We Don't Know Nothing.

[712xx]

I think discussions like this are important -- to read what everyone has to say, from their perspective, and not react personally to it (hard but doable). There are a lot of good points everyone has made because it comes from a real place of pain, mental and physical. If someone is wrong on a few points that doesn't make everything they said to be wrong.

You might miss out on something that triggers inpiration for you if you allow the knee-jerk bad reaction to blind you to everything that is coming from the hearts and minds of people's experiences and 'understanding' (based on their experiences and study).

I thought this post deserved a bump up, and maybe it could use fresh eyes and new perspective.

Edit Addition: I just should add that it is possible to desensitize (temporarily) certain startle responses. It requires you to work on it though, and stop avoiding certain situations and behaviors. However, the startle responses can come back if you stop working on it and go back to avoiding. It is like being in the dark a long time and going out into the light.

It takes longer for your eyes to adjust if you've spent longer in the dark. If you have an illness that causes you to be light-sensitive, then it takes working on the illness itself to help you out with the light sensitivity. No amount of light exposure is going to help ... BUT working on the illness directly will by domino effect help with your eyes.

I believe this is what the OP had in mind when posting, and is a good thought experiment to think about.

 

[Jen93]

You are confusing me. :confused: That's not too hard to do though. "We don't know nothing" means "We do not know nothing" So therefore "We know something."

That is a statement I agree with! Everybody knows something! I know that I can not trust anything that I read from sources which are not reliable. There is no reliability to your post ikop- We do not have proof that you are telling the truth, therefore we are able to do what we wish to it, either dismiss it or accept it. I myself will reject it, but thanks for taking the time to type your findings.

Jen

 

[Meadowsweet]

Sometimes I think its the tone in which things are said that make them awkward to read and difficult to understand.

The thread re-diagnises everyone on the basis that hormone levels havn't been tested. And for a lot of people, there isn't access to a private clinic that will test anything we'd like to be tested for. So we have to work with what is offered.

From what I understand there have been a great many studies of the effects of trauma focussed CBT. It doesn't claim to be a quick cure, but I like that it requires the client to give their own effort to recovering.

It may sound silly, but to me, a method of healing that is aimed at giving me control and responsibilty for running my own life is more in keeping with my outlook.

If you truly have severe ptsd and you are going through what I am going through you will do whatever you can to get better, including intrusive treatments - because this is not life - it is existing.

Its this kind of tone that I think it is more helpful to avoid. A friend of mine had cancer, and after the initial operation, she decided not to have further intrusive treatment or regular tests for it. She'd fought with depression for years. But in the 5 years she lived without cancer for, she dumped the boyfriend and started to take less crap off people and to do what she wanted. She broke many habits and negative thinking styles, and accepted that the cancer had cought up with her, when it eventually did.

Thats my way of saying that its not realistic to make assumptions about people, because they don't react or believe the same as another person. And the same goes for the choice of tratment.

There are many illnesses that can be cured by intrusive treatments as well as non-intrusive treatments. But our medical outlook tends to favour the more immediate effects of intrusive treatments.