Studies: New Source For Therapy For PTSD And Addiction Is Mind-Rotting Video Games

from the building-blocks dept

If you're of a certain age, you will remember the derision with which video games as an entertainment industry were met some time ago. While many of the claims about gaming encountered during that time, such as the impact of violent games on young minds or the assured claims that playing games would rot the brains of young people who played them, please understand how much louder that silliness was shouted years back. I can personally recall my own father insisting that if I played video games, I would end up having oatmeal for brains. Good one, Dad, except I played them anyway and now I'm a real-life grown-up with a family and two jobs and a house and all that jazz. Jazz, of course, being a previous receptacle for many of these same claims, but I digress.

Less vociferous have been those on the other side of the "video games will rot your brain" position, but reverse claims do exist. Some have posited that there could actually be benefits to playing video games, from instilling in players a baseline sense of achievement, improving cognitive ability, or preparing them to be better at business than they would be otherwise. And now a recent study suggests that simple video games may in fact be useful therapeutically for those who have suffered trauma or addiction.

Researchers report that Tetris—a classic game that takes hold of spatial and visual systems in the brain as players align irregular polygons—seems to jumble the mind’s ability to process and store fresh traumatic memories. Those improperly preserved memories are subsequently less likely to resurface as intrusive, distressing flashbacks, which can contribute to post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, complicated grief, and other mental health issues. For those struggling with cravings or addiction, other research has found that Tetris’ mental grasp can also diminish the intensity of hankerings and help game players fight off real-life dependencies.

Though the conclusions are based on small studies in need of repeating and further investigation, one thing is clear: the potential video-game therapy has scant side-effects and potential harms. Twenty-minutes of Tetris is just good fun, if nothing else.

As the article states, more research needs to be done before the American Medical Association begins prescribing Tetris to heroin addicts and victims of car accidents, but the limited studies show rather striking results. In the UK, 71 real-world patients who had been in traumatic vehicle accidents were asked to play 20 minutes of Tetris while at the hospital, while the control group simply logged what would be their normal activity during their stay. Those who played the game reported nearly two-thirds fewer incidents of flashbacks or PTSD. The theory is that playing the game works within the brain to suppress traumatic memory of these incidents, memories that are not useful in a therapeutic sense. When the researchers checked back a month later, the experimental and control groups had similar mental health scores, once the game playing had ceased. Keep in mind we're talking about 20 minutes of play during the hospital stay.

As for its impact on addiction, the results for playing Tetris were more muted, but still substantial.

In late 2015, a group of English and Australian researchers reported that playing Tetris could dampen cravings for addictive substances, such as nicotine, alcohol, and drugs, as well as other vices, such as food and sex. The study, published in Addictive Behaviors, followed 31 undergraduate volunteers who carried around iPods for a week and filled out surveys seven times a day about their cravings. Fifteen of the participants also got to play three minutes of Tetris after the surveys, then report on their cravings again. When the week was up, the researchers found that playing Tetris consistently reduced craving strength by 13.9 percent—about a fifth. That, the authors explained, could be just enough for people to ignore those cravings and avoid their vice.

The researchers again hypothesized that the game’s ability to seize visual and spatial processing in the brain is key to the health benefits. In this case, addiction and cravings are often driven by visual fantasies of having that drink, drug, or what-have-you, the authors explained.

As already stated, more studies need to be done before drawing any firm conclusions, but it seems clear that despite all the shouting about the horror of playing video games and its impact on the brain, the flipside to that might actually be true. And then, finally, perhaps the world can move on to its next moral panic.

Filed Under: addiction, ptsd, treatment, video games

Compare And Contrast: Treatment Of Thomas Drake & Hillary Clinton For Having Classified Info

from the double-standards dept

The Washington Post has a big story delving deep into how the Hillary Clinton email scandal happened, noting that Clinton just didn't want to give up her BlackBerry, even as the NSA told her repeatedly that it wasn't secure and there were serious risks involved. What's amazing, from the story, is how much everyone was focused on the BlackBerry side of things, and sort of skipped over the fact that she was using a private email account with the server set up in her basement. The WaPo article notes that for the first few months in her job as Secretary of State, the email server didn't even have basic encryption tools enabled. All of that is a travesty, and you should read the whole article to understand the issue more, but I wanted to focus in on a related issue: the high court/low court treatment of Hillary Clinton as compared to others. In particular, the situation with Thomas Drake, the NSA whistleblower.

