriously about). However, I'd say that the new data probably represent more of a boon to progressive than to reactionary views of poverty.<br> <br>

If poverty looks like a more or less intractable problem, caused by the psychological defects of the poor, progressive programs are difficult to justify on other than grounds of moral duty. If, however, one can identify specific things "research shows that high serum lead levels correlate with high rates of criminality, even after correcting for demographic variables", it becomes rather easier to propose progressive programs that both satisfy the moralists and promise some results "If we conduct lead remediation of a given housing stock, along with population sampling and treatment of highly contaminated cases, we should see a reduction in criminality in a decade or so".<br> <br>

Ultimately, though, the use to which this idea will be put is almost irrelevant to the idea itself. There are a variety of techniques for assessing the heritability of a condition. If those techniques indicate that the condition is heritable, there you are. Full Stop. There is no step that involves checking whether or not it would be morally desirable for this to be true.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Compared to classic Mendelian stuff like Huntington 's disease , the heritability of most psychological disorders is fairly modest , and the exact genetic basis rather obscure ; but there is a substantial body of evidence that it is n't zero ( for a fair number of conditions ) .
Further , there is a fair amount of evidence that early life stresses ( and even prenatal exposure to maternal stress ) can have a number of permanent effects , most of them not good , on individuals .
And , of course , your risk of eating lead-paint chips , or living next to some sort of exciting toxin smelter as a child is pretty strongly correlated with class .
You could see this as ammunition for a second round of the eugenics movement ( as well as something for would-be parents with these conditions to think very seriously about ) .
However , I 'd say that the new data probably represent more of a boon to progressive than to reactionary views of poverty .
If poverty looks like a more or less intractable problem , caused by the psychological defects of the poor , progressive programs are difficult to justify on other than grounds of moral duty .
If , however , one can identify specific things " research shows that high serum lead levels correlate with high rates of criminality , even after correcting for demographic variables " , it becomes rather easier to propose progressive programs that both satisfy the moralists and promise some results " If we conduct lead remediation of a given housing stock , along with population sampling and treatment of highly contaminated cases , we should see a reduction in criminality in a decade or so " .
Ultimately , though , the use to which this idea will be put is almost irrelevant to the idea itself .
There are a variety of techniques for assessing the heritability of a condition .
If those techniques indicate that the condition is heritable , there you are .
Full Stop .
There is no step that involves checking whether or not it would be morally desirable for this to be true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Compared to classic Mendelian stuff like Huntington's disease, the heritability of most psychological disorders is fairly modest, and the exact genetic basis rather obscure; but there is a substantial body of evidence that it isn't zero(for a fair number of conditions).
Further, there is a fair amount of evidence that early life stresses(and even prenatal exposure to maternal stress) can have a number of permanent effects, most of them not good, on individuals.
And, of course, your risk of eating lead-paint chips, or living next to some sort of exciting toxin smelter as a child is pretty strongly correlated with class.
You could see this as ammunition for a second round of the eugenics movement(as well as something for would-be parents with these conditions to think very seriously about).
However, I'd say that the new data probably represent more of a boon to progressive than to reactionary views of poverty.
If poverty looks like a more or less intractable problem, caused by the psychological defects of the poor, progressive programs are difficult to justify on other than grounds of moral duty.
If, however, one can identify specific things "research shows that high serum lead levels correlate with high rates of criminality, even after correcting for demographic variables", it becomes rather easier to propose progressive programs that both satisfy the moralists and promise some results "If we conduct lead remediation of a given housing stock, along with population sampling and treatment of highly contaminated cases, we should see a reduction in criminality in a decade or so".
Ultimately, though, the use to which this idea will be put is almost irrelevant to the idea itself.
There are a variety of techniques for assessing the heritability of a condition.
If those techniques indicate that the condition is heritable, there you are.
Full Stop.
There is no step that involves checking whether or not it would be morally desirable for this to be true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426938</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1260714720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"OMG BIG GOVERNMENT/CAPITALIST CONSPIRACY"</p></div><p>What does it say about a society when mental illness makes you a permanent member of the underclass?</p><p>However, my own observations are quite the opposite of yours. During a time when my personal economic status was poor, I became more volatile and had to make a much bigger effort to not beat the crap out of people who ticked me off. It's easy to be a stable happy person when you have a stable happy economic status.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" OMG BIG GOVERNMENT/CAPITALIST CONSPIRACY " What does it say about a society when mental illness makes you a permanent member of the underclass ? However , my own observations are quite the opposite of yours .
During a time when my personal economic status was poor , I became more volatile and had to make a much bigger effort to not beat the crap out of people who ticked me off .
It 's easy to be a stable happy person when you have a stable happy economic status .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"OMG BIG GOVERNMENT/CAPITALIST CONSPIRACY"What does it say about a society when mental illness makes you a permanent member of the underclass?However, my own observations are quite the opposite of yours.
During a time when my personal economic status was poor, I became more volatile and had to make a much bigger effort to not beat the crap out of people who ticked me off.
It's easy to be a stable happy person when you have a stable happy economic status.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30428168</id>
	<title>reminds me of...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260727860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33METcDj398</p><p>"You do want Ghetto children to be happy, don't you chris?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 33METcDj398 " You do want Ghetto children to be happy , do n't you chris ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33METcDj398"You do want Ghetto children to be happy, don't you chris?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30428290</id>
	<title>Re:is this restricted to medicare?</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1260729420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Does this also happen with other public health care systems or is this mostly limited to Medicare in the US?</p></div></blockquote><p>

I cant speak for other nations but in Australia, no.<br> <br>

Our public health system makes no distinction between rich and poor, everyone receives the treatments they need regardless. In addition to this the Medicare system in Australia does not prescribe treatments, that is entirely the doctors prerogative/responsibility. Medicare simply pays for any treatment that is necessary.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this also happen with other public health care systems or is this mostly limited to Medicare in the US ?
I cant speak for other nations but in Australia , no .
Our public health system makes no distinction between rich and poor , everyone receives the treatments they need regardless .
In addition to this the Medicare system in Australia does not prescribe treatments , that is entirely the doctors prerogative/responsibility .
Medicare simply pays for any treatment that is necessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this also happen with other public health care systems or is this mostly limited to Medicare in the US?
I cant speak for other nations but in Australia, no.
Our public health system makes no distinction between rich and poor, everyone receives the treatments they need regardless.
In addition to this the Medicare system in Australia does not prescribe treatments, that is entirely the doctors prerogative/responsibility.
Medicare simply pays for any treatment that is necessary.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426192</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps</title>
	<author>Stradivarius</author>
	<datestamp>1260707700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Mental illness runs in the family and affects economic status.</p></div><p>True enough.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>So poor parents pass on their mentally ill genes to their kids thus their kids are more likely to be mentally ill and on some kind of treatment. My own personal experience registers this is as true. I see a lot of emotional problems, especially mood instability, with poorer people</p></div><p>An alternative explanation is that if you have poor emotional skills - unable to control your own emotions or understand those of others - you are less likely to succeed. And lacking emotional skills yourself, you are unable to teach your kids those skills.</p><p>While it could be genetic, it could equally be a function of poor parenting.  There are probably plenty of cases in both categories, so I'd urge caution before assuming it's a genetic problem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mental illness runs in the family and affects economic status.True enough.So poor parents pass on their mentally ill genes to their kids thus their kids are more likely to be mentally ill and on some kind of treatment .
My own personal experience registers this is as true .
I see a lot of emotional problems , especially mood instability , with poorer peopleAn alternative explanation is that if you have poor emotional skills - unable to control your own emotions or understand those of others - you are less likely to succeed .
And lacking emotional skills yourself , you are unable to teach your kids those skills.While it could be genetic , it could equally be a function of poor parenting .
There are probably plenty of cases in both categories , so I 'd urge caution before assuming it 's a genetic problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mental illness runs in the family and affects economic status.True enough.So poor parents pass on their mentally ill genes to their kids thus their kids are more likely to be mentally ill and on some kind of treatment.
My own personal experience registers this is as true.
I see a lot of emotional problems, especially mood instability, with poorer peopleAn alternative explanation is that if you have poor emotional skills - unable to control your own emotions or understand those of others - you are less likely to succeed.
And lacking emotional skills yourself, you are unable to teach your kids those skills.While it could be genetic, it could equally be a function of poor parenting.
There are probably plenty of cases in both categories, so I'd urge caution before assuming it's a genetic problem.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427096</id>
	<title>just one story (mine)</title>
	<author>drew30319</author>
	<datestamp>1260715980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've not read all of the comments and imagine concurring opinions to mine are above; I just thought I'd add my personal story to the mix.<br> <br>

In my experience pills are <i>much</i> faster and <i>much</i> cheaper in the short run than therapy.  Issues re. causation aside, it makes a great deal of sense that those lacking the funds and/or the time for full-blown therapy would instead be given pills.  Note that I said in the "short run"; at some point a lifetime of pills that is managing symptoms rather than underlying causes becomes more expensive.  I realize that I'm over-simplifying and so will deal with my specific issue re. Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). <br> <br>

Three years ago my daughter was murdered.<br> <br>

Without question, my quickest path to any type of "relief" came from pills.  Equally without question, my only hope for long-term "relief" is from therapy.  But relief via therapy didn't come quickly and it certainly hasn't come easily.  I've had to interview literally dozens of therapists and psychologists to find a good fit; even after the initial phone interview I've gone to several in-person over the span of the past 3 1/2 years.  It's not been an easy process; certainly not as easy as opening a pill bottle (not even the tricky kind with child-proof lids).<br> <br>

Fortunately I eventually found a psychologist that is working wonders for me (baby steps) and I've successfully ended one med and am very slowly weaning myself from the other.  Understand though, we're talking about hundreds of hours of therapy - not an easy proposition by any means - especially for those lacking not just insurance but also the flexibility to take time from work or school in the middle of the day to go to appointments.<br> <br>

Again, I recognize my oversimplification by speaking only to PTSD and only in my specific case. I realize that in different situations that this may not apply, but in general feel that pills are considerably faster and more effective in the short-term.  The downside, at least in my case, is that the underlying issues would never be resolved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've not read all of the comments and imagine concurring opinions to mine are above ; I just thought I 'd add my personal story to the mix .
In my experience pills are much faster and much cheaper in the short run than therapy .
Issues re .
causation aside , it makes a great deal of sense that those lacking the funds and/or the time for full-blown therapy would instead be given pills .
Note that I said in the " short run " ; at some point a lifetime of pills that is managing symptoms rather than underlying causes becomes more expensive .
I realize that I 'm over-simplifying and so will deal with my specific issue re .
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ( PTSD ) .
Three years ago my daughter was murdered .
Without question , my quickest path to any type of " relief " came from pills .
Equally without question , my only hope for long-term " relief " is from therapy .
But relief via therapy did n't come quickly and it certainly has n't come easily .
I 've had to interview literally dozens of therapists and psychologists to find a good fit ; even after the initial phone interview I 've gone to several in-person over the span of the past 3 1/2 years .
It 's not been an easy process ; certainly not as easy as opening a pill bottle ( not even the tricky kind with child-proof lids ) .
Fortunately I eventually found a psychologist that is working wonders for me ( baby steps ) and I 've successfully ended one med and am very slowly weaning myself from the other .
Understand though , we 're talking about hundreds of hours of therapy - not an easy proposition by any means - especially for those lacking not just insurance but also the flexibility to take time from work or school in the middle of the day to go to appointments .
Again , I recognize my oversimplification by speaking only to PTSD and only in my specific case .
I realize that in different situations that this may not apply , but in general feel that pills are considerably faster and more effective in the short-term .
The downside , at least in my case , is that the underlying issues would never be resolved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've not read all of the comments and imagine concurring opinions to mine are above; I just thought I'd add my personal story to the mix.
In my experience pills are much faster and much cheaper in the short run than therapy.
Issues re.
causation aside, it makes a great deal of sense that those lacking the funds and/or the time for full-blown therapy would instead be given pills.
Note that I said in the "short run"; at some point a lifetime of pills that is managing symptoms rather than underlying causes becomes more expensive.
I realize that I'm over-simplifying and so will deal with my specific issue re.
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
Three years ago my daughter was murdered.
Without question, my quickest path to any type of "relief" came from pills.
Equally without question, my only hope for long-term "relief" is from therapy.
But relief via therapy didn't come quickly and it certainly hasn't come easily.
I've had to interview literally dozens of therapists and psychologists to find a good fit; even after the initial phone interview I've gone to several in-person over the span of the past 3 1/2 years.
It's not been an easy process; certainly not as easy as opening a pill bottle (not even the tricky kind with child-proof lids).
Fortunately I eventually found a psychologist that is working wonders for me (baby steps) and I've successfully ended one med and am very slowly weaning myself from the other.
Understand though, we're talking about hundreds of hours of therapy - not an easy proposition by any means - especially for those lacking not just insurance but also the flexibility to take time from work or school in the middle of the day to go to appointments.
Again, I recognize my oversimplification by speaking only to PTSD and only in my specific case.
I realize that in different situations that this may not apply, but in general feel that pills are considerably faster and more effective in the short-term.
The downside, at least in my case, is that the underlying issues would never be resolved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426186</id>
	<title>Drug Lobbies?</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1260707640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Two possible explanations are offered: 'insurance reimbursements, as Medicaid often pays much less for counseling and therapy than private insurers do', and because of 'the challenges that families in poverty may have in consistently attending counseling or therapy sessions, even when such help is available'.</i></p><p>Interesting explanations, but they ignore the economics and politics of the issue. Medicaid is heavily influenced by politicians. Politicians are heavily influenced by lobbies. Lobbying money flows very heavily from drug companies.</p><p>Run it backwards: Lobbying money flows heavily from drug companies. Politicians are heavily influenced by drug companies. Medicaid is heavily influenced by drug companies.</p><p>There are almost certainly other significant factors at play, but to ignore the influence of drug pushers on our government is stunningly short-sighted.</p><p>Also consider the health care bill: They've removed the public option and kept the new law requiring people to buy health insurance. Who are they working for? I want everyone to have access to health care. This story, however, is a stark example of the risks of channeling public funds to corporations, and of channeling corporate profits to policy-makers. That is a self-reinforcing system that will destroy us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two possible explanations are offered : 'insurance reimbursements , as Medicaid often pays much less for counseling and therapy than private insurers do ' , and because of 'the challenges that families in poverty may have in consistently attending counseling or therapy sessions , even when such help is available'.Interesting explanations , but they ignore the economics and politics of the issue .
Medicaid is heavily influenced by politicians .
Politicians are heavily influenced by lobbies .
Lobbying money flows very heavily from drug companies.Run it backwards : Lobbying money flows heavily from drug companies .
Politicians are heavily influenced by drug companies .
Medicaid is heavily influenced by drug companies.There are almost certainly other significant factors at play , but to ignore the influence of drug pushers on our government is stunningly short-sighted.Also consider the health care bill : They 've removed the public option and kept the new law requiring people to buy health insurance .
Who are they working for ?
I want everyone to have access to health care .
This story , however , is a stark example of the risks of channeling public funds to corporations , and of channeling corporate profits to policy-makers .
That is a self-reinforcing system that will destroy us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two possible explanations are offered: 'insurance reimbursements, as Medicaid often pays much less for counseling and therapy than private insurers do', and because of 'the challenges that families in poverty may have in consistently attending counseling or therapy sessions, even when such help is available'.Interesting explanations, but they ignore the economics and politics of the issue.
