RE: OCD or "nO oNE CaReS AbouT yOuR dISorDer i tYpe hOW I waNt"

 So, there was this:

Then there was this genius contribution:

Which ended up, eventually, motivating me to comment on the video. After a couple additions and edits, it looks like this:

Here's what it is like for me to have OCD- this 'concept' that I have been diagnosed with, that people enjoy mocking [and will continue to mock even after I write this], that few people understand and many enjoy as a replacement for the whole emo shitshow:

OCD is pretty much a prison. You walk around and no one sees that you are stuck in this mobile jail cell. You are a caged animal and everything in the world is your captor, including the people around you [unbeknownst to them]. There are these complex and insane things you have to abide by. You actually understand that they make no sense. 

You can't discuss them with anyone because no one understands the literal FEAR that this entire situation generates. It's not like "I'm nervous because I'm imagining these bad things happening" and it's some kind of bad dream you can simply wake up from. 

It is a constant nightmare playing in your head- the only *temporary* way out is to engage in rituals. Sometimes these rituals are completely obvious: flicking lights, touching door handles, picking up a pen and putting it down. Sometimes it is about avoiding a certain color [red=blood; black=death; brown=dirty, etc]. 

Sometimes the rituals are actually entirely mental, as is often in my case, If you are in that "nightmare", where you have this horrible intrusive thought, you need to fight it with another thought. Or a word thought over and over. Or you do something that no one else realizes is part of a ritual. Or you start avoiding things. 

You live your life in fear because the fear always comes back. The trap is that the only way you know to fight the fear actually increases the likelihood of it coming back.
People will tell you to "just stop" and it's not that easy.

OCD can be heavily based in neurological dysfunction, it has been found. You might as well tell some one to stop blinking, which is actually a great analogy. Try it: stop blinking.  You can for a while, but it becomes uncomfortable. If you stop for long enough, it becomes painful. Eventually people around you will notice something is wrong. 

OCD is not always solved by medication and therapy. Sometimes it comes back. Sometimes you just live with it. Sometimes the symptoms are better or worse. People may think you like indulging in the symptoms of OCD so you become alienated [which can actually aggravate it]. 

I personally experience a lot of alienation because OCD puts me in a position where I get to a point where I will eventually literally be in a state of fear if I don't do something- follow through with whatever ritual or compulsion with alleviate my fears, even only temporarily. To be clear: this is not the kind of fear you think you are experiencing when you are on a roller coaster. 

This is Literal. Fear...of something catastrophic happening. Unfortunately, the way I need to respond to people, to my environment, to events or simplyhow I behave in general in order to avoid that feeling can be perceived as just being a jerk. 

And of course: "first rule of OCD: you don't talk about OCD".

This is not a good time and it doesn't make you "interesting". It can disable you and take away your feeling of humanity. Really "neat", huh?

I actually did enjoy this video..
All this "I like to order my books by color, OMG I'm soooo OCD" nonsense, though?  That's not OCD. That's you being "quirky". Quirky is not a life lived in a trap. So move right the hell along and enjoy your freedom.

Great reference for Pure OCD:


--Courtesty of Gizmodo-- "Study: Dr. Oz is full of shit" [i am jack's complete lack of surprise]

Ok, just to reference the first bit of that*:

But about Dr. Oz... [it also involves another show, but I often pick on Dr. Oz more. Yup.]

The issue is REALLY about medical media, specifically talk shows in this case. Should the recommendations they make be considered professional, safe, evidence-based?  I honestly think that if you have a degree and are making recommendations in any form within that field under the acknowledgement that you do in fact have training and education in that field, you should be held to professional standards. I personally understand though, that money is a strong motivator, and I kind of don't trust anyone at this point without personally learning about the cost/benefit ratio and getting a larger picture of information.

I would wish that everyone could and would do that. 
It is not a reasonable expectation however, and I get that. First- I don't have a busy life. Let's be honest about that. I don't have a lot going on. I can take hours to research specific medications, treatments, the evidence for or against a certain protocol. 

I also have a lot of background in health, biology, neurology, pharmacology, psychology etc etc etc. A lot of this is from a formal educational background. Some of it is from applying that formal education to my own life- learning as I have gone through the health system. In doing research as well, I have a basic understanding of how to read an article from pubmed or similar.

That doesn't mean I'm smarter- I simply have a different background [and, to be clear- I'm always still learning about all that]. I am not going to expect someone with a background in accounting to necessarily have as strong an understanding of a PI sheet, but I'm not going to be #supergreat at running taxes for pretty much anyone but me [and some years that gets complicated, honestly].

There is also this implicit and sometimes explicit "understanding" in the doctor/patient relationship: the doctor is omniscient and the patient is completely ignorant. While that's really a bunch of bullshit in the black and white sense that it is supposed to be embraced, it is so deeply embedded in the western idea of medicine that it is very hard to break out of. Particularly for any demographic that could be considered vulnerable in any sense. If you are sick, you are already down a peg.