Almost five years ago, we wrote about the Thomas Drake case, highlighting some key passages in an astoundingly thorough New Yorker piece by Jane Mayer, which ripped the government's case to shreds. That long article is also worth reading, but for this story, the key points are that Drake was getting on some people's nerves by complaining about the decisions the NSA was making in the wake of 9/11 -- moving towards using an expensive computer system that would suck up everyone's data, while he and others had worked on a much more cost-efficient system that would get better results and had built-in protections for civil liberties. Drake blew the whistle and provided information to a Congressional oversight staffer.

When a big NY Times investigative piece came out later revealing the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program, and the NSA tried to figure out who had leaked, they raided Drake's home. He hadn't been the leaker, but after ruffling through basically everything, they found that Drake had kept a few marginal classified documents:

Then, in April, 2008, the F.B.I. told him that someone important wanted to meet with him, at a secure building in Calverton, Maryland. Drake agreed to the appointment. Soon after he showed up, he says, Steven Tyrrell, the prosecutor, walked in and told him, “You’re screwed, Mr. Drake. We have enough evidence to put you away for most of the rest of your natural life.”

Prosecutors informed Drake that they had found classified documents in the boxes in his basement—the indictment cites three—and discovered two more in his e-mail archive.

The "classified" information in question was totally meaningless. There was unclassified stuff he had kept because he had given it to the Inspector General as part of his whistleblowing and had been told to keep it. And there was a schedule of meetings that was marked unclassified, but which the government claimed should have been classified. And another document that was declassified soon after:

“They had made me into an enemy of the state just by saying I was,” Drake says. The boxes in his basement contained copies of some of the less sensitive material that he had procured for the Inspector General’s Trailblazer investigation. The Inspector General’s Web site directs complainants to keep copies. Drake says that if the boxes did, in fact, contain classified documents he didn’t realize it. (The indictment emphasizes that he “willfully” retained documents.) The two documents that the government says it extracted from his e-mail archive were even less sensitive, Drake says. Both pertained to a successor to Trailblazer, code-named Turbulence. One document listed a schedule of meetings about Turbulence. It was marked “unclassified/for official use only” and posted on the N.S.A.’s internal Web site. The government has since argued that the schedule should have been classified, and that Drake should have known this. The other document, which touted the success of Turbulence, was officially declassified in July, 2010, three months after Drake was indicted. “After charging him with having this ostensibly serious classified document, the government waved a wand and decided it wasn’t so classified after all,” Radack says.

Because of those five documents, none of which ever should have been classified and one of which clearly was not... the Justice Department threatened Drake with thirty-five years in jail.

Drake was no longer charged with leaking classified documents, or with being part of a conspiracy. He is still charged with violating the Espionage Act, but now merely because of unauthorized “willful retention” of the five documents. Drake says that when he learned that, even with the reduced charges, he still faced up to thirty-five years in prison, he “was completely aghast.”

Okay. Got that? Thirty-five years because he "retained" five documents the government claims were classified.

Now, back to Clinton:

State Department and Intelligence Community officials have determined that 2,093 email chains contained classified information. Most of the classified emails have been labeled as “confidential,” the lowest level of classification. Clinton herself authored 104 emails that contained classified material, a Post analysis later found.

Before the server received a digital certificate marking the use of standard encryption, Clinton and her aides exchanged notes touching on North Korea, Mexico, Afghanistan, military advisers, CIA operations and a briefing for Obama.

Right. So Drake gets his home raided and faces 35 years for "retaining" 5 documents. And Clinton appeared to run classified documents through her unprotected home email server pretty much all the time. Now, it's likely that a lot of those 2093 emails involved "overclassification" situations that are all too common in government. And I'm certainly not making the argument that Clinton should necessarily face jail time (let alone 35 years or more) for the use of her own email server.