Medicaid is heavily influenced by politicians.
Politicians are heavily influenced by lobbies.
Lobbying money flows very heavily from drug companies.Run it backwards: Lobbying money flows heavily from drug companies.
Politicians are heavily influenced by drug companies.
Medicaid is heavily influenced by drug companies.There are almost certainly other significant factors at play, but to ignore the influence of drug pushers on our government is stunningly short-sighted.Also consider the health care bill: They've removed the public option and kept the new law requiring people to buy health insurance.
Who are they working for?
I want everyone to have access to health care.
This story, however, is a stark example of the risks of channeling public funds to corporations, and of channeling corporate profits to policy-makers.
That is a self-reinforcing system that will destroy us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30428448</id>
	<title>maybe middle class families can't afford drugs</title>
	<author>jsepeta</author>
	<datestamp>1260731940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's also possible that middle class families can't afford drugs as well as poor folks who receive government assistance to buy the drugs.</p><p>or another option is that kids from poor backgrounds may have either a genetic disposition towards needing psychotropics, or their physical environment has stressors and other components (lead paint?) that make poor kids more susceptible to being psychotic.</p><p>i don't believe that there's one answer or a binary choice. there are a combination of variables, so more tests should be done with different sets of controls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's also possible that middle class families ca n't afford drugs as well as poor folks who receive government assistance to buy the drugs.or another option is that kids from poor backgrounds may have either a genetic disposition towards needing psychotropics , or their physical environment has stressors and other components ( lead paint ?
) that make poor kids more susceptible to being psychotic.i do n't believe that there 's one answer or a binary choice .
there are a combination of variables , so more tests should be done with different sets of controls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's also possible that middle class families can't afford drugs as well as poor folks who receive government assistance to buy the drugs.or another option is that kids from poor backgrounds may have either a genetic disposition towards needing psychotropics, or their physical environment has stressors and other components (lead paint?
) that make poor kids more susceptible to being psychotic.i don't believe that there's one answer or a binary choice.
there are a combination of variables, so more tests should be done with different sets of controls.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30430960</id>
	<title>Re:Confounding Variables</title>
	<author>JoeMerchant</author>
	<datestamp>1260806040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>maybe the poor kids are getting over-medicated by a government/drug company/new world order rich person conspiracy.</p></div><p>It's not usually a conspiracy, it's usually an emergent property of a system of mostly self-serving, uncaring actors.  That's why these things are studied and the lawmakers occasionally decide to change the rules to re-orient the self-serving actors to another course of action that will ultimately be better for society as a whole...<br> <br>Yeah, that happens sometimes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>maybe the poor kids are getting over-medicated by a government/drug company/new world order rich person conspiracy.It 's not usually a conspiracy , it 's usually an emergent property of a system of mostly self-serving , uncaring actors .
That 's why these things are studied and the lawmakers occasionally decide to change the rules to re-orient the self-serving actors to another course of action that will ultimately be better for society as a whole... Yeah , that happens sometimes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>maybe the poor kids are getting over-medicated by a government/drug company/new world order rich person conspiracy.It's not usually a conspiracy, it's usually an emergent property of a system of mostly self-serving, uncaring actors.
That's why these things are studied and the lawmakers occasionally decide to change the rules to re-orient the self-serving actors to another course of action that will ultimately be better for society as a whole... Yeah, that happens sometimes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425990</id>
	<title>Perhaps</title>
	<author>gad\_zuki!</author>
	<datestamp>1260706140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mental illness runs in the family and affects economic status.  So poor parents pass on their mentally ill genes to their kids thus their kids are more likely to be mentally ill and on some kind of treatment.  My own personal experience registers this is as true.  I see a lot of emotional problems, especially mood instability, with poorer people.  I wouldnt be surprised if this was a chicken and egg problem explained without the "OMG BIG GOVERNMENT/CAPITALIST CONSPIRACY" angle slashdot tends to sell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mental illness runs in the family and affects economic status .
So poor parents pass on their mentally ill genes to their kids thus their kids are more likely to be mentally ill and on some kind of treatment .
My own personal experience registers this is as true .
I see a lot of emotional problems , especially mood instability , with poorer people .
I wouldnt be surprised if this was a chicken and egg problem explained without the " OMG BIG GOVERNMENT/CAPITALIST CONSPIRACY " angle slashdot tends to sell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mental illness runs in the family and affects economic status.
So poor parents pass on their mentally ill genes to their kids thus their kids are more likely to be mentally ill and on some kind of treatment.
My own personal experience registers this is as true.
I see a lot of emotional problems, especially mood instability, with poorer people.
I wouldnt be surprised if this was a chicken and egg problem explained without the "OMG BIG GOVERNMENT/CAPITALIST CONSPIRACY" angle slashdot tends to sell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426208</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1260707820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Or the other way around.  Extra stress growing up/raising kids in poverty causes/exacerbates mental issues.
</p><p>
Life is complicated, but one thing's for sure: it sucks to be poor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or the other way around .
Extra stress growing up/raising kids in poverty causes/exacerbates mental issues .
Life is complicated , but one thing 's for sure : it sucks to be poor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Or the other way around.
Extra stress growing up/raising kids in poverty causes/exacerbates mental issues.
Life is complicated, but one thing's for sure: it sucks to be poor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427528</id>
	<title>Re:None of the Above</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260720420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Poor people can't litigate.</i></p><p>Hah! Perhaps you're not familiar with the very large medical malpractice industry, and most of these lawyers are paid on contingency.</p><p><i>It makes the drug companies look good by 'helping the poor', </i></p><p>If you bothered to read, you would have read that these drugs were paid for by medicare and medicaid, not the drug companies. The drug companies are not giving these drugs away, they are being sold.</p><p><i>and gives them lots of people to test their new drugs on.</i></p><p>More lies. To bring a new drug to market in the US, you have to go through lots &amp; lots of studies on lots &amp; lots of people.</p><p>Look, US health care has a lot of problems, and poor people generally have worse outcomes, but outright lies aren't going to help.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Poor people ca n't litigate.Hah !
Perhaps you 're not familiar with the very large medical malpractice industry , and most of these lawyers are paid on contingency.It makes the drug companies look good by 'helping the poor ' , If you bothered to read , you would have read that these drugs were paid for by medicare and medicaid , not the drug companies .
The drug companies are not giving these drugs away , they are being sold.and gives them lots of people to test their new drugs on.More lies .
To bring a new drug to market in the US , you have to go through lots &amp; lots of studies on lots &amp; lots of people.Look , US health care has a lot of problems , and poor people generally have worse outcomes , but outright lies are n't going to help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Poor people can't litigate.Hah!
Perhaps you're not familiar with the very large medical malpractice industry, and most of these lawyers are paid on contingency.It makes the drug companies look good by 'helping the poor', If you bothered to read, you would have read that these drugs were paid for by medicare and medicaid, not the drug companies.
The drug companies are not giving these drugs away, they are being sold.and gives them lots of people to test their new drugs on.More lies.
To bring a new drug to market in the US, you have to go through lots &amp; lots of studies on lots &amp; lots of people.Look, US health care has a lot of problems, and poor people generally have worse outcomes, but outright lies aren't going to help.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427590</id>
	<title>Re:Confounding Variables</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1260721080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"I've never seen someone use "correlation isn't causation" who understood what that means."</i>
<br> <br>
Quite right, it's a sound bite used by those who want to appear to be educated in statistics but fail to realise it demonstrates the opposite.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 've never seen someone use " correlation is n't causation " who understood what that means .
" Quite right , it 's a sound bite used by those who want to appear to be educated in statistics but fail to realise it demonstrates the opposite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I've never seen someone use "correlation isn't causation" who understood what that means.
"
 
Quite right, it's a sound bite used by those who want to appear to be educated in statistics but fail to realise it demonstrates the opposite.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30430788</id>
	<title>A quote from "Speed" explains it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260805140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Keanu Reeves: You're crazy! You're fuckin' crazy!</p><p>Dennis Hopper: NO! Poor people are crazy, Jack. I'm eccentric.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Keanu Reeves : You 're crazy !
You 're fuckin ' crazy ! Dennis Hopper : NO !
Poor people are crazy , Jack .
I 'm eccentric .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keanu Reeves: You're crazy!
You're fuckin' crazy!Dennis Hopper: NO!
Poor people are crazy, Jack.
I'm eccentric.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426010</id>
	<title>Confounding Variables</title>
	<author>TheMeuge</author>
	<datestamp>1260706320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I deeply despise these kinds of articles for the joke they make of statistical correlation.</p><p>I think they could all come with a giant "Correlation!=Causation" red box warning.</p><p>On one hand, maybe the poor kids are getting over-medicated by a government/drug company/new world order rich person conspiracy.<br>On the other, maybe it just so happens that more of the poor tend to have psychological problems, which would explain their (and their children's) difficulties in progressing up within the society.<br>Or the environment endured by the children of the poor would tend to be more damaging than the safe and comfortable environment that the children of the wealthy enjoy.</p><p>Without much more data, and without very careful prospective analysis, these "correlation" articles are little more than curiously interesting FUD.</p><p>However, since they tend to be part of the outrage machine, I think we ought to hold the writers personally responsible for the reactions that ensue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I deeply despise these kinds of articles for the joke they make of statistical correlation.I think they could all come with a giant " Correlation ! = Causation " red box warning.On one hand , maybe the poor kids are getting over-medicated by a government/drug company/new world order rich person conspiracy.On the other , maybe it just so happens that more of the poor tend to have psychological problems , which would explain their ( and their children 's ) difficulties in progressing up within the society.Or the environment endured by the children of the poor would tend to be more damaging than the safe and comfortable environment that the children of the wealthy enjoy.Without much more data , and without very careful prospective analysis , these " correlation " articles are little more than curiously interesting FUD.However , since they tend to be part of the outrage machine , I think we ought to hold the writers personally responsible for the reactions that ensue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I deeply despise these kinds of articles for the joke they make of statistical correlation.I think they could all come with a giant "Correlation!=Causation" red box warning.On one hand, maybe the poor kids are getting over-medicated by a government/drug company/new world order rich person conspiracy.On the other, maybe it just so happens that more of the poor tend to have psychological problems, which would explain their (and their children's) difficulties in progressing up within the society.Or the environment endured by the children of the poor would tend to be more damaging than the safe and comfortable environment that the children of the wealthy enjoy.Without much more data, and without very careful prospective analysis, these "correlation" articles are little more than curiously interesting FUD.However, since they tend to be part of the outrage machine, I think we ought to hold the writers personally responsible for the reactions that ensue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30431060</id>
	<title>Maybe it's backwards</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1260806580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe the rich kids are undermedicated.  Maybe if Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan had gotten the powerful anti-psychotics they needed, they'd not have had as much trouble.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the rich kids are undermedicated .
Maybe if Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan had gotten the powerful anti-psychotics they needed , they 'd not have had as much trouble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the rich kids are undermedicated.
Maybe if Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan had gotten the powerful anti-psychotics they needed, they'd not have had as much trouble.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426096</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps</title>
	<author>MindlessAutomata</author>
	<datestamp>1260706980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Usually, it's a "small government conspiracy!" angle, because a lack of government involvement is usually seen as the problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Usually , it 's a " small government conspiracy !
" angle , because a lack of government involvement is usually seen as the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Usually, it's a "small government conspiracy!
" angle, because a lack of government involvement is usually seen as the problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30430648</id>
	<title>Re:In the UK this would be very Skewed</title>
	<author>Inda</author>
	<datestamp>1260804420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been offered the pills, so I know they are sold. A tidy profit would be made too. If you were buying them from the pharmacy, which they are not because they on benefits, you can tripple your money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been offered the pills , so I know they are sold .
A tidy profit would be made too .
If you were buying them from the pharmacy , which they are not because they on benefits , you can tripple your money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been offered the pills, so I know they are sold.
A tidy profit would be made too.
If you were buying them from the pharmacy, which they are not because they on benefits, you can tripple your money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427466</id>
	<title>Re:Information outside of your expertise is danger</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260719580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your description of Abilify reads like an advertisement and makes me suspicious of whether you work for the manufacturer.  My experience with anti-psychotics is not nearly as glowing.  Fortunately, I've never needed to take anti-psychotics, but a family member did.  It was a nightmare dealing with someone who was having strange side effects, yet the doctor kept saying they shouldn't be happening.  Well they were.</p><p>Any psychiatrist who's being honest with you will admit that prescribing these drugs is at best an educated guess.  For some people they work, for others they can go horribly wrong.  After these experiences, anti-pyschotics would be my last resort for anyone I cared about.  What's more, I wouldn't even consider starting any of these drugs without in-patient hospital observation.</p><p>My last gripe about these drugs is their expense.  Around $400 a month for Abilify depending upon the dosage.  And usually Abilify is prescribed along with one or more other drugs.  Maybe add in some Seroquel plus Wellbutrin and now you're looking at about $600 per month.  Plus the cost of counseling and/or in-patient treatment.  It's no wonder the US healthcare system is screwed if poor kids are getting prescribed this 4x more than wealthier kids.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your description of Abilify reads like an advertisement and makes me suspicious of whether you work for the manufacturer .
My experience with anti-psychotics is not nearly as glowing .
Fortunately , I 've never needed to take anti-psychotics , but a family member did .
It was a nightmare dealing with someone who was having strange side effects , yet the doctor kept saying they should n't be happening .
Well they were.Any psychiatrist who 's being honest with you will admit that prescribing these drugs is at best an educated guess .
For some people they work , for others they can go horribly wrong .
After these experiences , anti-pyschotics would be my last resort for anyone I cared about .
What 's more , I would n't even consider starting any of these drugs without in-patient hospital observation.My last gripe about these drugs is their expense .
Around $ 400 a month for Abilify depending upon the dosage .
And usually Abilify is prescribed along with one or more other drugs .
Maybe add in some Seroquel plus Wellbutrin and now you 're looking at about $ 600 per month .
Plus the cost of counseling and/or in-patient treatment .
It 's no wonder the US healthcare system is screwed if poor kids are getting prescribed this 4x more than wealthier kids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your description of Abilify reads like an advertisement and makes me suspicious of whether you work for the manufacturer.
My experience with anti-psychotics is not nearly as glowing.
Fortunately, I've never needed to take anti-psychotics, but a family member did.
It was a nightmare dealing with someone who was having strange side effects, yet the doctor kept saying they shouldn't be happening.
Well they were.Any psychiatrist who's being honest with you will admit that prescribing these drugs is at best an educated guess.
For some people they work, for others they can go horribly wrong.
After these experiences, anti-pyschotics would be my last resort for anyone I cared about.
What's more, I wouldn't even consider starting any of these drugs without in-patient hospital observation.My last gripe about these drugs is their expense.
Around $400 a month for Abilify depending upon the dosage.
And usually Abilify is prescribed along with one or more other drugs.
Maybe add in some Seroquel plus Wellbutrin and now you're looking at about $600 per month.
Plus the cost of counseling and/or in-patient treatment.