And... I mean pretty much if you lack a grad degree and then beyond that if you are not male and white and between like, 25 [maybe 30] and 50 years of age- you are often assumed to have no idea about anything.

So all of these factors mean: when someone like Dr. Oz, or the experts who are on the show The Doctors present information, and they are degree'd professionals? People will more often than not just listen instead of look elsewhere for more information or opinions.
From the BMJ study:

The Dr Oz Show and half of the recommendations on The Doctors were based on believable or somewhat believable evidence. Evidence was believable or somewhat believable against a recommendation for 1 in 8-10 recommendations. For slightly over 1 in 3 and 1 in 4 of the recommendations for The Dr Oz Show and The Doctors respectively, no evidence could be found. This is despite us being quite liberal in the type and amount of evidence we required. The percentage of medical practice in the real world that is evidence based is difficult to ascertain, although one review reported an average of 78% of medical interventions were based on some form of “compelling” evidence. Comparisons are difficult, however, because the types of evidence that was required to determine this is considerably varied.

When the shows offered recommendations:
  • less than 20% of the time did they actually specify how beneficial the recommendation was likely to be. If it was a weight loss recommendation, there was no specification regarding how much weight. If it was supposed to have a cognitive benefit, no specific numbers or quantifiable information regarding what one could expect.
  • less than 15% of the time was it mentioned how much something might cost. Many of the recommendations on these shows which are related to weight loss are not regarding exercise... i have noticed that a lot of them are regarding supplements/vitamins/herbs which can be kind of pricey. If someone is hooked on something they believe will work before they know the price, they are much more likely to buy it
  • less than 10% of the time were harmful potential side effects mentioned. So more than 90% of the time these experts simply neglected to mention side effects which were known to have occurred in relation to their recommendation. 

For the 160 recommendations that were randomized for evidence review, The Dr Oz Show recommended consulting a healthcare professional 9% (7/80) of the time compared with 33% (26/80) of the time on The Doctors.

So for example, on the Dr. Oz show 9 out of 10 recommendations were made with no explicit information regarding the possible harmful effects. Less than 1 out of those ten times was it recommended that someone seek further information or guidance from a healthcare professional.

This is a problem.

Televised medical talk shows—what they recommend and the evidence to support their recommendations: a prospective observational study

BMJ 2014; 349 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7346 (Published 17 December 2014)

Korownyk Christina, Kolber Michael R, McCormackJames, Lam Vanessa, Overbo Kate, Cotton Candraet al. Televised medical talk shows—what they recommend and the evidence to support their recommendations: a prospective observational study BMJ 2014; 349:g7346

*provided by Kinja


I am describing My Person, first.

Yeah... here's the thing:
I get to choose how I refer to myself, and no one else gets to decide that for me. No one else gets to decide that it is "not appropriate" or "incorrect" or "insensitive" or what the hell ever other excuse that basically comes down to the fact that either that it makes them uncomfortable or might possibly start a conversation that some people would rather avoid.

So if:
My BMI is sky high, instead of saying I'm "curvy" or "real" or "large" or "big boned" I want to call myself "fat"?  I GET TO DO THAT. I don't have a problem with the word fat. Everyone else seems to have an issue with the word fat- as if skirting around it is something we need to do to avoid the reality that my ass is in fact bigger than a bread box. The assumption is that fat automatically carries these horribly tragic connotations for every single person in existence.
I'm not devastated if I state the reality of a situation. You don't get to tell me that I can't call myself fat because YOU can't figure this thing out.

So if:
Instead of saying "I am a person with bipolar" [so. many. words.] or "I have bipolar", I want to say "I am bipolar"? You don't get to tell me that I am supposed to use "person first language".

Because guess what? I'm a person, and that's the language *I* am using to describe myself. We are not Borg here. Clearly.  I describe my own experience. My own experience has been that if I was not bipolar I would not at all be the person I am today.

Meaning? I am bipolar. Not at all sorry if that is disruptive to your view of the universe. You don't have to incorporate it, you just need to respect it. Just as if you have been diagnosed with bipolar and would like to refer to that event as "having bipolar" as opposed to "being bipolar", I would respect that. Same thing goes with anything going on with my brain/body or your brain/body.

Slightly tangentially, but not really:
If think I look great, instead of saying "I don't look bad"? I'm going to say "I look great!"
Screw all of this crap where I'm supposed to suppress the feeling of confidence on the occasions I have it, lest someone possibly think I'm a terrible and conceited individual. Why are we continually told to suppress when we feel honestly good about ourselves if it is coming from within, but encouraged to seek approval from all these random people on the internet?

This is the absurdity of it: you are encouraged to have 3000 "friends" and get your self esteem from the number of "likes" given by these people you don't even really know. However, if you say anything positive about yourself, you are seen as narcissistic.

Screw it, I'm awesome.
I get to say that.

The fun thing is everyone else gets to say it too!
You can also say "I have awesomeness", if you want.

Really it's a personal decision in the end, and that's the point.