I'm just pointing out the seeming difference in treatment that someone like Drake gets, as a known "whistleblower" on government waste, as compared to Clinton, a front-runner for the Presidential nomination and a former First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State.

Others have certainly noticed this double standard as well. Last summer, the ACLU called out this seeming unequal treatment, as did the Daily Beat, which referred to it as a double standard. Meanwhile, Glenn Greenwald has -- quite reasonably -- gone even further, in pointing to Clinton's own comments on another situation involving classified emails: the case against Chelsea Manning. That involved the leaking of classified State Department cables while Clinton was Secretary of State. Clinton condemned Manning and insisted that the State Department had to be able to keep communications protected. And, yes, she said this at a time when her own emails were being run off a server in her home's basement.

Who knows what's going to happen with Clinton's email situation, but at the very least, the differential treatment she's received so far, compared to whistleblowers, should highlight just how ridiculous the treatment was for those whistleblowers. And it should reinforce the nature of the "high court/low court" distinction among the politically powerful. They get to avoid the kind of legal troubles the "little people" deal with.

Filed Under: classified information, clinton emails, confidential information, differential treatment, emails, high court, hillary clinton, low court, thomas drake, treatment, whistleblowers

DailyDirt: Imagine There's No Cancer...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

In 2015, an estimated 1.6 million patients were diagnosed with cancer and over half a million died from it. We've previously pointed out some cancer research that could lead to promising new treatments, and it looks like we're making significant progress in the fight against the many forms of this deadly disease. Using the body's own immune system to fight cancer is a growing strategy that seems to be working. Check out a few of these minor successes.

• Jimmy Carter announced that his cancer treatments are going well, and his latest brain scans don't show any tumors. Carter has been getting radiation treatments and doses of Keytruda, an immunotherapy drug, to fight off cancer. Immunotherapy drugs are promising, but it's not well understood how they work just yet. Presumably, as we figure them out, we'll be able to target different kinds of cancer and improve the treatment. [url]
• Sequencing the genes of cancer cells can help determine drugs that could specifically target tumors. Hundreds of cancer drugs have been tested in clinical trials, and a few are extending the life expectancy of patients. As long as the drug prices don't skyrocket unexpectedly, many people might be able to benefit from this advance in biotech. [url]
• The FDA has approved a virus that can attack cancer cells. This living virus, sold as Imlygic, is an engineered version of herpesvirus, and it's probably the first of a class of viral anti-cancer treatments. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take 10% off any $50+ order from our Daily Deals using the promo code DAILYDIRT.

Filed Under: biotech, cancer, cancer research, dna, drugs, health, imlygic, immunotherapy, jimmy carter, keytruda, medicine, pharmaceuticals, treatment, tumor

DailyDirt: The Fight Against Cancer Continues...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

There have been some pretty wild treatments for cancer, from modifying HIV and creating a gene therapy approach... to using genetically-engineered bacteria or radiation to attack cancer cells. Over the years, there have been quite a few promising studies that haven't amounted to practical treatments. There will probably never be a silver bullet, but until medicine figures out how to beat a lot more cancers, there's always more research to be done.

• Reprogramming cancer cells can make them normal cells again, providing a potential cancer treatment. The discovery of how to turn off the uncontrolled growth of tumor cells will need more time to develop into a practical cancer therapy, but this is encouraging work towards a fundamental understanding and possible cure. [url]
• Aspirin (aka "wonder drug") seems to keep finding more uses. It's not just a headache medicine or a drug that can prevent the risk of heart attacks, but it might also help boost the effectiveness of some cancer treatments. [url]
• An implantable "cancer sponge" could soak up rogue cancer cells before they spread to other organs and give doctors a better early warning detection system. The implant is made from an FDA-approved material already used in surgical sutures, and it seems to work in mice studies. Obviously, it'll take a while before human studies are complete, but this could be a much more convenient and less risky way to detect cancer in its earliest stages. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: aspirin, cancer, gene therapy, gmo, health, implants, medicine, treatment

PA Hospital First To Open Inpatient Treatment Program For Addiction To The Internet

from the does-that-make-us-pushers? dept

It's been a while since we heard supposedly smart health professionals, who are clearly addicted to making claims about addiction, discuss internet addictions. You may recall that a couple of years back, China declared that spending six hours in a day on the internet meant you were addicted. Even some of our domestic psychiatrists were lobbying for an addiction to the internet being included in the DSM book, which is the kind of light reading that would give a hypochondriac a case of the tight-pants. Sadly, to date, the concept of an overarching addiction to the internet hasn't been deemed fit for inclusion.