It's no wonder the US healthcare system is screwed if poor kids are getting prescribed this 4x more than wealthier kids.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30429094</id>
	<title>PS:</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1260785700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's a pity the mods seem to have missed your genuinely insightfull post.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a pity the mods seem to have missed your genuinely insightfull post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a pity the mods seem to have missed your genuinely insightfull post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30431230</id>
	<title>Re:Confounding Variables</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1260807480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You haven't seen me use it then. You'd be right, except that most of the time these articles are posted before they've been properly peer reviewed leaving one with a possibly incorrect view of the issue. Ever notice how certain substances like alcohol and chocolate seem to go back and forth and back and forth in terms of health benefits?<br> <br>

In this case, there isn't any particular reason for believing that this is any different than immunizations. Poor people in the US are also more likely to have their kids vaccinated than the upper classes. Mainly because the government pays for the vaccination and the poorer parents are less likely to decline the mandatory vaccinations.<br> <br>

It's also been the case for some time that more affluent patients would be less likely to get a diagnosis even if the rates of treatment were the same and to have better access to alternatives like therapy.<br> <br>

As for tobacco and correlation, that's incredibly ignorant. Correlation is not causation is something that people rightly use in cases like this where people are assuming that the statistical analysis has proven something. Statistics doesn't prove anything ever, that's not what statistics is for. If you want to prove that smoking causes cancer then you have to do the lab work and find the thing in cigarettes which is causing the cancer. You can't just say that something causes cancer and then say that people shouldn't use it because it's a carcinogen, that's not how these things work and most of the time the result is wrong in a rather spectacular fashion. Smokers do a lot of other things which aren't healthy, pinning it definitively on the smoking requires justification. If the evidence were there like for emphysema and heart disease, that would be a totally different matter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have n't seen me use it then .
You 'd be right , except that most of the time these articles are posted before they 've been properly peer reviewed leaving one with a possibly incorrect view of the issue .
Ever notice how certain substances like alcohol and chocolate seem to go back and forth and back and forth in terms of health benefits ?
In this case , there is n't any particular reason for believing that this is any different than immunizations .
Poor people in the US are also more likely to have their kids vaccinated than the upper classes .
Mainly because the government pays for the vaccination and the poorer parents are less likely to decline the mandatory vaccinations .
It 's also been the case for some time that more affluent patients would be less likely to get a diagnosis even if the rates of treatment were the same and to have better access to alternatives like therapy .
As for tobacco and correlation , that 's incredibly ignorant .
Correlation is not causation is something that people rightly use in cases like this where people are assuming that the statistical analysis has proven something .
Statistics does n't prove anything ever , that 's not what statistics is for .
If you want to prove that smoking causes cancer then you have to do the lab work and find the thing in cigarettes which is causing the cancer .
You ca n't just say that something causes cancer and then say that people should n't use it because it 's a carcinogen , that 's not how these things work and most of the time the result is wrong in a rather spectacular fashion .
Smokers do a lot of other things which are n't healthy , pinning it definitively on the smoking requires justification .
If the evidence were there like for emphysema and heart disease , that would be a totally different matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You haven't seen me use it then.
You'd be right, except that most of the time these articles are posted before they've been properly peer reviewed leaving one with a possibly incorrect view of the issue.
Ever notice how certain substances like alcohol and chocolate seem to go back and forth and back and forth in terms of health benefits?
In this case, there isn't any particular reason for believing that this is any different than immunizations.
Poor people in the US are also more likely to have their kids vaccinated than the upper classes.
Mainly because the government pays for the vaccination and the poorer parents are less likely to decline the mandatory vaccinations.
It's also been the case for some time that more affluent patients would be less likely to get a diagnosis even if the rates of treatment were the same and to have better access to alternatives like therapy.
As for tobacco and correlation, that's incredibly ignorant.
Correlation is not causation is something that people rightly use in cases like this where people are assuming that the statistical analysis has proven something.
Statistics doesn't prove anything ever, that's not what statistics is for.
If you want to prove that smoking causes cancer then you have to do the lab work and find the thing in cigarettes which is causing the cancer.
You can't just say that something causes cancer and then say that people shouldn't use it because it's a carcinogen, that's not how these things work and most of the time the result is wrong in a rather spectacular fashion.
Smokers do a lot of other things which aren't healthy, pinning it definitively on the smoking requires justification.
If the evidence were there like for emphysema and heart disease, that would be a totally different matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427872</id>
	<title>Isn't it obvious?</title>
	<author>WrongMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1260724260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The drugs are being sold by "patients" or used recreationally. Prescription drug abuse is the prevalent type of drug use. This is easy money for the poor kids.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The drugs are being sold by " patients " or used recreationally .
Prescription drug abuse is the prevalent type of drug use .
This is easy money for the poor kids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The drugs are being sold by "patients" or used recreationally.
Prescription drug abuse is the prevalent type of drug use.
This is easy money for the poor kids.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30429970</id>
	<title>The parents need them more</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260799380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The kids are just acting nuts like their parents.  After all, you have to be nuts to have kids if you're poor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The kids are just acting nuts like their parents .
After all , you have to be nuts to have kids if you 're poor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The kids are just acting nuts like their parents.
After all, you have to be nuts to have kids if you're poor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30483102</id>
	<title>subtle eugenics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261066320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>dopamine receptor inhibitors, which is what these antipsychotics being discussed are, such as haloperidol, can permanently decrease libido and certainly decrease the likelyhood of reproducing. they also have severe and permanent side effects. i think its obvious and terrible that much of mental illness is due to problems (many social) that can be ameliorated or avoided with more money.</p><p>consider the impact of not being able to have peace. having all your neighbors constantly assault you with noise, because of their "right" to be constantly entertained and depend on the social surrogate of television. there are so many of these callous people that if you live in low cost housing such as a boarding house you are very likely out of luck when it comes to your need for peace and quiet. forget about being able to sleep early and wakeup early having had enough rest. this has  an obvious effect on sleep and so mental health. when you are chronically deficient in sleep because of the constraints of some people making noise until late. I think that if someone is more wealthy or  is simply more able to afford housing where they are not constantly tormented, even chronically at a low level, then they will completely avoid a whole spectrum of mental health issues, which can eventually become very serious and cause a person to become quite psychotic. i think should be class action suits against many landlords of boarding houses that are basically unsafe because of the negligence of the owners. often if someone is being particularly disturbing they will eventually be  removed but a constant level of stress and disturbance by almost everyone, in some cases created defensively to block out others disturbances, is still harmful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>dopamine receptor inhibitors , which is what these antipsychotics being discussed are , such as haloperidol , can permanently decrease libido and certainly decrease the likelyhood of reproducing .
they also have severe and permanent side effects .
i think its obvious and terrible that much of mental illness is due to problems ( many social ) that can be ameliorated or avoided with more money.consider the impact of not being able to have peace .
having all your neighbors constantly assault you with noise , because of their " right " to be constantly entertained and depend on the social surrogate of television .
there are so many of these callous people that if you live in low cost housing such as a boarding house you are very likely out of luck when it comes to your need for peace and quiet .
forget about being able to sleep early and wakeup early having had enough rest .
this has an obvious effect on sleep and so mental health .
when you are chronically deficient in sleep because of the constraints of some people making noise until late .
I think that if someone is more wealthy or is simply more able to afford housing where they are not constantly tormented , even chronically at a low level , then they will completely avoid a whole spectrum of mental health issues , which can eventually become very serious and cause a person to become quite psychotic .
i think should be class action suits against many landlords of boarding houses that are basically unsafe because of the negligence of the owners .
often if someone is being particularly disturbing they will eventually be removed but a constant level of stress and disturbance by almost everyone , in some cases created defensively to block out others disturbances , is still harmful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>dopamine receptor inhibitors, which is what these antipsychotics being discussed are, such as haloperidol, can permanently decrease libido and certainly decrease the likelyhood of reproducing.
they also have severe and permanent side effects.
i think its obvious and terrible that much of mental illness is due to problems (many social) that can be ameliorated or avoided with more money.consider the impact of not being able to have peace.
having all your neighbors constantly assault you with noise, because of their "right" to be constantly entertained and depend on the social surrogate of television.
there are so many of these callous people that if you live in low cost housing such as a boarding house you are very likely out of luck when it comes to your need for peace and quiet.
forget about being able to sleep early and wakeup early having had enough rest.
this has  an obvious effect on sleep and so mental health.
when you are chronically deficient in sleep because of the constraints of some people making noise until late.
I think that if someone is more wealthy or  is simply more able to afford housing where they are not constantly tormented, even chronically at a low level, then they will completely avoid a whole spectrum of mental health issues, which can eventually become very serious and cause a person to become quite psychotic.
i think should be class action suits against many landlords of boarding houses that are basically unsafe because of the negligence of the owners.
often if someone is being particularly disturbing they will eventually be  removed but a constant level of stress and disturbance by almost everyone, in some cases created defensively to block out others disturbances, is still harmful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30428136</id>
	<title>Problem?</title>
	<author>r00t</author>
	<datestamp>1260727440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So you are suggesting that there exists a sub class of humans which are more likely to be mentally ill? Seems like a straight path towards eugenics to me.</p></div><p>Wouldn't it be nice if future generations were smarter, more mentally stable, and less disabled?</p><p>Any dog breeder can trivially show you what happens when the defective ones breed. It's downright idiotic to suggest that things are any different with humans.</p><p>Right now we're doing the exact opposite of what any breeder would do. The results are entirely predictable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you are suggesting that there exists a sub class of humans which are more likely to be mentally ill ?
Seems like a straight path towards eugenics to me.Would n't it be nice if future generations were smarter , more mentally stable , and less disabled ? Any dog breeder can trivially show you what happens when the defective ones breed .
It 's downright idiotic to suggest that things are any different with humans.Right now we 're doing the exact opposite of what any breeder would do .
The results are entirely predictable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you are suggesting that there exists a sub class of humans which are more likely to be mentally ill?
Seems like a straight path towards eugenics to me.Wouldn't it be nice if future generations were smarter, more mentally stable, and less disabled?Any dog breeder can trivially show you what happens when the defective ones breed.
It's downright idiotic to suggest that things are any different with humans.Right now we're doing the exact opposite of what any breeder would do.
The results are entirely predictable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426178</id>
	<title>Healtscare system..</title>
	<author>arikol</author>
	<datestamp>1260707640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't this just an indicator of how broken the US health care system is.</p><p>I have a hard time imagining this to be a problem in this way in the countries which have good public health systems. I've never had to think about the cost of healthcare, that's what I pay taxes for. My neighbour doesn't have to worry about the cost of healthcare, that's what I pay taxes for.</p><p>We pay damn high taxes. The benefits are pretty big, though and completely worth it.</p><p>I decided to go to University after having worked for over ten years.<br>Fees for school?<br>Free (for a good university, well, any university).<br>That's what I've been paying taxes for.<br>The youngsters studying with me. I paid for their tuition too (or took part in that).</p><p>And it pleases me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this just an indicator of how broken the US health care system is.I have a hard time imagining this to be a problem in this way in the countries which have good public health systems .
I 've never had to think about the cost of healthcare , that 's what I pay taxes for .
My neighbour does n't have to worry about the cost of healthcare , that 's what I pay taxes for.We pay damn high taxes .
The benefits are pretty big , though and completely worth it.I decided to go to University after having worked for over ten years.Fees for school ? Free ( for a good university , well , any university ) .That 's what I 've been paying taxes for.The youngsters studying with me .
I paid for their tuition too ( or took part in that ) .And it pleases me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this just an indicator of how broken the US health care system is.I have a hard time imagining this to be a problem in this way in the countries which have good public health systems.
I've never had to think about the cost of healthcare, that's what I pay taxes for.
My neighbour doesn't have to worry about the cost of healthcare, that's what I pay taxes for.We pay damn high taxes.
The benefits are pretty big, though and completely worth it.I decided to go to University after having worked for over ten years.Fees for school?Free (for a good university, well, any university).That's what I've been paying taxes for.The youngsters studying with me.
I paid for their tuition too (or took part in that).And it pleases me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30428014</id>
	<title>Re:Parent pushback</title>
	<author>SoupIsGoodFood\_42</author>
	<datestamp>1260726000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Possibly. After all, they are more likely to be able to afford proper treatment. Good psychologists etc. are expensive. Then there's the time required. We have public psychologists in New Zealand, but there is still a waiting list.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Possibly .
After all , they are more likely to be able to afford proper treatment .
Good psychologists etc .
are expensive .
Then there 's the time required .
We have public psychologists in New Zealand , but there is still a waiting list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Possibly.
After all, they are more likely to be able to afford proper treatment.
Good psychologists etc.
are expensive.
Then there's the time required.
We have public psychologists in New Zealand, but there is still a waiting list.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30441208</id>
	<title>Re:emupaul</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260907380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is a lot more to the story I fail to mention only because it would seem to over the top for anyone to believe - "conspiracyish"</p></div><p>You've already said too much.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>windows 7 party</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a lot more to the story I fail to mention only because it would seem to over the top for anyone to believe - " conspiracyish " You 've already said too much.windows 7 party</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a lot more to the story I fail to mention only because it would seem to over the top for anyone to believe - "conspiracyish"You've already said too much.windows 7 party
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426020</id>
	<title>Nope!</title>
	<author>Greyfox</author>
	<datestamp>1260706380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the shoddy private insurance plans aren't dishing out enough antipsychotics compared to the better-managed state-run plans. Someone needs to put together a panel to look at ways to get private plans to step up to the plate and start dishing out antipsychotics on par with the state run plan!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the shoddy private insurance plans are n't dishing out enough antipsychotics compared to the better-managed state-run plans .
Someone needs to put together a panel to look at ways to get private plans to step up to the plate and start dishing out antipsychotics on par with the state run plan !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the shoddy private insurance plans aren't dishing out enough antipsychotics compared to the better-managed state-run plans.
Someone needs to put together a panel to look at ways to get private plans to step up to the plate and start dishing out antipsychotics on par with the state run plan!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425894</id>
	<title>Parent pushback</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260705360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could it be because middle class parents are more likely to push back against drug recommendations?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could it be because middle class parents are more likely to push back against drug recommendations ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could it be because middle class parents are more likely to push back against drug recommendations?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426632</id>
	<title>"news for nerds" or "news for US nerds" ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260712320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My opinion on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. as a system (from a nerds perspective) isn't that great. A CMS which can't even delete an entry in its back-side database?  Come on!</p><p>But being a EU citizen I cannot help wonder if<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. maybe isn't aware of its impact on the Net. More and more do I see stories which solely impact the US and absolutely don't qualify in the common statement "news for nerds".</p><p>WTF?</p><p>So what gives guys?  News for nerds or News for <b>US</b> nerds?  Being a nerd I say you can't have it both ways you know; "the Net is vast and infinite" and it will certainly cross common Earth like borders.</p><p>Or is such a criticized comment "too nerdy" all of a sudden ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My opinion on / .
as a system ( from a nerds perspective ) is n't that great .
A CMS which ca n't even delete an entry in its back-side database ?
Come on ! But being a EU citizen I can not help wonder if / .
maybe is n't aware of its impact on the Net .
More and more do I see stories which solely impact the US and absolutely do n't qualify in the common statement " news for nerds " .WTF ? So what gives guys ?
News for nerds or News for US nerds ?
Being a nerd I say you ca n't have it both ways you know ; " the Net is vast and infinite " and it will certainly cross common Earth like borders.Or is such a criticized comment " too nerdy " all of a sudden ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My opinion on /.
as a system (from a nerds perspective) isn't that great.
A CMS which can't even delete an entry in its back-side database?
Come on!But being a EU citizen I cannot help wonder if /.
maybe isn't aware of its impact on the Net.
More and more do I see stories which solely impact the US and absolutely don't qualify in the common statement "news for nerds".WTF?So what gives guys?
News for nerds or News for US nerds?
Being a nerd I say you can't have it both ways you know; "the Net is vast and infinite" and it will certainly cross common Earth like borders.Or is such a criticized comment "too nerdy" all of a sudden ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425952</id>
	<title>Note about the link</title>
	<author>snl2587</author>
	<datestamp>1260705840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless things have changed, the NYTimes links are not actually behind a "paywall", just behind a login (which is free as far as I remember).</p><p>In other words, feel "free" to RTFA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless things have changed , the NYTimes links are not actually behind a " paywall " , just behind a login ( which is free as far as I remember ) .In other words , feel " free " to RTFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless things have changed, the NYTimes links are not actually behind a "paywall", just behind a login (which is free as far as I remember).In other words, feel "free" to RTFA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425998</id>
	<title>Bi-Polar at Three?</title>
	<author>Pantero Blanco</author>
	<datestamp>1260706200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"They say it's impossible to stop now," Evelyn Torres, 48, of the Bronx, said of her son's use of antipsychotics since he received a diagnosis of bipolar disorder at age 3.</p></div><p>Okay, I understand that it's possible for three-year-olds to be bipolar, but how on Earth do you reliably test for that?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" They say it 's impossible to stop now , " Evelyn Torres , 48 , of the Bronx , said of her son 's use of antipsychotics since he received a diagnosis of bipolar disorder at age 3.Okay , I understand that it 's possible for three-year-olds to be bipolar , but how on Earth do you reliably test for that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"They say it's impossible to stop now," Evelyn Torres, 48, of the Bronx, said of her son's use of antipsychotics since he received a diagnosis of bipolar disorder at age 3.Okay, I understand that it's possible for three-year-olds to be bipolar, but how on Earth do you reliably test for that?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30428626</id>
	<title>Re:Information outside of your expertise is danger</title>
	<author>shrimppesto</author>
	<datestamp>1260821820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Getting a drug approved in the first place requires a fairly rigorous process of double-blind, peer-reviewed studies. But once it's approved for a particular use, there is no similar level of rigorous screening before it can be prescribed off-label for other, unapproved uses.</p></div><p>This is only true in theory.  The data is often not as rigorous as we would like it to be (e.g. ezetimibe, which was approved without any mortality data, whose efficacy is now being questioned).  Meanwhile, many "off-label" uses are actually backed by very strong evidence, but no one [not even the FDA] bothers getting the "label" for the indication because the drug is already on the market.  The various professional organizations that publish treatment guidelines tend to do a much better job of reviewing the evidence than the FDA does.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Getting a drug approved in the first place requires a fairly rigorous process of double-blind , peer-reviewed studies .
But once it 's approved for a particular use , there is no similar level of rigorous screening before it can be prescribed off-label for other , unapproved uses.This is only true in theory .
The data is often not as rigorous as we would like it to be ( e.g .
ezetimibe , which was approved without any mortality data , whose efficacy is now being questioned ) .
Meanwhile , many " off-label " uses are actually backed by very strong evidence , but no one [ not even the FDA ] bothers getting the " label " for the indication because the drug is already on the market .
The various professional organizations that publish treatment guidelines tend to do a much better job of reviewing the evidence than the FDA does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Getting a drug approved in the first place requires a fairly rigorous process of double-blind, peer-reviewed studies.
But once it's approved for a particular use, there is no similar level of rigorous screening before it can be prescribed off-label for other, unapproved uses.This is only true in theory.
The data is often not as rigorous as we would like it to be (e.g.
ezetimibe, which was approved without any mortality data, whose efficacy is now being questioned).
Meanwhile, many "off-label" uses are actually backed by very strong evidence, but no one [not even the FDA] bothers getting the "label" for the indication because the drug is already on the market.
The various professional organizations that publish treatment guidelines tend to do a much better job of reviewing the evidence than the FDA does.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427868</id>
	<title>Re:Nope!</title>
	<author>dmr001</author>
	<datestamp>1260724200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess you meant this to be modded "funny," but then it' truer than you know. Medicaid insurance in most states typically has no copays (patients would not be able to afford it), whereas a 50\% copay (typical around here for brand name drugs) on a typical dose of, say, Abilify, would be $250. A month.
<p>
Brand name psych meds are one of the few expensive things on the drug formulary in our state - for now. I suspect this is cost effective, since having people with thought disorders push innocent citizens in front of buses would be truly cost prohibitive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess you meant this to be modded " funny , " but then it ' truer than you know .
Medicaid insurance in most states typically has no copays ( patients would not be able to afford it ) , whereas a 50 \ % copay ( typical around here for brand name drugs ) on a typical dose of , say , Abilify , would be $ 250 .
A month .
Brand name psych meds are one of the few expensive things on the drug formulary in our state - for now .
I suspect this is cost effective , since having people with thought disorders push innocent citizens in front of buses would be truly cost prohibitive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess you meant this to be modded "funny," but then it' truer than you know.
Medicaid insurance in most states typically has no copays (patients would not be able to afford it), whereas a 50\% copay (typical around here for brand name drugs) on a typical dose of, say, Abilify, would be $250.
A month.
Brand name psych meds are one of the few expensive things on the drug formulary in our state - for now.
I suspect this is cost effective, since having people with thought disorders push innocent citizens in front of buses would be truly cost prohibitive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30428020</id>
	<title>Re:Confounding Variables</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260726000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've never seen someone use "correlation isn't causation" who understood what that means.</p> </div><p>Well, <a href="http://www.google.com/trends?q=global+warming\%2C+pirates&amp;ctab=0&amp;geo=all&amp;date=mtd&amp;sort=0" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">here</a> [google.com] is a quick lesson for them.</p><p>FYI, we do know what it means.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never seen someone use " correlation is n't causation " who understood what that means .
Well , here [ google.com ] is a quick lesson for them.FYI , we do know what it means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never seen someone use "correlation isn't causation" who understood what that means.
Well, here [google.com] is a quick lesson for them.FYI, we do know what it means.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426972</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30430320</id>
	<title>It is partly that newer drugs are under patent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260802320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anti-psychotics have been around a long time, the major ones are all out of patent and generic versions exist, the more targeted medications for psychological conditions came later and tend to still be under patent. A doctor at a clinic is not going to prescribe trileptal and ambien, even though they are actually the best for the patient if they know they can't pay the $300/month needed for the drug. They are going to prescribe risperdal and temazepam because at least the patient will at least be able to get them and something is better than nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anti-psychotics have been around a long time , the major ones are all out of patent and generic versions exist , the more targeted medications for psychological conditions came later and tend to still be under patent .
A doctor at a clinic is not going to prescribe trileptal and ambien , even though they are actually the best for the patient if they know they ca n't pay the $ 300/month needed for the drug .
They are going to prescribe risperdal and temazepam because at least the patient will at least be able to get them and something is better than nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anti-psychotics have been around a long time, the major ones are all out of patent and generic versions exist, the more targeted medications for psychological conditions came later and tend to still be under patent.
A doctor at a clinic is not going to prescribe trileptal and ambien, even though they are actually the best for the patient if they know they can't pay the $300/month needed for the drug.
They are going to prescribe risperdal and temazepam because at least the patient will at least be able to get them and something is better than nothing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426094</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260706920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So you are suggesting that there exists a sub class of humans which are more likely to be mentally ill? Seems like a straight path towards eugenics to me. As for your statement how this is going to be used as a "OMG BIG GOVERNMENT/CAPITALIST CONSPIRACY:" who needs a capitalist conspiracy when we can 'scientifically justify' the position of people in society?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So you are suggesting that there exists a sub class of humans which are more likely to be mentally ill ?
Seems like a straight path towards eugenics to me .
As for your statement how this is going to be used as a " OMG BIG GOVERNMENT/CAPITALIST CONSPIRACY : " who needs a capitalist conspiracy when we can 'scientifically justify ' the position of people in society ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you are suggesting that there exists a sub class of humans which are more likely to be mentally ill?
Seems like a straight path towards eugenics to me.
As for your statement how this is going to be used as a "OMG BIG GOVERNMENT/CAPITALIST CONSPIRACY:" who needs a capitalist conspiracy when we can 'scientifically justify' the position of people in society?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426368</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps</title>
	<author>Ironsides</author>
	<datestamp>1260709740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm pretty sure a "sub class of humans" isn't what the OP meant.  However, several mental diseases such as bi-polar and alzheimer's do have genetic causes and run in families.  Sad, but true.  Similarly, these diseases make it more difficult to succeed, not impossible, just something that raises the bar.  This would be more along this lines of those who have mental diseases are more likely to be poor, which would be interesting to study.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure a " sub class of humans " is n't what the OP meant .
However , several mental diseases such as bi-polar and alzheimer 's do have genetic causes and run in families .
Sad , but true .
Similarly , these diseases make it more difficult to succeed , not impossible , just something that raises the bar .
This would be more along this lines of those who have mental diseases are more likely to be poor , which would be interesting to study .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure a "sub class of humans" isn't what the OP meant.
However, several mental diseases such as bi-polar and alzheimer's do have genetic causes and run in families.
Sad, but true.
Similarly, these diseases make it more difficult to succeed, not impossible, just something that raises the bar.
This would be more along this lines of those who have mental diseases are more likely to be poor, which would be interesting to study.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426320</id>
	<title>In the UK this would be very Skewed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260709020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there any allowance for children with mental problems eg.ADHD in the US?</p><p>In the UK it is not unknown for jobless families to seek to get their children diagnosed with ADHD in order to get a Disability Living Allowance. A bonus benifit designed to help pay for the extra care a disabled child would need.</p><p>Of course there is nothing wrong with little Timmy and the parents know this too so they don't give them the pills.</p><p>They do still pick up the prescriptions (to keep the diagnosis going) and drugs but end up dumping them. Occasionally get a bagfull of around a years supply of the stuff left in to the Pharmacy to be disposed of anonymously or worse dumped in the street.</p><p>Sounds cynical of me I know but people aren't beyond pushing their kids to do this when they themselves are very keen to be classed as sick because allowances are higher than those for the well jobless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there any allowance for children with mental problems eg.ADHD in the US ? In the UK it is not unknown for jobless families to seek to get their children diagnosed with ADHD in order to get a Disability Living Allowance .
A bonus benifit designed to help pay for the extra care a disabled child would need.Of course there is nothing wrong with little Timmy and the parents know this too so they do n't give them the pills.They do still pick up the prescriptions ( to keep the diagnosis going ) and drugs but end up dumping them .
Occasionally get a bagfull of around a years supply of the stuff left in to the Pharmacy to be disposed of anonymously or worse dumped in the street.Sounds cynical of me I know but people are n't beyond pushing their kids to do this when they themselves are very keen to be classed as sick because allowances are higher than those for the well jobless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there any allowance for children with mental problems eg.ADHD in the US?In the UK it is not unknown for jobless families to seek to get their children diagnosed with ADHD in order to get a Disability Living Allowance.
A bonus benifit designed to help pay for the extra care a disabled child would need.Of course there is nothing wrong with little Timmy and the parents know this too so they don't give them the pills.They do still pick up the prescriptions (to keep the diagnosis going) and drugs but end up dumping them.
Occasionally get a bagfull of around a years supply of the stuff left in to the Pharmacy to be disposed of anonymously or worse dumped in the street.Sounds cynical of me I know but people aren't beyond pushing their kids to do this when they themselves are very keen to be classed as sick because allowances are higher than those for the well jobless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427682</id>
	<title>It's all covered right here.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260722220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.freemoviescinema.com/movies/documentary/2598-fall-of-the-republic-the-presidency-of-barack-h-obama-2009.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.freemoviescinema.com/movies/documentary/2598-fall-of-the-republic-the-presidency-of-barack-h-obama-2009.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.freemoviescinema.com/movies/documentary/2598-fall-of-the-republic-the-presidency-of-barack-h-obama-2009.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426160</id>
	<title>Re:Confounding Variables</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1260707520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article <i>is</i> actually normalized for one of your claimed possible confounds, the variance of psychological problems by socioeconomic position. The finding isn't just that the poor get more antipsychotics full stop, but that the poor <i>with the same diagnosis as a wealthy person</i> are more likely to be treated with antipsychotics for that condition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article is actually normalized for one of your claimed possible confounds , the variance of psychological problems by socioeconomic position .
The finding is n't just that the poor get more antipsychotics full stop , but that the poor with the same diagnosis as a wealthy person are more likely to be treated with antipsychotics for that condition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article is actually normalized for one of your claimed possible confounds, the variance of psychological problems by socioeconomic position.
The finding isn't just that the poor get more antipsychotics full stop, but that the poor with the same diagnosis as a wealthy person are more likely to be treated with antipsychotics for that condition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425838</id>
	<title>The short answer...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260704940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...yes.</p><p>But how do I back up such a horrifying claim? By analyzing the current state of affairs in our world today, and I can only draw conclusions from our countrys actions lately. A while ago, we had the news investigators claim that poor &amp; unemployed people get showed back in the queue when it comes to medical attention, medicines and treatment. Incredibly enough - our government admitted that it was a problem, and further investigations showed that the doctors "general" reasons for doing so - wasn't motivated by the government - but by the fact that these people held a job, a position in the society - and thus were a better "investment" for the future.</p><p>Also - the doctors pointed out that "people with a position in society" were less likely to complain about mistreatments and other complaints, as the poor were more prone to lawsuits and false claims for monetary reasons, rather than real facts. This were all the rage on Danish TV a while ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...yes.But how do I back up such a horrifying claim ?
By analyzing the current state of affairs in our world today , and I can only draw conclusions from our countrys actions lately .
A while ago , we had the news investigators claim that poor &amp; unemployed people get showed back in the queue when it comes to medical attention , medicines and treatment .
Incredibly enough - our government admitted that it was a problem , and further investigations showed that the doctors " general " reasons for doing so - was n't motivated by the government - but by the fact that these people held a job , a position in the society - and thus were a better " investment " for the future.Also - the doctors pointed out that " people with a position in society " were less likely to complain about mistreatments and other complaints , as the poor were more prone to lawsuits and false claims for monetary reasons , rather than real facts .
This were all the rage on Danish TV a while ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...yes.But how do I back up such a horrifying claim?
By analyzing the current state of affairs in our world today, and I can only draw conclusions from our countrys actions lately.
A while ago, we had the news investigators claim that poor &amp; unemployed people get showed back in the queue when it comes to medical attention, medicines and treatment.
Incredibly enough - our government admitted that it was a problem, and further investigations showed that the doctors "general" reasons for doing so - wasn't motivated by the government - but by the fact that these people held a job, a position in the society - and thus were a better "investment" for the future.Also - the doctors pointed out that "people with a position in society" were less likely to complain about mistreatments and other complaints, as the poor were more prone to lawsuits and false claims for monetary reasons, rather than real facts.
This were all the rage on Danish TV a while ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30428298</id>
	<title>Re:Parent pushback</title>
	<author>ajlisows</author>
	<datestamp>1260729660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Could it be because middle class parents are more likely to push back against drug recommendations?</p></div><p>I'll be talking in sweeping generalities that could be off base, but here are some thoughts on that...</p><p>Possibly...it would probably be hard to get any real numbers on this though.  I would think that Middle Class parents are more likely to recognize behavior as a problem and take the kid to a doctor ("Little Billy is acting way out of control, we better do something about it") where poor parents might recognize the problem and not care enough, recognize the problem and not have the money, or not recognize the problem at all ("Yeah, little Jimmy likes to torture dead animals....but I just smack him around when he does that") </p><p>The most important "I'm taking this kid to the doctor" factor could also be societal pressure on the middle class.  Middle class parents tend to want to appear outwardly as a good stable family.  Having a really fucked up kid kind of ruins this image.  I think a lot of them would do anything to prevent it, including medicating the hell out of the kid.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could it be because middle class parents are more likely to push back against drug recommendations ? I 'll be talking in sweeping generalities that could be off base , but here are some thoughts on that...Possibly...it would probably be hard to get any real numbers on this though .