But that won't stop hospitals from profiting off of the concept, now that the very first inpatient program to treat internet addiction has been launched at Bradford Regional Medical Center in Pennsylvania.

The voluntary, 10-day program is set to open on Sept. 9 at the Behavioral Health Services at Bradford Regional Medical Center. The program was organized by experts in the field and cognitive specialists with backgrounds in treating more familiar addictions like drug and alcohol abuse.

"[Internet addiction] is a problem in this country that can be more pervasive than alcoholism," said Dr. Kimberly Young, the psychologist who founded the non-profit program. "The Internet is free, legal and fat free."

As someone who has to use the internet for most of the day due to employment requirements, you can understand how worried I am about this. Would my time be better spent drinking sweet, awesome scotch, or snorting a couple of lines off my desk? It's hard to know for sure, but I suppose I should probably switch the screen off and stop writing this post right now. But... I can't. Writing internet posts is so alluring. Maybe writing is an addiction, too? After all, I really like doing it, so it has to be bad, right? I wonder what makes the scary internet suffer its own unique addictive traits, oh super-wise medical professionals?

Most people with a severe Internet addiction have some type of undiagnosed psychiatric disorder or personality problem, according to Dr. Roger Laroche, the medical director of the department of psychiatry at Bradford Regional. Each patient in the program, which costs $14,000 out-of-pocket because insurance does not cover the expense, will be psychologically evaluated after undergoing a 'digital detox.'

Oh. So internet addiction isn't actually a "thing", but rather it's a mistaken diagnosis for symptoms of other entirely separate mental health disorders. Well, that makes a lot more sense. After all, we don't see a person who cuts their arms habitually and say they're addicted to cutting themselves. We say they're depressed, or suffer from bi-polar disorder, or an eating disorder, or whatever. It's a symptom, not a disease. What may look like internet addiction is really just a symptom of something else. But, hey, why not charge $14k for a program that isn't covered by insurance, even though a properly diagnosed disorder would likely be covered?

Duke University's chairman of the DSM-IV, Dr. Allen Frances, sums it up nicely.

"If we can be addicted to gambling and the Internet, why not also include addictions to shopping, exercise, sex, work, golf, sunbathing, model railroading, you name it? All passionate interests are at risk for redefinition as mental disorders."

I'd be diagnosed with addiction to at least four of those, so I'm either screwed or I just have a lot of really enjoyable hobbies in my life. You pick.

Filed Under: addiction, hospitals, internet addiction, treatment

DailyDirt: The Progress Of Treating HIV

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The US Center for Disease Control reported on its first case of AIDS (though it wasn't called AIDS at the time) in 1981. Some HIV-positive patients have since gained access to anti-viral drugs that hold off the fatal complications for many more years than it was previously thought possible. There are over 34 million people in the world who are HIV-positive, and there are some optimistic reports that the treatments are becoming more effective. Here are just a few fascinating stories on the development of HIV treatments.

• A baby born in Mississippi with HIV has been "functionally cured" after receiving an aggressive regimen of anti-retroviral drugs.. a discovery that occurred when the treatment was inadvertently stopped after 18 months. There have been some scattered reports of other babies who have been cleared of HIV, but this is the first case that will be rigorously studied with highly sensitive genetic tests. [url]
• A generation of HIV-positive youngsters are beginning to live into adulthood, but the long-term effects of HIV (and the medicines to treat it) are completely unexplored territory. Studying these kids for many decades could determine optimal medical regimes and shape how society handles patients who need indefinite treatment. [url]
• The "Berlin Patient" (aka Timothy Ray Brown) is the first known person to defeat HIV. After a bone marrow transplant to treat (unrelated) leukemia, Brown recovered, and doctors found that his HIV levels were at undetectable amounts.. and remained so without anti-viral drugs. [url]
• Some people have a genetic mutation that prevents HIV from infecting their white blood cells, making them immune to the virus. The specific mutation was identified in 1996, but the discovery hasn't (yet) lead to a universal vaccine. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: aids, berlin patient, cure, disease, health, hiv, immunity, medicine, treatment