I would think that Middle Class parents are more likely to recognize behavior as a problem and take the kid to a doctor ( " Little Billy is acting way out of control , we better do something about it " ) where poor parents might recognize the problem and not care enough , recognize the problem and not have the money , or not recognize the problem at all ( " Yeah , little Jimmy likes to torture dead animals....but I just smack him around when he does that " ) The most important " I 'm taking this kid to the doctor " factor could also be societal pressure on the middle class .
Middle class parents tend to want to appear outwardly as a good stable family .
Having a really fucked up kid kind of ruins this image .
I think a lot of them would do anything to prevent it , including medicating the hell out of the kid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could it be because middle class parents are more likely to push back against drug recommendations?I'll be talking in sweeping generalities that could be off base, but here are some thoughts on that...Possibly...it would probably be hard to get any real numbers on this though.
I would think that Middle Class parents are more likely to recognize behavior as a problem and take the kid to a doctor ("Little Billy is acting way out of control, we better do something about it") where poor parents might recognize the problem and not care enough, recognize the problem and not have the money, or not recognize the problem at all ("Yeah, little Jimmy likes to torture dead animals....but I just smack him around when he does that") The most important "I'm taking this kid to the doctor" factor could also be societal pressure on the middle class.
Middle class parents tend to want to appear outwardly as a good stable family.
Having a really fucked up kid kind of ruins this image.
I think a lot of them would do anything to prevent it, including medicating the hell out of the kid.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426236</id>
	<title>Re:Nope!</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1260708060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh no! Not the dreaded PSYCHO PANEL!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh no !
Not the dreaded PSYCHO PANEL !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh no!
Not the dreaded PSYCHO PANEL!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426020</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427720</id>
	<title>the answer is the American way of life</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260722700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's our way of life that breeds all these mental and emotional problems. Less contact with extended family. Pushing kids off on their own at age 0 so the parents and work double and scrap by. That alone probably accounts for half of it. A huge part of the other half is probably having no role models as kids or especially teenagers other than commercials... and what does that stuff teach? Buy this and that for happiness, but you have to be married and perfect to really be happy. Eat fast food, but be skinny. Be cool, but don't do anything the cool kids do. Don't do drugs, but drink beer. Etc.</p><p>And I think lazy ass parents just let people talk them into drugging up their kids so they can cope. Really disgusts me from every angle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's our way of life that breeds all these mental and emotional problems .
Less contact with extended family .
Pushing kids off on their own at age 0 so the parents and work double and scrap by .
That alone probably accounts for half of it .
A huge part of the other half is probably having no role models as kids or especially teenagers other than commercials... and what does that stuff teach ?
Buy this and that for happiness , but you have to be married and perfect to really be happy .
Eat fast food , but be skinny .
Be cool , but do n't do anything the cool kids do .
Do n't do drugs , but drink beer .
Etc.And I think lazy ass parents just let people talk them into drugging up their kids so they can cope .
Really disgusts me from every angle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's our way of life that breeds all these mental and emotional problems.
Less contact with extended family.
Pushing kids off on their own at age 0 so the parents and work double and scrap by.
That alone probably accounts for half of it.
A huge part of the other half is probably having no role models as kids or especially teenagers other than commercials... and what does that stuff teach?
Buy this and that for happiness, but you have to be married and perfect to really be happy.
Eat fast food, but be skinny.
Be cool, but don't do anything the cool kids do.
Don't do drugs, but drink beer.
Etc.And I think lazy ass parents just let people talk them into drugging up their kids so they can cope.
Really disgusts me from every angle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30429032</id>
	<title>Re:is this restricted to medicare?</title>
	<author>JAlexoi</author>
	<datestamp>1260784620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mostly, in Europe, doctors are encouraged to minimize drugs. Most actually do minimize, based on the severity of the case. Even antibiotics are considered only if they are really needed.<br>
I'm was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, my medication is at a minimal level and I was recommended to move to or live with immediate family or closest friends, so that they can "monitor" me. And a regiment of sporting activities.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mostly , in Europe , doctors are encouraged to minimize drugs .
Most actually do minimize , based on the severity of the case .
Even antibiotics are considered only if they are really needed .
I 'm was diagnosed with bipolar disorder , my medication is at a minimal level and I was recommended to move to or live with immediate family or closest friends , so that they can " monitor " me .
And a regiment of sporting activities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mostly, in Europe, doctors are encouraged to minimize drugs.
Most actually do minimize, based on the severity of the case.
Even antibiotics are considered only if they are really needed.
I'm was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, my medication is at a minimal level and I was recommended to move to or live with immediate family or closest friends, so that they can "monitor" me.
And a regiment of sporting activities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425904</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426798</id>
	<title>bypass the login</title>
	<author>kevv</author>
	<datestamp>1260713760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I didn't want to create an account/login so I google-news'd the title and voila !</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't want to create an account/login so I google-news 'd the title and voila !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't want to create an account/login so I google-news'd the title and voila !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427296</id>
	<title>emupaul</title>
	<author>the\_orginal\_emupaul</author>
	<datestamp>1260717840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I went through a mental psychosis episode after mixing music for a windows 7 party i was preparing to hosting  &amp; smoking some super strong weed. I peeked and It looked as though I broke enlightenment my room glowed a bright yellow I -  then blacked out a few times and had realistic hallucinations even thought a Jay'z and Kayne was having a party out side my door, I told my dad I found jesus and I had him by the balls (was holding two silver zen balls) then eventually woke up on my bed to find my mom sitting on my coach with a bible in her hand.

Anyway my mom and dad where very concerned I guess and for some reason or another they took me to the local hospital (Swedish American) then after-wards a cop drove me to the mental institution called H Douglas Singer Mental Health Center (Rockford IL) I was there 9  days but it felt like less I held against my will (its basically a huge prison) Anyway on the day of my release I was prescribed Risperidone 2mil 1in morning 3mil at night for sleep since I have trouble sleeping anyway that drug is not cheap! if your uninsured at  walgreens 30pills cost $190. I stopped using cause it was making me feel worse and  I was recently prescribed Seroquel 200mg in the morning and 200mg at night it slows my thoughts down so I don't think as fast (racing thoughts that usually focus and 1 2 or 3 words over and over again) anyway I also noticed a minor side effect...I noticed after taking it for a the first week I stopped dreaming it seems I never get to REM. Anyway I really don't know why im sharing this but I read slashdot everyday and never comment and since this was was kind of relevant to some events in my life i thought I would share. There is a lot more to the story I fail to mention only because it would seem to over the top for anyone to believe - "conspiracyish"</htmltext>
<tokenext>I went through a mental psychosis episode after mixing music for a windows 7 party i was preparing to hosting &amp; smoking some super strong weed .
I peeked and It looked as though I broke enlightenment my room glowed a bright yellow I - then blacked out a few times and had realistic hallucinations even thought a Jay'z and Kayne was having a party out side my door , I told my dad I found jesus and I had him by the balls ( was holding two silver zen balls ) then eventually woke up on my bed to find my mom sitting on my coach with a bible in her hand .
Anyway my mom and dad where very concerned I guess and for some reason or another they took me to the local hospital ( Swedish American ) then after-wards a cop drove me to the mental institution called H Douglas Singer Mental Health Center ( Rockford IL ) I was there 9 days but it felt like less I held against my will ( its basically a huge prison ) Anyway on the day of my release I was prescribed Risperidone 2mil 1in morning 3mil at night for sleep since I have trouble sleeping anyway that drug is not cheap !
if your uninsured at walgreens 30pills cost $ 190 .
I stopped using cause it was making me feel worse and I was recently prescribed Seroquel 200mg in the morning and 200mg at night it slows my thoughts down so I do n't think as fast ( racing thoughts that usually focus and 1 2 or 3 words over and over again ) anyway I also noticed a minor side effect...I noticed after taking it for a the first week I stopped dreaming it seems I never get to REM .
Anyway I really do n't know why im sharing this but I read slashdot everyday and never comment and since this was was kind of relevant to some events in my life i thought I would share .
There is a lot more to the story I fail to mention only because it would seem to over the top for anyone to believe - " conspiracyish "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I went through a mental psychosis episode after mixing music for a windows 7 party i was preparing to hosting  &amp; smoking some super strong weed.
I peeked and It looked as though I broke enlightenment my room glowed a bright yellow I -  then blacked out a few times and had realistic hallucinations even thought a Jay'z and Kayne was having a party out side my door, I told my dad I found jesus and I had him by the balls (was holding two silver zen balls) then eventually woke up on my bed to find my mom sitting on my coach with a bible in her hand.
Anyway my mom and dad where very concerned I guess and for some reason or another they took me to the local hospital (Swedish American) then after-wards a cop drove me to the mental institution called H Douglas Singer Mental Health Center (Rockford IL) I was there 9  days but it felt like less I held against my will (its basically a huge prison) Anyway on the day of my release I was prescribed Risperidone 2mil 1in morning 3mil at night for sleep since I have trouble sleeping anyway that drug is not cheap!
if your uninsured at  walgreens 30pills cost $190.
I stopped using cause it was making me feel worse and  I was recently prescribed Seroquel 200mg in the morning and 200mg at night it slows my thoughts down so I don't think as fast (racing thoughts that usually focus and 1 2 or 3 words over and over again) anyway I also noticed a minor side effect...I noticed after taking it for a the first week I stopped dreaming it seems I never get to REM.
Anyway I really don't know why im sharing this but I read slashdot everyday and never comment and since this was was kind of relevant to some events in my life i thought I would share.
There is a lot more to the story I fail to mention only because it would seem to over the top for anyone to believe - "conspiracyish"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426896</id>
	<title>Kids get off my **** lawn!</title>
	<author>MonsterMasher</author>
	<datestamp>1260714360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; I've watched many kids in public and the true answer seems clear;</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Most dam kids are not getting enough of those drugs!</p><p>Perhaps the parents of middle and rich classes are just not giving kids enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>  I 've watched many kids in public and the true answer seems clear ;         Most dam kids are not getting enough of those drugs ! Perhaps the parents of middle and rich classes are just not giving kids enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  I've watched many kids in public and the true answer seems clear;
        Most dam kids are not getting enough of those drugs!Perhaps the parents of middle and rich classes are just not giving kids enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426528</id>
	<title>mental illnesses are hereditary</title>
	<author>Kartoffel</author>
	<datestamp>1260711420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Poor people are more likely to have mental illness than average-income people. Mental illness runs in families.  Are poor children more likely to need antipsychotic meds than children in average-income?  Yeah, probably.</p><p>Next up: Poorer Children More Likely to Get Free School Lunches. Film at 11!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Poor people are more likely to have mental illness than average-income people .
Mental illness runs in families .
Are poor children more likely to need antipsychotic meds than children in average-income ?
Yeah , probably.Next up : Poorer Children More Likely to Get Free School Lunches .
Film at 11 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Poor people are more likely to have mental illness than average-income people.
Mental illness runs in families.
Are poor children more likely to need antipsychotic meds than children in average-income?
Yeah, probably.Next up: Poorer Children More Likely to Get Free School Lunches.
Film at 11!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426182</id>
	<title>Re:Note about the link</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260707640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you have firefox, download the RefControl extension. Set it so that all pages from nytimes.com have a referrer of <a href="http://google.com/" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://google.com/</a> [google.com] and suddenly you don't need to log in. I suppose you could also enter the URL into google and then click the result.</p><p>Personally, I hate the referrer and disable it for sites not absolutely requiring it. Sites absolutely requiring it get spoofs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have firefox , download the RefControl extension .
Set it so that all pages from nytimes.com have a referrer of http : //google.com/ [ google.com ] and suddenly you do n't need to log in .
I suppose you could also enter the URL into google and then click the result.Personally , I hate the referrer and disable it for sites not absolutely requiring it .
Sites absolutely requiring it get spoofs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have firefox, download the RefControl extension.
Set it so that all pages from nytimes.com have a referrer of http://google.com/ [google.com] and suddenly you don't need to log in.
I suppose you could also enter the URL into google and then click the result.Personally, I hate the referrer and disable it for sites not absolutely requiring it.
Sites absolutely requiring it get spoofs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427448</id>
	<title>To be fair...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260719280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/news/new\_study\_reveals\_most\_children" title="theonion.com" rel="nofollow">Most children are unrepentant sociopaths.</a> [theonion.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most children are unrepentant sociopaths .
[ theonion.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Most children are unrepentant sociopaths.
[theonion.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426382</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps</title>
	<author>cenc</author>
	<datestamp>1260709920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about the suggestion that medical community and society as whole has evolved western medicine over a 1,000 years that defines abnormal behaviors and abnormal physical conditions around what is also deemed "poor".</p><p>The history of the IQ test is a case in point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about the suggestion that medical community and society as whole has evolved western medicine over a 1,000 years that defines abnormal behaviors and abnormal physical conditions around what is also deemed " poor " .The history of the IQ test is a case in point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about the suggestion that medical community and society as whole has evolved western medicine over a 1,000 years that defines abnormal behaviors and abnormal physical conditions around what is also deemed "poor".The history of the IQ test is a case in point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426138</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps</title>
	<author>krou</author>
	<datestamp>1260707340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because mental illnesses may be more common amongst poorer people doesn't explain why they are more likely to be given drugs. Please also note the line that says "Medicaid children are more likely to receive the drugs for <i>less severe conditions</i> than their middle-class counterparts". If they're less severe in nature, then why the drugs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because mental illnesses may be more common amongst poorer people does n't explain why they are more likely to be given drugs .
Please also note the line that says " Medicaid children are more likely to receive the drugs for less severe conditions than their middle-class counterparts " .
If they 're less severe in nature , then why the drugs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because mental illnesses may be more common amongst poorer people doesn't explain why they are more likely to be given drugs.
Please also note the line that says "Medicaid children are more likely to receive the drugs for less severe conditions than their middle-class counterparts".
If they're less severe in nature, then why the drugs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426676</id>
	<title>Re:Confounding Variables</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1260712560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, none of those options (all of which are indeed plausible) reflect all that well on our society.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , none of those options ( all of which are indeed plausible ) reflect all that well on our society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, none of those options (all of which are indeed plausible) reflect all that well on our society.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30430216</id>
	<title>Re:Confounding Variables</title>
	<author>conureman</author>
	<datestamp>1260801540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't RTFA today, NYT doesn't serve us poor people. Did they do a competency test of the doctors? My wild-ass-guess would be that there MIGHT BE a correlation between more deficient MDs and the situations where they would encounter the less-advantaged patients. God knows, if I had to treat the tweakers I see lined up at the local soup kitchen, I might be more inclined to call in sick and go look for a better job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't RTFA today , NYT does n't serve us poor people .
Did they do a competency test of the doctors ?
My wild-ass-guess would be that there MIGHT BE a correlation between more deficient MDs and the situations where they would encounter the less-advantaged patients .
God knows , if I had to treat the tweakers I see lined up at the local soup kitchen , I might be more inclined to call in sick and go look for a better job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't RTFA today, NYT doesn't serve us poor people.
Did they do a competency test of the doctors?
My wild-ass-guess would be that there MIGHT BE a correlation between more deficient MDs and the situations where they would encounter the less-advantaged patients.
God knows, if I had to treat the tweakers I see lined up at the local soup kitchen, I might be more inclined to call in sick and go look for a better job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427012</id>
	<title>Re:Confounding Variables</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1260715260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;I think they could all come with a giant "Correlation!=Causation" red box warning.</p><p>&gt;&gt;On the other, maybe it just so happens that more of the poor tend to have psychological problems, which would explain their (and their children's) difficulties in progressing up within the society.</p><p>In related news, the ACLU recently sued the prison system because it appears that criminals tend to get more jail time than the normal citizen.</p><p>Our society is so unfair.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; I think they could all come with a giant " Correlation ! = Causation " red box warning. &gt; &gt; On the other , maybe it just so happens that more of the poor tend to have psychological problems , which would explain their ( and their children 's ) difficulties in progressing up within the society.In related news , the ACLU recently sued the prison system because it appears that criminals tend to get more jail time than the normal citizen.Our society is so unfair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;I think they could all come with a giant "Correlation!=Causation" red box warning.&gt;&gt;On the other, maybe it just so happens that more of the poor tend to have psychological problems, which would explain their (and their children's) difficulties in progressing up within the society.In related news, the ACLU recently sued the prison system because it appears that criminals tend to get more jail time than the normal citizen.Our society is so unfair.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426430</id>
	<title>Re:Confounding Variables</title>
	<author>timeOday</author>
	<datestamp>1260710460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe it's because well-to-do people are more averse to the stigma of mental illness in their family.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's because well-to-do people are more averse to the stigma of mental illness in their family .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's because well-to-do people are more averse to the stigma of mental illness in their family.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425972</id>
	<title>Serve, doc</title>
	<author>paxcoder</author>
	<datestamp>1260706020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm simply outraged, I don't know what to write. Dr., it's not your place to play with minds of children. Do your job well and fair, or quit it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm simply outraged , I do n't know what to write .
Dr. , it 's not your place to play with minds of children .
Do your job well and fair , or quit it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm simply outraged, I don't know what to write.
Dr., it's not your place to play with minds of children.
Do your job well and fair, or quit it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427774</id>
	<title>Re:Confounding Variables</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1260723180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmmm.  I've observed for decades that parenting skills seem to be people's lowest priority in life.  I'm guilty, my parents were guilty, and many, many of my co-workers and associates are guilty.  No one wants to take the TIME to work with their kids.  And, parenting is a full time job - you can't spend 1/3 or more of your time on a job, a couple hours commuting each day, attend a couple meetings/ball games, spend an hour or two at the bar, and still find time to spend with your kids.  Especially since the kids have their own routines that just never seem to mesh with yours.  You find an hour or three to spend with the kid, and he has somewhere to go, something to do, a girl to see, or whatever.</p><p>Upper class or lower class, I see the same thing.  Everyone has to go, go, go - they are busy with SOMETHING all day, every day - even if it's trying to score the next fix for their habit.</p><p>Is it any wonder that kids have problems?  Couple that with our own unwillingness to spend time working problems out, and yes, drugs are over prescribed for the kids.</p><p>We've forgotten what it's like to be kids, don't know how to teach kids, and we're just annoyed that the kids are around to bother us - so we offer them some drugs that will change their conduct, and make them quieter, therefore more tolerable.</p><p>To really fix the problem, we need to slow society down a few notches.  I've mentioned in another thread that grandparents serve a vital function in a healthy society.  Today's grandparents are self centered, retiring to Florida or California at the earliest opportunity, rather than being part of the family.  A retired person has little more than time - time that can be spent with the kids, helping them to understand the world, and teaching them to deal with adversity.  Or, helping them with more mundane things, like algebra, or archery, or learning to drive.</p><p>Our culture is crazy - why shouldn't the kids be just as crazy?</p><p>IMHO, there are few conditions that can't be dealt with through patience, discipline, and love.  Drugs aren't going to "fix" any problem a kid has.  At best, he'll be turned into a zombie for as long as the drugs last, then he comes back to reality, with all the same problems.</p><p>But, don't try to sell those ideas to the big pharmaceutical companies.  You'll be branded a heretic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm .
I 've observed for decades that parenting skills seem to be people 's lowest priority in life .
I 'm guilty , my parents were guilty , and many , many of my co-workers and associates are guilty .
No one wants to take the TIME to work with their kids .
And , parenting is a full time job - you ca n't spend 1/3 or more of your time on a job , a couple hours commuting each day , attend a couple meetings/ball games , spend an hour or two at the bar , and still find time to spend with your kids .
Especially since the kids have their own routines that just never seem to mesh with yours .
You find an hour or three to spend with the kid , and he has somewhere to go , something to do , a girl to see , or whatever.Upper class or lower class , I see the same thing .
Everyone has to go , go , go - they are busy with SOMETHING all day , every day - even if it 's trying to score the next fix for their habit.Is it any wonder that kids have problems ?
Couple that with our own unwillingness to spend time working problems out , and yes , drugs are over prescribed for the kids.We 've forgotten what it 's like to be kids , do n't know how to teach kids , and we 're just annoyed that the kids are around to bother us - so we offer them some drugs that will change their conduct , and make them quieter , therefore more tolerable.To really fix the problem , we need to slow society down a few notches .
I 've mentioned in another thread that grandparents serve a vital function in a healthy society .
Today 's grandparents are self centered , retiring to Florida or California at the earliest opportunity , rather than being part of the family .
A retired person has little more than time - time that can be spent with the kids , helping them to understand the world , and teaching them to deal with adversity .
Or , helping them with more mundane things , like algebra , or archery , or learning to drive.Our culture is crazy - why should n't the kids be just as crazy ? IMHO , there are few conditions that ca n't be dealt with through patience , discipline , and love .
Drugs are n't going to " fix " any problem a kid has .
At best , he 'll be turned into a zombie for as long as the drugs last , then he comes back to reality , with all the same problems.But , do n't try to sell those ideas to the big pharmaceutical companies .
You 'll be branded a heretic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm.
I've observed for decades that parenting skills seem to be people's lowest priority in life.
I'm guilty, my parents were guilty, and many, many of my co-workers and associates are guilty.
No one wants to take the TIME to work with their kids.
And, parenting is a full time job - you can't spend 1/3 or more of your time on a job, a couple hours commuting each day, attend a couple meetings/ball games, spend an hour or two at the bar, and still find time to spend with your kids.
Especially since the kids have their own routines that just never seem to mesh with yours.
You find an hour or three to spend with the kid, and he has somewhere to go, something to do, a girl to see, or whatever.Upper class or lower class, I see the same thing.
Everyone has to go, go, go - they are busy with SOMETHING all day, every day - even if it's trying to score the next fix for their habit.Is it any wonder that kids have problems?
Couple that with our own unwillingness to spend time working problems out, and yes, drugs are over prescribed for the kids.We've forgotten what it's like to be kids, don't know how to teach kids, and we're just annoyed that the kids are around to bother us - so we offer them some drugs that will change their conduct, and make them quieter, therefore more tolerable.To really fix the problem, we need to slow society down a few notches.
I've mentioned in another thread that grandparents serve a vital function in a healthy society.
Today's grandparents are self centered, retiring to Florida or California at the earliest opportunity, rather than being part of the family.
A retired person has little more than time - time that can be spent with the kids, helping them to understand the world, and teaching them to deal with adversity.
Or, helping them with more mundane things, like algebra, or archery, or learning to drive.Our culture is crazy - why shouldn't the kids be just as crazy?IMHO, there are few conditions that can't be dealt with through patience, discipline, and love.
Drugs aren't going to "fix" any problem a kid has.
At best, he'll be turned into a zombie for as long as the drugs last, then he comes back to reality, with all the same problems.But, don't try to sell those ideas to the big pharmaceutical companies.
You'll be branded a heretic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426642</id>
	<title>Re:Confounding Variables</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260712380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This article isn't really as you say it is, though: it mentions that richer people tend to get a different kind of treatment. They mention some possible causes. They don't make any conclusions about the actual cause (which would indeed violate the correlation!=causation rule).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This article is n't really as you say it is , though : it mentions that richer people tend to get a different kind of treatment .
They mention some possible causes .
They do n't make any conclusions about the actual cause ( which would indeed violate the correlation ! = causation rule ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This article isn't really as you say it is, though: it mentions that richer people tend to get a different kind of treatment.
They mention some possible causes.
They don't make any conclusions about the actual cause (which would indeed violate the correlation!=causation rule).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30430468</id>
	<title>Re:Parent pushback</title>
	<author>tophermeyer</author>
	<datestamp>1260803400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Could it be because middle class parents are more likely to push back against drug recommendations?</p></div><p>Yes, that's very true.  I'm going to try to explain in a way that doesn't make me sound bigoted and ignorant, I apologize if I cross a line.</p><p>People and Families from lower class backgrounds are socially conditioned not to question authority figures, i.e. Police, Teachers, Doctors (there is social conditioning to resist and resent these authority figures, but not to question their decisions).  Individuals and Families from middle and upper class background tend to be better educated, and have a greater sense of entitlement.  They tend to be more communicative with Doctors, and require more detailed explanations of treatments before they submit.  Lower wealth and level of education generally translates into greater deference to authority.</p><p>And I see a lot of bickering over the argument that Correlation does not equal Causation.  In order to truly scientifically define causation, a researcher would need to recruit a representative sample pool, randomly assign them to experimental conditions, and watch them over time.  Never mind that running this kind of research design would be a monster to implement, Researchers dealing with human subjects are ethically prohibited from knowingly placing their Participants into a situation where they would come to harm.  We will never see a study "proving" a causal relationship between smoking and cancer, for example.  If they are trying to prove a hypothesis that smoking causes cancer, no Researcher could ever instruct a Participant to smoke cigarettes.  </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could it be because middle class parents are more likely to push back against drug recommendations ? Yes , that 's very true .
I 'm going to try to explain in a way that does n't make me sound bigoted and ignorant , I apologize if I cross a line.People and Families from lower class backgrounds are socially conditioned not to question authority figures , i.e .
Police , Teachers , Doctors ( there is social conditioning to resist and resent these authority figures , but not to question their decisions ) .
Individuals and Families from middle and upper class background tend to be better educated , and have a greater sense of entitlement .
They tend to be more communicative with Doctors , and require more detailed explanations of treatments before they submit .
Lower wealth and level of education generally translates into greater deference to authority.And I see a lot of bickering over the argument that Correlation does not equal Causation .
In order to truly scientifically define causation , a researcher would need to recruit a representative sample pool , randomly assign them to experimental conditions , and watch them over time .
Never mind that running this kind of research design would be a monster to implement , Researchers dealing with human subjects are ethically prohibited from knowingly placing their Participants into a situation where they would come to harm .
We will never see a study " proving " a causal relationship between smoking and cancer , for example .
If they are trying to prove a hypothesis that smoking causes cancer , no Researcher could ever instruct a Participant to smoke cigarettes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could it be because middle class parents are more likely to push back against drug recommendations?Yes, that's very true.
I'm going to try to explain in a way that doesn't make me sound bigoted and ignorant, I apologize if I cross a line.People and Families from lower class backgrounds are socially conditioned not to question authority figures, i.e.
Police, Teachers, Doctors (there is social conditioning to resist and resent these authority figures, but not to question their decisions).
Individuals and Families from middle and upper class background tend to be better educated, and have a greater sense of entitlement.
They tend to be more communicative with Doctors, and require more detailed explanations of treatments before they submit.
Lower wealth and level of education generally translates into greater deference to authority.And I see a lot of bickering over the argument that Correlation does not equal Causation.
In order to truly scientifically define causation, a researcher would need to recruit a representative sample pool, randomly assign them to experimental conditions, and watch them over time.
Never mind that running this kind of research design would be a monster to implement, Researchers dealing with human subjects are ethically prohibited from knowingly placing their Participants into a situation where they would come to harm.
We will never see a study "proving" a causal relationship between smoking and cancer, for example.
If they are trying to prove a hypothesis that smoking causes cancer, no Researcher could ever instruct a Participant to smoke cigarettes.  
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30431996</id>
	<title>Re:And Rich Kids Get Speed</title>
	<author>nedlohs</author>
	<datestamp>1260810780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have a very bizarre idea of what "the only possible explanation" means.</p><p>Off the top of my head here's another possibility:</p><p>Smart kids get bumped forward a grade. Smart kids get bored to death by school, since there's too much revision of stuff they already understand, this looks like attention deficit so they get put on medication via misdiagnosis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have a very bizarre idea of what " the only possible explanation " means.Off the top of my head here 's another possibility : Smart kids get bumped forward a grade .
Smart kids get bored to death by school , since there 's too much revision of stuff they already understand , this looks like attention deficit so they get put on medication via misdiagnosis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have a very bizarre idea of what "the only possible explanation" means.Off the top of my head here's another possibility:Smart kids get bumped forward a grade.
Smart kids get bored to death by school, since there's too much revision of stuff they already understand, this looks like attention deficit so they get put on medication via misdiagnosis.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426152</id>
	<title>Re:Confounding Variables</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260707460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>you just gave me a new catch phrase for a phenomenon that I previously didn't have a name for - "The outrage machine" the modern media's obsession with everything being either a crisis, save the children or save the planet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>you just gave me a new catch phrase for a phenomenon that I previously did n't have a name for - " The outrage machine " the modern media 's obsession with everything being either a crisis , save the children or save the planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you just gave me a new catch phrase for a phenomenon that I previously didn't have a name for - "The outrage machine" the modern media's obsession with everything being either a crisis, save the children or save the planet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427386</id>
	<title>Re:Drug Lobbies?</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1260718620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Interesting explanations, but they ignore the economics and politics of the issue. Medicaid is heavily influenced by politicians. Politicians are heavily influenced by lobbies. Lobbying money flows very heavily from drug companies.</p></div><p>[...]</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Also consider the health care bill: They've removed the public option and kept the new law requiring people to buy health insurance. Who are they working for? I want everyone to have access to health care. This story, however, is a stark example of the risks of channeling public funds to corporations, and of channeling corporate profits to policy-makers. That is a self-reinforcing system that will destroy us.</p></div><p>It's cause and effect. If you don't want the effect, remove the cause. Everyone having access to healthcare will mean more money for corporate interests.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting explanations , but they ignore the economics and politics of the issue .
Medicaid is heavily influenced by politicians .
Politicians are heavily influenced by lobbies .
Lobbying money flows very heavily from drug companies. [ .. .
] Also consider the health care bill : They 've removed the public option and kept the new law requiring people to buy health insurance .
Who are they working for ?
I want everyone to have access to health care .
This story , however , is a stark example of the risks of channeling public funds to corporations , and of channeling corporate profits to policy-makers .
That is a self-reinforcing system that will destroy us.It 's cause and effect .
If you do n't want the effect , remove the cause .
Everyone having access to healthcare will mean more money for corporate interests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting explanations, but they ignore the economics and politics of the issue.
Medicaid is heavily influenced by politicians.
Politicians are heavily influenced by lobbies.
Lobbying money flows very heavily from drug companies.[...
]Also consider the health care bill: They've removed the public option and kept the new law requiring people to buy health insurance.
Who are they working for?
I want everyone to have access to health care.
This story, however, is a stark example of the risks of channeling public funds to corporations, and of channeling corporate profits to policy-makers.