Bradley Manning Hearing Shows Military Bosses More Concerned About Media Attention Than Manning's Conditions

from the but-of-course dept

Kevin Gosztola has been providing detailed updates on the latest Bradley Manning hearings, focused mainly on the conditions associated with the treatment of Manning after his arrest, and whether or not it amounted to "unlawful pretrial punishment" or involved reasonable precautions by the military. Specifically, as we had discussed, Manning was held in conditions that amounted to torture under key definitions of torture -- held in "intensive solitary confinement" in total isolation, not allowed to have a pillow or sheets for his bed. Over 250 legal experts condemned his treatment and the State Department's spokesperson even lost his job for saying publicly that Manning was being mistreated, and that it wasn't productive.

The legal issue is that if this treatment was seen as punitive then that's a problem. People can be held pre-trial, but they're not supposed to be "punished" as part of the process. The Defense Department has been trying to claim that the treatment of Manning had to do with fears that he would harm himself, and the latest hearings were to figure out which version of the story is really accurate. The details look pretty damning for the Defense Department. For example, it appears that officials were more concerned about the media, not about Manning's condition:

Going through emails, it came out that Lt. Gen. George Flynn, superior officer, was concerned with media and not Bradley Manning’s conditions. For example, when David House and Firedoglake editor-in-chief Jane Hamsher were harassed at the gate of Quantico, Flynn was in on this incident. He was up on what the public affairs planned to say to any questions from media on the incident. But, he was not up on weekly updates coming from officers in the brig.

Later, the same Lt. Gen. Flynn apparently got upset that the NYTimes had information on Manning's mistreatment and he hadn't been forewarned about the media situation:

Lt. Gen. Flynn was upset that he read about Manning standing outside his cell naked in the New York Times. “It would be good to have leadership have heads up on these things before they’re read in the early bird!” Lt. Col Flynn wrote in an email. The “early bird” is a military synopsis of various news stories/press releases.

And then there's the fact that the "psychologist" relied on to assess Manning's mental state... wasn't actually a psychologist but a dentist. Huh?!?

Also, a “forensic psychiatrist” that the Brig was consulting was a Dentist. She didn’t really have qualifications as a psychologist. She was a doctor on staff there and they went to her for assessments on Manning’s condition.

On top of that, evidence was presented of guards joking about taking away Manning's underwear in response to comments Manning had made. It certainly raises significant questions about why they were treating Manning this way and if it actually had anything to do with his own safety... or if they just liked taunting him.

One Quantico Brig officer (female) sent email where he joked about the removal of Manning’s underwear after comments he made on March 2, 2011. Here’s a version the press pool currently believes we heard read in court:

“As Dr. Seuss would say I can wear them in a box, I can wear them with a fox, I can wear them with socks. I can wear them in the day so I say. I can’t wear them at night. My comments gave the staff a fright.”

It is Green Eggs & Ham.

Coombs asked Choike if he believed joking about the underwear was something that an officer should have done. Choike then said something to the effect that he realized this could be brought up by Manning with his attorney and it might become “another media issue.”

Even if you think Manning violated the law, it seems pretty damning to see him treated this way pre-trial.

Separately, prior to the discussion about Manning's conditions, the government officially opposed Manning's attempt to plead guilty to certain lesser charges (as discussed earlier) in the hopes of speeding up the trial and getting potential leniency on some of the more serious charges. This issue more or less got tabled for procedural reasons, as Manning is still arguing that the government failed to provide a speedy trial and the court notes that if it excepts the plea, that would also waive the speedy trial issue. So, the court will handle the issue of whether or not the government failed to offer a speedy trial before taking on the plea issue.