That is a self-reinforcing system that will destroy us.It's cause and effect.
If you don't want the effect, remove the cause.
Everyone having access to healthcare will mean more money for corporate interests.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426186</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426996</id>
	<title>Re:Information outside of your expertise is danger</title>
	<author>Frosty Piss</author>
	<datestamp>1260715200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Before y'all get on your high horses, note that antipsychotics aren't exclusively used for psychosis. Abilify, one of the most popular, is used for mood swings, psychosis, bipolar in general, and as an adjunct to antidepressants. Abilify is an amazingly effective method of relieving intense psychological suffering quickly. The middle class alternative is a year or two on therapy and a couple other antidepressants, which is probably a nicer way of doing things for the patient, but is much slower and less cost effective. Once a patient is on a drug like Abilify, it is much easier to deal with their psychological trauma quickly. It might not be the best solution, but it is a very good one. And, truth be told, poor people aren't going to get the same care as middle-class people.</p></div><p>Nice Slashvert. Seriously.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Before y'all get on your high horses , note that antipsychotics are n't exclusively used for psychosis .
Abilify , one of the most popular , is used for mood swings , psychosis , bipolar in general , and as an adjunct to antidepressants .
Abilify is an amazingly effective method of relieving intense psychological suffering quickly .
The middle class alternative is a year or two on therapy and a couple other antidepressants , which is probably a nicer way of doing things for the patient , but is much slower and less cost effective .
Once a patient is on a drug like Abilify , it is much easier to deal with their psychological trauma quickly .
It might not be the best solution , but it is a very good one .
And , truth be told , poor people are n't going to get the same care as middle-class people.Nice Slashvert .
Seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before y'all get on your high horses, note that antipsychotics aren't exclusively used for psychosis.
Abilify, one of the most popular, is used for mood swings, psychosis, bipolar in general, and as an adjunct to antidepressants.
Abilify is an amazingly effective method of relieving intense psychological suffering quickly.
The middle class alternative is a year or two on therapy and a couple other antidepressants, which is probably a nicer way of doing things for the patient, but is much slower and less cost effective.
Once a patient is on a drug like Abilify, it is much easier to deal with their psychological trauma quickly.
It might not be the best solution, but it is a very good one.
And, truth be told, poor people aren't going to get the same care as middle-class people.Nice Slashvert.
Seriously.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427808</id>
	<title>Re:Confounding Variables</title>
	<author>Technician</author>
	<datestamp>1260723540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Often overlooked is the amount of FAS/FAE children of lower income households.  FAE often goes with drinking teens and unexpecte pregnancy.  This drops these unwed mothers into the system in lower economic classes with chldren with ADD Bipolar ODD and other behaviour problems.</p><p>In general the survey failed to look at upstream to where these children and parents came from and any factors such as substance abuse, unwed, or other factors put more children with high needs into low income households.</p><p>The indicator is not that low income gets more treatment, but more that need treatment are in low income families.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Often overlooked is the amount of FAS/FAE children of lower income households .
FAE often goes with drinking teens and unexpecte pregnancy .
This drops these unwed mothers into the system in lower economic classes with chldren with ADD Bipolar ODD and other behaviour problems.In general the survey failed to look at upstream to where these children and parents came from and any factors such as substance abuse , unwed , or other factors put more children with high needs into low income households.The indicator is not that low income gets more treatment , but more that need treatment are in low income families .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Often overlooked is the amount of FAS/FAE children of lower income households.
FAE often goes with drinking teens and unexpecte pregnancy.
This drops these unwed mothers into the system in lower economic classes with chldren with ADD Bipolar ODD and other behaviour problems.In general the survey failed to look at upstream to where these children and parents came from and any factors such as substance abuse, unwed, or other factors put more children with high needs into low income households.The indicator is not that low income gets more treatment, but more that need treatment are in low income families.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426364</id>
	<title>Re:Parent pushback</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260709680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolutely. They are more likely to see the long-term repercussions of having their children labeled as anything undesirable. I suspect this is reflected in the recent trend towards 'autism' over 'retarded' in diagnosing kids who score low on IQ tests. The middle class parent is conscious of their class status and eager to protect it in their kids who are a property-extension of themselves (to speculate broadly).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely .
They are more likely to see the long-term repercussions of having their children labeled as anything undesirable .
I suspect this is reflected in the recent trend towards 'autism ' over 'retarded ' in diagnosing kids who score low on IQ tests .
The middle class parent is conscious of their class status and eager to protect it in their kids who are a property-extension of themselves ( to speculate broadly ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely.
They are more likely to see the long-term repercussions of having their children labeled as anything undesirable.
I suspect this is reflected in the recent trend towards 'autism' over 'retarded' in diagnosing kids who score low on IQ tests.
The middle class parent is conscious of their class status and eager to protect it in their kids who are a property-extension of themselves (to speculate broadly).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426972</id>
	<title>Re:Confounding Variables</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1260714960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've never seen someone use "correlation isn't causation" who understood what that means.  They use it as "I don't like the implications" as opposed to "I understand what they said, I agree that they have valid methodology and the conclusion (that poorer children get different care) is correct, but I believe that there is some other cause."  Poor children appear to get worse care.  Is it that they got the appropriate care, but that diseases are sufficiently different across income lines (in which case it should be "being poor causes mental illness"), is it that the poor parents are more likely mentally ill with some genetic disease, or is it that the care given by public insurance differs from private insurance?  Or is there something else out there you think it could be?  There are only a very short list, if you concede the study is valid.<br> <br> <i>Without much more data, and without very careful prospective analysis, these "correlation" articles are little more than curiously interesting FUD.</i> <br> <br>In general, these are repeated by others.  When found valid, they are then examined for confounds.  If you have a correlation and all confounds corrected, you do have a case where correlation = causation.  In nearly all cases I've seen with a valid study, correlation = causation (but is usually not just one factor, such as there being a real difference in the rate of genetic mental illness between those on private and public insurance, and the differences in insurance causing a real difference in treatments as well).  <br> <br> <i>However, since they tend to be part of the outrage machine, I think we ought to hold the writers personally responsible for the reactions that ensue.</i> <br> <br>So you don't even care if they are right, you want to hold them "responsible" for the reactions?  Where did the truth go?  You aren't looking for it.  You are assuming a study is wrong because you don't like its results, then already looking for the lynch mob for those that point out problems with our system.  That's just nuts.  Why not have firing squads for people that submit articles to scientific publications.  We'll appoint you head, and if you know that the article has to be wrong, then you just shoot the submitters and be done with it.  It's easier that having all that science hit the streets with people who can't understand it like you do.<br> <br>There has never been a study that shows smoking causes cancer.  In fact, there have been pretty much no studies done that show anything causes cancer in humans.  We don't know if asbestos causes Mesothelioma.  We just have some correlations, and we know those are always wrong and done by those trying to pervert science.  I guess you were with the tobacco CEOs when they got up in front of Congress relatively recently (long after the warnings went on the packs) and stated that they do not believe that smoking is harmful?  After all, it's never been proven.  Just a couple correlational studies, and we know that if you find a correlation, it means there can't be a causational link.  Right?<br> <br>Now excuse me, I have to go smoke because a cigarette a day keeps the doctor away.  Or so the tobacco industry tells us, and no study has ever proven them wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never seen someone use " correlation is n't causation " who understood what that means .
They use it as " I do n't like the implications " as opposed to " I understand what they said , I agree that they have valid methodology and the conclusion ( that poorer children get different care ) is correct , but I believe that there is some other cause .
" Poor children appear to get worse care .
Is it that they got the appropriate care , but that diseases are sufficiently different across income lines ( in which case it should be " being poor causes mental illness " ) , is it that the poor parents are more likely mentally ill with some genetic disease , or is it that the care given by public insurance differs from private insurance ?
Or is there something else out there you think it could be ?
There are only a very short list , if you concede the study is valid .
Without much more data , and without very careful prospective analysis , these " correlation " articles are little more than curiously interesting FUD .
In general , these are repeated by others .
When found valid , they are then examined for confounds .
If you have a correlation and all confounds corrected , you do have a case where correlation = causation .
In nearly all cases I 've seen with a valid study , correlation = causation ( but is usually not just one factor , such as there being a real difference in the rate of genetic mental illness between those on private and public insurance , and the differences in insurance causing a real difference in treatments as well ) .
However , since they tend to be part of the outrage machine , I think we ought to hold the writers personally responsible for the reactions that ensue .
So you do n't even care if they are right , you want to hold them " responsible " for the reactions ?
Where did the truth go ?
You are n't looking for it .
You are assuming a study is wrong because you do n't like its results , then already looking for the lynch mob for those that point out problems with our system .
That 's just nuts .
Why not have firing squads for people that submit articles to scientific publications .
We 'll appoint you head , and if you know that the article has to be wrong , then you just shoot the submitters and be done with it .
It 's easier that having all that science hit the streets with people who ca n't understand it like you do .
There has never been a study that shows smoking causes cancer .
In fact , there have been pretty much no studies done that show anything causes cancer in humans .
We do n't know if asbestos causes Mesothelioma .
We just have some correlations , and we know those are always wrong and done by those trying to pervert science .
I guess you were with the tobacco CEOs when they got up in front of Congress relatively recently ( long after the warnings went on the packs ) and stated that they do not believe that smoking is harmful ?
After all , it 's never been proven .
Just a couple correlational studies , and we know that if you find a correlation , it means there ca n't be a causational link .
Right ? Now excuse me , I have to go smoke because a cigarette a day keeps the doctor away .
Or so the tobacco industry tells us , and no study has ever proven them wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never seen someone use "correlation isn't causation" who understood what that means.
They use it as "I don't like the implications" as opposed to "I understand what they said, I agree that they have valid methodology and the conclusion (that poorer children get different care) is correct, but I believe that there is some other cause.
"  Poor children appear to get worse care.
Is it that they got the appropriate care, but that diseases are sufficiently different across income lines (in which case it should be "being poor causes mental illness"), is it that the poor parents are more likely mentally ill with some genetic disease, or is it that the care given by public insurance differs from private insurance?
Or is there something else out there you think it could be?
There are only a very short list, if you concede the study is valid.
Without much more data, and without very careful prospective analysis, these "correlation" articles are little more than curiously interesting FUD.
In general, these are repeated by others.
When found valid, they are then examined for confounds.
If you have a correlation and all confounds corrected, you do have a case where correlation = causation.
In nearly all cases I've seen with a valid study, correlation = causation (but is usually not just one factor, such as there being a real difference in the rate of genetic mental illness between those on private and public insurance, and the differences in insurance causing a real difference in treatments as well).
However, since they tend to be part of the outrage machine, I think we ought to hold the writers personally responsible for the reactions that ensue.
So you don't even care if they are right, you want to hold them "responsible" for the reactions?
Where did the truth go?
You aren't looking for it.
You are assuming a study is wrong because you don't like its results, then already looking for the lynch mob for those that point out problems with our system.
That's just nuts.
Why not have firing squads for people that submit articles to scientific publications.
We'll appoint you head, and if you know that the article has to be wrong, then you just shoot the submitters and be done with it.
It's easier that having all that science hit the streets with people who can't understand it like you do.
There has never been a study that shows smoking causes cancer.
In fact, there have been pretty much no studies done that show anything causes cancer in humans.
We don't know if asbestos causes Mesothelioma.
We just have some correlations, and we know those are always wrong and done by those trying to pervert science.
I guess you were with the tobacco CEOs when they got up in front of Congress relatively recently (long after the warnings went on the packs) and stated that they do not believe that smoking is harmful?
After all, it's never been proven.
Just a couple correlational studies, and we know that if you find a correlation, it means there can't be a causational link.
Right? Now excuse me, I have to go smoke because a cigarette a day keeps the doctor away.
Or so the tobacco industry tells us, and no study has ever proven them wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426304</id>
	<title>Re:Parent pushback</title>
	<author>Ironsides</author>
	<datestamp>1260708900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or, more likely to ask questions and investigate the drugs?  In first grade, my teacher told my mother I had ADD and needed medication.  She asked me why I was 'spacing out' in class.  The reason was I was bored.  It seems that if a kid doesn't behave 'perfectly', they need to be put on medication.  I sometimes wonder if this need for meds is part of the problem.  Hm.  On a related note, I wonder if there is a difference in the likelyhood of medication between boys and girls.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , more likely to ask questions and investigate the drugs ?
In first grade , my teacher told my mother I had ADD and needed medication .
She asked me why I was 'spacing out ' in class .
The reason was I was bored .
It seems that if a kid does n't behave 'perfectly ' , they need to be put on medication .
I sometimes wonder if this need for meds is part of the problem .
Hm. On a related note , I wonder if there is a difference in the likelyhood of medication between boys and girls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, more likely to ask questions and investigate the drugs?
In first grade, my teacher told my mother I had ADD and needed medication.
She asked me why I was 'spacing out' in class.
The reason was I was bored.
It seems that if a kid doesn't behave 'perfectly', they need to be put on medication.
I sometimes wonder if this need for meds is part of the problem.
Hm.  On a related note, I wonder if there is a difference in the likelyhood of medication between boys and girls.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426870</id>
	<title>Re:Confounding Variables</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1260714240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The finding isn't just that the poor get more antipsychotics full stop, but that the poor with the same diagnosis as a wealthy person are more likely to be treated with antipsychotics for that condition.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Well the problem is obvious: wealthy people's kids aren't getting enough medication!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The finding is n't just that the poor get more antipsychotics full stop , but that the poor with the same diagnosis as a wealthy person are more likely to be treated with antipsychotics for that condition .
Well the problem is obvious : wealthy people 's kids are n't getting enough medication !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The finding isn't just that the poor get more antipsychotics full stop, but that the poor with the same diagnosis as a wealthy person are more likely to be treated with antipsychotics for that condition.
Well the problem is obvious: wealthy people's kids aren't getting enough medication!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426502</id>
	<title>Class?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260711120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article mentions the 'poor' children and the 'middle class' children.  What defines these classes?  Is it a disservice, and perhaps bad analysis, to treat them as a class instead of individuals?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article mentions the 'poor ' children and the 'middle class ' children .
What defines these classes ?
Is it a disservice , and perhaps bad analysis , to treat them as a class instead of individuals ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article mentions the 'poor' children and the 'middle class' children.
What defines these classes?
Is it a disservice, and perhaps bad analysis, to treat them as a class instead of individuals?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427656</id>
	<title>Now this couldn't possibly be true, but ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260721980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why are we assuming that the kids on medicaid are getting over-medicated rather than that the kids on private insurance have paranoid parents who assign such a stigma to anti-psychotics that they'll do anything to avoid giving them to their kids, even if it means a longer/worse/more costly treatment?</p><p>Also, why on earth is it such a bad thing for a taxpayer funded healthcare program which is constantly complaining about lacking funds to cover everyone to worry about the cost effectiveness of the treatments it pays for.  If medicaid finds that paying for drugs is more cost effective in the patient population it serves, it SHOULD be incentivizing providers to go that route.  Medicaid isn't private insurance, its what you get when you can't afford anything else.  It shouldn't be trying to replace private insurance, but rather getting the most bang for its (limited) buck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are we assuming that the kids on medicaid are getting over-medicated rather than that the kids on private insurance have paranoid parents who assign such a stigma to anti-psychotics that they 'll do anything to avoid giving them to their kids , even if it means a longer/worse/more costly treatment ? Also , why on earth is it such a bad thing for a taxpayer funded healthcare program which is constantly complaining about lacking funds to cover everyone to worry about the cost effectiveness of the treatments it pays for .
If medicaid finds that paying for drugs is more cost effective in the patient population it serves , it SHOULD be incentivizing providers to go that route .
Medicaid is n't private insurance , its what you get when you ca n't afford anything else .
It should n't be trying to replace private insurance , but rather getting the most bang for its ( limited ) buck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why are we assuming that the kids on medicaid are getting over-medicated rather than that the kids on private insurance have paranoid parents who assign such a stigma to anti-psychotics that they'll do anything to avoid giving them to their kids, even if it means a longer/worse/more costly treatment?Also, why on earth is it such a bad thing for a taxpayer funded healthcare program which is constantly complaining about lacking funds to cover everyone to worry about the cost effectiveness of the treatments it pays for.
If medicaid finds that paying for drugs is more cost effective in the patient population it serves, it SHOULD be incentivizing providers to go that route.
Medicaid isn't private insurance, its what you get when you can't afford anything else.
It shouldn't be trying to replace private insurance, but rather getting the most bang for its (limited) buck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426394</id>
	<title>Re:Bi-Polar at Three?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260710160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The same way you diagnose a first grade boy with ADD or ADHD.  Generally through complete ignorance on the part of the person who suggests it.  In first grade, my teacher thought I had ADD.  The only problem was I was bored in class.  This country is over medicated.  I say that as someone who has been properly (suicidal) and improperly (ADD/ADHD) diagnosed with mental problems before.  We need to get people to understand there is no magic pill.  From the article, I'll quote the following:<p><div class="quote"><p>Too often, Dr. Suite said, he sees young Medicaid patients to whom other doctors have given antipsychotics that the patients do not seem to need. Recently, for example, he met with a 15-year-old girl. She had stopped taking the antipsychotic medication that had been prescribed for her after a single examination, paid for by Medicaid, at a clinic where she received a diagnosis of bipolar disorder.
<br>
Why did she stop? Dr. Suite asked. &ldquo;I can control my moods,&rdquo; the girl said softly.
<br>
After evaluating her, Dr. Suite decided she was right. The girl had arguments with her mother and stepfather and some insomnia. But she was a good student and certainly not bipolar, in Dr. Suite&rsquo;s opinion.<br>&ldquo;Normal teenager,&rdquo; Dr. Suite said, nodding. &ldquo;No scrips for you.&rdquo;</p>  </div><p>This is probably most of what is going on.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The same way you diagnose a first grade boy with ADD or ADHD .
Generally through complete ignorance on the part of the person who suggests it .
In first grade , my teacher thought I had ADD .
The only problem was I was bored in class .
This country is over medicated .
I say that as someone who has been properly ( suicidal ) and improperly ( ADD/ADHD ) diagnosed with mental problems before .
We need to get people to understand there is no magic pill .
From the article , I 'll quote the following : Too often , Dr. Suite said , he sees young Medicaid patients to whom other doctors have given antipsychotics that the patients do not seem to need .
Recently , for example , he met with a 15-year-old girl .
She had stopped taking the antipsychotic medication that had been prescribed for her after a single examination , paid for by Medicaid , at a clinic where she received a diagnosis of bipolar disorder .
Why did she stop ?
Dr. Suite asked .
   I can control my moods ,    the girl said softly .
After evaluating her , Dr. Suite decided she was right .
The girl had arguments with her mother and stepfather and some insomnia .
But she was a good student and certainly not bipolar , in Dr. Suite    s opinion.    Normal teenager ,    Dr. Suite said , nodding .
   No scrips for you.    This is probably most of what is going on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same way you diagnose a first grade boy with ADD or ADHD.
Generally through complete ignorance on the part of the person who suggests it.
In first grade, my teacher thought I had ADD.
The only problem was I was bored in class.
This country is over medicated.
I say that as someone who has been properly (suicidal) and improperly (ADD/ADHD) diagnosed with mental problems before.
We need to get people to understand there is no magic pill.
From the article, I'll quote the following:Too often, Dr. Suite said, he sees young Medicaid patients to whom other doctors have given antipsychotics that the patients do not seem to need.
Recently, for example, he met with a 15-year-old girl.
She had stopped taking the antipsychotic medication that had been prescribed for her after a single examination, paid for by Medicaid, at a clinic where she received a diagnosis of bipolar disorder.
Why did she stop?
Dr. Suite asked.
“I can control my moods,” the girl said softly.
After evaluating her, Dr. Suite decided she was right.
The girl had arguments with her mother and stepfather and some insomnia.
But she was a good student and certainly not bipolar, in Dr. Suite’s opinion.“Normal teenager,” Dr. Suite said, nodding.
“No scrips for you.”  This is probably most of what is going on.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425998</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30428922</id>
	<title>Re:Healtscare system..</title>
	<author>trickyD1ck</author>
	<datestamp>1260782700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>More taxes mean more services that are excellence-certified with the word "public".
<br>
<br>
Wouldn&rsquo;t it be ideal if all housing was like public housing? Well, that requires taxes. Wouldn&rsquo;t it be ideal if we were all served by a nationalized health-care system based on typical municipal hospitals? That&rsquo;s what taxes can do. Wouldn&rsquo;t you be happier if your local supermarket was operated on par with the Department of Motor Vehicles? Taxes!</htmltext>
<tokenext>More taxes mean more services that are excellence-certified with the word " public " .
Wouldn    t it be ideal if all housing was like public housing ?
Well , that requires taxes .
Wouldn    t it be ideal if we were all served by a nationalized health-care system based on typical municipal hospitals ?
That    s what taxes can do .
Wouldn    t you be happier if your local supermarket was operated on par with the Department of Motor Vehicles ?
Taxes !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More taxes mean more services that are excellence-certified with the word "public".
Wouldn’t it be ideal if all housing was like public housing?
Well, that requires taxes.
Wouldn’t it be ideal if we were all served by a nationalized health-care system based on typical municipal hospitals?
That’s what taxes can do.
Wouldn’t you be happier if your local supermarket was operated on par with the Department of Motor Vehicles?
Taxes!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426014</id>
	<title>How this works...</title>
	<author>ZephyrQ</author>
	<datestamp>1260706320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doctor, Timmy is getting in trouble in school.</p><p>How does he get in trouble?</p><p>The teacher says he is too active and might have ADHD.</p><p>Have you seen a counselor about this?</p><p>No, we can't afford one!</p><p>Well, let's try a round of Adderall...</p><p>This might seem oversimplistic, but I teach a high school 'behavior intervention' classroom and deal with parents all the time who have the same concerns/issues.  More often than anyone will admit, many of the issues related to behavior have to do with cost/consequences...and parents who will not/can not engage the reality of their children's behavior (It's not their fault!  They are just picking on Timmy!).</p><p>Often, the teachers are just as guilty making these recommendations as the doctors--it is illegal for a teacher to recommend/suggest that a child has to be medicated to attend school, but it happens.  And many 'poor' parents do not have the background/education to question the recommendation.  So, they go to the doctor and tell them that Timmy has to have medicine to attend school.</p><p>The fun part in all this is watching the merry-go-round of meds that a child will/will not take to modify their behavior.  For some kids, it is necessary to function.  For most, it is not.</p><p>By the time they get to high school, many are dependent on the meds to function.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Doctor , Timmy is getting in trouble in school.How does he get in trouble ? The teacher says he is too active and might have ADHD.Have you seen a counselor about this ? No , we ca n't afford one ! Well , let 's try a round of Adderall...This might seem oversimplistic , but I teach a high school 'behavior intervention ' classroom and deal with parents all the time who have the same concerns/issues .
More often than anyone will admit , many of the issues related to behavior have to do with cost/consequences...and parents who will not/can not engage the reality of their children 's behavior ( It 's not their fault !
They are just picking on Timmy !
) .Often , the teachers are just as guilty making these recommendations as the doctors--it is illegal for a teacher to recommend/suggest that a child has to be medicated to attend school , but it happens .
And many 'poor ' parents do not have the background/education to question the recommendation .
So , they go to the doctor and tell them that Timmy has to have medicine to attend school.The fun part in all this is watching the merry-go-round of meds that a child will/will not take to modify their behavior .
For some kids , it is necessary to function .
For most , it is not.By the time they get to high school , many are dependent on the meds to function .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doctor, Timmy is getting in trouble in school.How does he get in trouble?The teacher says he is too active and might have ADHD.Have you seen a counselor about this?No, we can't afford one!Well, let's try a round of Adderall...This might seem oversimplistic, but I teach a high school 'behavior intervention' classroom and deal with parents all the time who have the same concerns/issues.
More often than anyone will admit, many of the issues related to behavior have to do with cost/consequences...and parents who will not/can not engage the reality of their children's behavior (It's not their fault!
They are just picking on Timmy!
).Often, the teachers are just as guilty making these recommendations as the doctors--it is illegal for a teacher to recommend/suggest that a child has to be medicated to attend school, but it happens.
And many 'poor' parents do not have the background/education to question the recommendation.
So, they go to the doctor and tell them that Timmy has to have medicine to attend school.The fun part in all this is watching the merry-go-round of meds that a child will/will not take to modify their behavior.
For some kids, it is necessary to function.
For most, it is not.By the time they get to high school, many are dependent on the meds to function.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425970</id>
	<title>Information outside of your expertise is dangerous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260705960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Before y'all get on your high horses, note that antipsychotics aren't exclusively used for psychosis. Abilify, one of the most popular, is used for mood swings, psychosis, bipolar in general, and as an adjunct to antidepressants. Abilify is an amazingly effective method of relieving intense psychological suffering quickly. The middle class alternative is a year or two on therapy and a couple other antidepressants, which is probably a nicer way of doing things for the patient, but is much slower and less cost effective. Once a patient is on a drug like Abilify, it is much easier to deal with their psychological trauma quickly. It might not be the best solution, but it is a very good one. And, truth be told, poor people aren't going to get the same care as middle-class people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before y'all get on your high horses , note that antipsychotics are n't exclusively used for psychosis .
Abilify , one of the most popular , is used for mood swings , psychosis , bipolar in general , and as an adjunct to antidepressants .
Abilify is an amazingly effective method of relieving intense psychological suffering quickly .
The middle class alternative is a year or two on therapy and a couple other antidepressants , which is probably a nicer way of doing things for the patient , but is much slower and less cost effective .
Once a patient is on a drug like Abilify , it is much easier to deal with their psychological trauma quickly .
It might not be the best solution , but it is a very good one .
And , truth be told , poor people are n't going to get the same care as middle-class people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before y'all get on your high horses, note that antipsychotics aren't exclusively used for psychosis.
Abilify, one of the most popular, is used for mood swings, psychosis, bipolar in general, and as an adjunct to antidepressants.
Abilify is an amazingly effective method of relieving intense psychological suffering quickly.
The middle class alternative is a year or two on therapy and a couple other antidepressants, which is probably a nicer way of doing things for the patient, but is much slower and less cost effective.
Once a patient is on a drug like Abilify, it is much easier to deal with their psychological trauma quickly.
It might not be the best solution, but it is a very good one.
And, truth be told, poor people aren't going to get the same care as middle-class people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427958</id>
	<title>Re:Confounding Variables</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260725100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A better way would be to ask the parents themselves?  I can tell you what the answer will be 'I can get the stuff for free and I heard on the TV xyz was supposed to help my child'.  That simple.  Middle class pays a co-pay on things.  It costs money, medicare is usually 'free' so the parents put a bit more thought into 'is this needed' when it costs 80 bucks a pop...  People are in a hurry for nationalized health care with no idea what it will do.  I will be willing to bet cold hard cash that this will not be an issue in 10 years.  Everyone will be doing the same thing as its 'free'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A better way would be to ask the parents themselves ?
I can tell you what the answer will be 'I can get the stuff for free and I heard on the TV xyz was supposed to help my child' .
That simple .
Middle class pays a co-pay on things .
It costs money , medicare is usually 'free ' so the parents put a bit more thought into 'is this needed ' when it costs 80 bucks a pop... People are in a hurry for nationalized health care with no idea what it will do .
I will be willing to bet cold hard cash that this will not be an issue in 10 years .
Everyone will be doing the same thing as its 'free' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A better way would be to ask the parents themselves?
I can tell you what the answer will be 'I can get the stuff for free and I heard on the TV xyz was supposed to help my child'.
That simple.
Middle class pays a co-pay on things.
It costs money, medicare is usually 'free' so the parents put a bit more thought into 'is this needed' when it costs 80 bucks a pop...  People are in a hurry for nationalized health care with no idea what it will do.
I will be willing to bet cold hard cash that this will not be an issue in 10 years.
Everyone will be doing the same thing as its 'free'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427162</id>
	<title>Re:Information outside of your expertise is danger</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260716520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't get too strong into claims about what it's "amazingly effective" for. As you point out, Abilify is prescribed for a <i>lot</i> of things, and the vast majority of them are "off-label" uses for which there has been no real demonstration of effectiveness.</p><p>Getting a drug approved in the first place requires a fairly rigorous process of double-blind, peer-reviewed studies. But once it's approved for a particular use, there is no similar level of rigorous screening before it can be prescribed off-label for other, unapproved uses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't get too strong into claims about what it 's " amazingly effective " for .
As you point out , Abilify is prescribed for a lot of things , and the vast majority of them are " off-label " uses for which there has been no real demonstration of effectiveness.Getting a drug approved in the first place requires a fairly rigorous process of double-blind , peer-reviewed studies .
But once it 's approved for a particular use , there is no similar level of rigorous screening before it can be prescribed off-label for other , unapproved uses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't get too strong into claims about what it's "amazingly effective" for.
As you point out, Abilify is prescribed for a lot of things, and the vast majority of them are "off-label" uses for which there has been no real demonstration of effectiveness.Getting a drug approved in the first place requires a fairly rigorous process of double-blind, peer-reviewed studies.
But once it's approved for a particular use, there is no similar level of rigorous screening before it can be prescribed off-label for other, unapproved uses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426110</id>
	<title>rich v's poor</title>
	<author>naeone</author>
	<datestamp>1260707040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>if you are rich and mad you are classed as an excentric, and if your poor and mad well you just plain mad</htmltext>
<tokenext>if you are rich and mad you are classed as an excentric , and if your poor and mad well you just plain mad</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you are rich and mad you are classed as an excentric, and if your poor and mad well you just plain mad</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30428020
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30428922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30430648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30430216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30428626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30429094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426430
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30428298
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427386
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30430960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30428290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426368
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30431230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30430468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30429950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30429032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30428136
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426304
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30441208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30428014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425894
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30430042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426326
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30431996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_2146206_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30483102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_2146206.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426632
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_2146206.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426524
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_2146206.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426182
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_2146206.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427386
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_2146206.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426010
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427128
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30430960
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427958
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426160
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426430
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30430216
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427448
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426870
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30483102
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426676
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427012
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427774
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427808
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426642
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426972
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30428020
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30431230
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427590
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30429094
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_2146206.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426014
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_2146206.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426020
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_2146206.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_2146206.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427466
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427162
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30428626
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_2146206.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30429032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30428290
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_2146206.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427528
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_2146206.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30429950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30431996
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_2146206.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426394
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_2146206.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30428922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30430042
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_2146206.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30428298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30430468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426304
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30428014
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_2146206.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30430648
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_2146206.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30427296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30441208
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_2146206.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30425990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426094
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426382
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30428136
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426316
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_2146206.30426192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