Filed Under: bradley manning, media, solitary confinement, torture, treatment

Administration Forces PJ Crowley Out Of The State Dept. After He Admits That Manning Is Being Mistreated

from the what-happened-to-dissent? dept

When President Obama was campaigning and elected, one of the things he frequently talked about was how he was influenced by Doris Kearns Goodwin's book, Team of Rivals, and how President Lincoln brought together may dissenting voices into his cabinet. There were, clearly, political reasons for doing so, but part of the benefit was that it allowed voices of dissent to be heard. However, in practice, it's appearing that President Obama has no real interest in allowing the same thing to occur in his administration, and that's really unfortunate.

On Friday, we wrote about the quite surprising news that State Department spokesperson PJ Crowley had admitted that he felt Bradley Manning was being mistreated in prison. Crowley specifically called it "ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid," despite also saying he believed that Manning clearly belonged in jail, and that the leaks were harmful. When President Obama was asked about this later, he gave a very weak answer about how he had asked the Defense Department, and they assured him everything was fine:

"I have actually asked the Pentagon whether or not the procedures that have been taken in terms of his confinement are appropriate and are meeting our basic standards. They assured me that they are."

Of course, that might just raise serious questions about what the DoD thinks is "appropriate" and what those basic standards are.

But, even more troubling is the report that Crowley has resigned from the State Department, with lots of folks saying this was due to direct pressure from the administration for him to fall on his sword.

Whether or not you believe that Manning's treatment is reasonable, this should trouble you. For a President who claimed he wanted to hear dissent from the people around him, to then force someone out for offering just that kind of dissent suggests someone focusing on remaining in their own bubble, rather than actually listening to concerns of people.

Filed Under: barack obama, bradley manning, pj crowley, state department, treatment, wikileaks

State Department Spokesperson Says Bradley Manning Is Being Mistreated

from the they-just-noticed? dept

We've written a few times about how we believe Bradley Manning's treatment in prison is horrifying. It goes beyond what's reasonable, and in recent weeks has only gotten worse, as he's now being stripped naked every night.

However Glenn Greenwald points us to the very surprising news that State Department spokesperson P.J. Crowley has now come out to say that he believes Manning is being "mistreated" in prison. This is a huge surprise. After all, the State Department has taken the brunt of the leaks that Manning is accused of facilitating. And Crowley has been the State Department's go to guy for massively exaggerating the leak's impact on world affairs. For him to come out and say that Manning is being mistreated is a huge surprise. I'm curious if the folks in our comments who were vocally defending the treatment of Manning as perfectly normal are still willing to defend it, when even one of their biggest allies is backing down.

Filed Under: bradley manning, pj crowley, treatment, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

Press Realizing That Treatment Of Bradley Manning Is Indefensible

from the surprising dept

The mainstream press has had a bit of a love-hate affair with Wikileaks over the past few months, often conflating some of the issues with Julian Assange with the overall operation itself. But what's been really troubling is how quiet the press has mainly been about the treatment of Bradley Manning, which is so severe that many people consider it to qualify as torture. Even the UN is now investigating whether the treatment qualifies as torture. Of course, even if you don't consider it torture, it's pretty clear that the treatment is designed to punish Manning, despite no trial and no conviction (or, perhaps, it's being used to pressure him to implicate Julian Assange in a potential conspiracy that might not actually exist).

However, it's nice to see at least some in the press realize this is a serious problem. The LA Times has an editorial suggesting that this treatment of Manning is clearly indefensible, and should be stopped. It does not come out and say he's being tortured and says that it's fine to punish Manning (within the limits of the law) if he's convicted, but that to do so prior to any conviction is immensely problematic:

Some see Manning as a whistle-blower who deserves leniency for exposing official duplicity; others believe that, like anyone who engages in civil disobedience, Manning, if guilty, should accept punishment for his actions. But regardless of one's view of his alleged conduct, the conditions under which he is being held are indefensible.

There's no reason that Manning can't be held under more reasonable conditions. It's sad that our government appears to not be willing to allow that to happen.

Filed Under: bradley manning, press, treatment, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks