http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/ Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:48:45 -0500 MyBB http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=615 Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:38:00 -0500 http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=615 http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=614 Fri, 04 Jul 2008 22:15:51 -0500 http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=614 Critics have typically focused on the potential for a conflict of interest when researchers are funded by the pharmaceutical companies whose drugs they study. But there are many deep pockets in the world, and gambling companies have some of the deepest.
Just ask Howard Shaffer, a world-renown researcher on compulsive gambling and a Harvard professor. Bloomberg pointed out yesterday how he has received over $9 million in industry money since 1996, in support of his research initiatives into gambling and gambling problems.
Shaffer’s research, however, is extensive in this field and his reputation is impeccable. The primary difference seems to be that the media (in this case, Bloomberg specifically) is on a bit of a witch hunt now, looking for anyone who gets industry money and does research on that same industry (regardless of whether there has been any failure to disclose the support).
To be clear, Shaffer is not under any type of investigation for failure to disclose financial support from the industry, a point not clearly made until you’re nine paragraphs into the article:

Shaffer’s research complies with Harvard’s guidelines for receiving funding from industry, David Cameron, a spokesman for Harvard Medical School, said in an emailed statement June 25.
Shaffer, 59, said his funding sources are fully disclosed, his findings are published in peer-reviewed journals and casino companies haven’t interfered with his research.

Far before this point is made, the Bloomberg author trots out guilt by association, bringing up the other three Harvard-associated researchers who actually did something wrong — they failed to disclose industry-received money.
That’s the point. It is perfectly legal and acceptable to receive such money and has been for decades, as long as it is fully disclosed to all — the university, the journals, and the public.
Now, whether it’s right or not is entirely another question (one the article skirts around and never really frames properly). Whether one’s research actually does become biased, despite one’s best efforts to keep it fair and balanced, is a good question for a study or two.
Common wisdom suggests that funding sources will eventually exert an influence — even a subtle influence — especially when one’s livelihood is dependent upon it. Alternatively, a researcher’s reputation is virtually priceless and few researchers would put theirs at stake even to receive virtually unlimited research funding.
That’s why good studies need to be replicated by other researchers. If a bias existed, it should come out in other studies that don’t find the same results or come to the same conclusions. So eventually, time will tell.
Read the full article: Harvard Proves Gaming’s Best Friend With Casino-Funded Research (Source: World of Psychology)

Posted on Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:51:49 +0100 at http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/20...le-take-2/
Author: World of Psychology
Comments: http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1575412]]> Critics have typically focused on the potential for a conflict of interest when researchers are funded by the pharmaceutical companies whose drugs they study. But there are many deep pockets in the world, and gambling companies have some of the deepest.
Just ask Howard Shaffer, a world-renown researcher on compulsive gambling and a Harvard professor. Bloomberg pointed out yesterday how he has received over $9 million in industry money since 1996, in support of his research initiatives into gambling and gambling problems.
Shaffer’s research, however, is extensive in this field and his reputation is impeccable. The primary difference seems to be that the media (in this case, Bloomberg specifically) is on a bit of a witch hunt now, looking for anyone who gets industry money and does research on that same industry (regardless of whether there has been any failure to disclose the support).
To be clear, Shaffer is not under any type of investigation for failure to disclose financial support from the industry, a point not clearly made until you’re nine paragraphs into the article:

Shaffer’s research complies with Harvard’s guidelines for receiving funding from industry, David Cameron, a spokesman for Harvard Medical School, said in an emailed statement June 25.
Shaffer, 59, said his funding sources are fully disclosed, his findings are published in peer-reviewed journals and casino companies haven’t interfered with his research.

Far before this point is made, the Bloomberg author trots out guilt by association, bringing up the other three Harvard-associated researchers who actually did something wrong — they failed to disclose industry-received money.
That’s the point. It is perfectly legal and acceptable to receive such money and has been for decades, as long as it is fully disclosed to all — the university, the journals, and the public.
Now, whether it’s right or not is entirely another question (one the article skirts around and never really frames properly). Whether one’s research actually does become biased, despite one’s best efforts to keep it fair and balanced, is a good question for a study or two.
Common wisdom suggests that funding sources will eventually exert an influence — even a subtle influence — especially when one’s livelihood is dependent upon it. Alternatively, a researcher’s reputation is virtually priceless and few researchers would put theirs at stake even to receive virtually unlimited research funding.
That’s why good studies need to be replicated by other researchers. If a bias existed, it should come out in other studies that don’t find the same results or come to the same conclusions. So eventually, time will tell.
Read the full article: Harvard Proves Gaming’s Best Friend With Casino-Funded Research (Source: World of Psychology)

Posted on Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:51:49 +0100 at http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/20...le-take-2/
Author: World of Psychology
Comments: http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1575412]]> http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=613 Wed, 02 Jul 2008 22:09:59 -0500 http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=613
Posted on Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EDT at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...160944.htm]]>
Posted on Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EDT at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...160944.htm]]> http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=612 Tue, 01 Jul 2008 22:05:05 -0500 http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=612
Posted on Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:00:00 EDT at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...083522.htm]]>
Posted on Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:00:00 EDT at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...083522.htm]]> http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=611 Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:48:52 -0500 http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=611
Posted on Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EDT at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...201007.htm]]>
Posted on Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EDT at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...201007.htm]]> http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=610 Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:08:39 -0500 http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=610
Posted on Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EDT at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...150628.htm]]>
Posted on Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EDT at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...150628.htm]]> http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=609 Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:08:39 -0500 http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=609
Posted on Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:00:00 EDT at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...093249.htm]]>
Posted on Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:00:00 EDT at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...093249.htm]]> http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=608 Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:01:00 -0500 http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=608
Posted on Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EDT at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...093249.htm]]>
Posted on Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EDT at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...093249.htm]]> http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=607 Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:49:18 -0500 http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=607
Posted on Tue, 24 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EDT at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...151827.htm]]>
Posted on Tue, 24 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EDT at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...151827.htm]]> http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=606 Sun, 22 Jun 2008 20:37:08 -0500 http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=606 And you would be wrong.
Earlier this week, Mind Hacks had a thoughtful entry about how even gambling addiction professionals are still learning what makes a behavior an “addiction.” Vaughn also rightfully points out how ridiculous it can get when the media just tacks on “addiction” to any behavior done more frequently than “normal” (whatever that is), and voilà! — a new diagnosis is born:

Not a single one of these is based on research. It’s just people announcing a new form of addiction. That’s all you have to do and you can get international press.
For extra bonus points you can mention dopamine, and it sounds like science.
We know dopamine is involved in drug addiction, but we also know that anything we enjoy, ‘addictive’ or not, also engages the dopamine system. So saying that the activity is addictive because it engages the dopamine system is an empty statement.

This of course has been my concern with “Internet addiction disorder” from Day One. If you use terms with little agreed-upon meaning in science, you’re bound to wind up with a fuzzy disorder that has few boundaries and little usefulness.
Read the full entry: Loaded dice in gambling addiction research (Source: World of Psychology)

Posted on Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:59:26 +0100 at http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/20...ddictions/
Author: World of Psychology
Comments: http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1535727]]> And you would be wrong.
Earlier this week, Mind Hacks had a thoughtful entry about how even gambling addiction professionals are still learning what makes a behavior an “addiction.” Vaughn also rightfully points out how ridiculous it can get when the media just tacks on “addiction” to any behavior done more frequently than “normal” (whatever that is), and voilà! — a new diagnosis is born:

Not a single one of these is based on research. It’s just people announcing a new form of addiction. That’s all you have to do and you can get international press.
For extra bonus points you can mention dopamine, and it sounds like science.
We know dopamine is involved in drug addiction, but we also know that anything we enjoy, ‘addictive’ or not, also engages the dopamine system. So saying that the activity is addictive because it engages the dopamine system is an empty statement.

This of course has been my concern with “Internet addiction disorder” from Day One. If you use terms with little agreed-upon meaning in science, you’re bound to wind up with a fuzzy disorder that has few boundaries and little usefulness.
Read the full entry: Loaded dice in gambling addiction research (Source: World of Psychology)

Posted on Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:59:26 +0100 at http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/20...ddictions/
Author: World of Psychology
Comments: http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1535727]]> http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=605 Sat, 21 Jun 2008 20:35:36 -0500 http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=605 Data and address contacts are intact, after a crash, and we should have newsletter back shortly.
As for gamblingwatchglobal, the first top pages deal with 3 pending lawsuits, 3 provinces,
close to 2/3 of our population up in arms. Ontario has 3 race track slots on strike, and OLG is lamenting. Strange, [...] (Source: Gambling Watch Global)

Posted on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:22:56 +0100 at http://www.gamblingwatchglobal.com/archi...tchcanada/
Author: Gambling Watch Global
Comments: http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1531789]]> Data and address contacts are intact, after a crash, and we should have newsletter back shortly.
As for gamblingwatchglobal, the first top pages deal with 3 pending lawsuits, 3 provinces,
close to 2/3 of our population up in arms. Ontario has 3 race track slots on strike, and OLG is lamenting. Strange, [...] (Source: Gambling Watch Global)

Posted on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:22:56 +0100 at http://www.gamblingwatchglobal.com/archi...tchcanada/
Author: Gambling Watch Global
Comments: http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1531789]]> http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=604 Fri, 20 Jun 2008 20:13:14 -0500 http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=604
Posted on Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EDT at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...115953.htm]]>
Posted on Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EDT at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...115953.htm]]> http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=603 Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:38:54 -0500 http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=603 A drug commonly used to treat alcohol addiction has a similar effect on pathological gamblers – it curbs the urge to gamble and participate in gambling-related behavior, according to a new research at the University of Minnesota.
Seventy-seven people participated in the double-blind, placebo controlled study. Fifty-eight men and women took 50, 100, or 150 milligrams of naltrexone every day for 18 weeks.

Forty percent of the 49 participants who took the drug and completed the study, quit gambling for at least one month.
Their urge to gamble also significantly dropped in intensity and frequency.

The other 19 participants took a placebo. But, only 10.5 percent of those who took the placebo were able to abstain from gambling.
Study participants were aged 18 to 75 and reported gambling for 6 to 32 hours each week.

Dosage did not have an impact on the results, naltrexone was generally well tolerated, and men and women reported similar results.

“This is good news for people who have a gambling problem,” said Jon Grant, M.D., J.D., M.P.H., a University of Minnesota associate professor of psychiatry and principal investigator of the study. “This is the first time people have a proven medication that can help them get their behavior under control.”
The research is published in the June 2008 issue of the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
Compulsive gamblers are unable to control their behavior, and the habit often becomes a detriment in their lives, Grant said. He estimates between 1 to 3 percent of the population has a gambling problem.
While the drug is not a cure for gambling, Grant said it offers hope to many who are suffering from addiction. He also said the drug would most likely work best in combination with individual therapy.
“Medication can be helpful, but people with gambling addiction often have multiple other issues that should be addressed through therapy,” he said.
See also;

Effects of Gambling Addiction
Gamblers Anonymous
How can I overcome my addiction to gambling?
Subscribe to Twelve Step Facilitation by e-Mail




         
Counselling for Problem Gambling (Living Therapy)by Richard Bryant-Jeffries
Read more about this title…



Brief-TSF manual US$9.95 Buy Now with Paypal, Visa or Mastercard
Subscribe to Twelve Step Facilitation by Email (Source: Twelve Step Facilitation.com)

Posted on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:43:24 +0100 at http://twelvestepfacilitation.com/alcoho...-gamblers/
Author: Twelve Step Facilitation.com
Comments: http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1526457]]> A drug commonly used to treat alcohol addiction has a similar effect on pathological gamblers – it curbs the urge to gamble and participate in gambling-related behavior, according to a new research at the University of Minnesota.
Seventy-seven people participated in the double-blind, placebo controlled study. Fifty-eight men and women took 50, 100, or 150 milligrams of naltrexone every day for 18 weeks.

Forty percent of the 49 participants who took the drug and completed the study, quit gambling for at least one month.
Their urge to gamble also significantly dropped in intensity and frequency.

The other 19 participants took a placebo. But, only 10.5 percent of those who took the placebo were able to abstain from gambling.
Study participants were aged 18 to 75 and reported gambling for 6 to 32 hours each week.

Dosage did not have an impact on the results, naltrexone was generally well tolerated, and men and women reported similar results.

“This is good news for people who have a gambling problem,” said Jon Grant, M.D., J.D., M.P.H., a University of Minnesota associate professor of psychiatry and principal investigator of the study. “This is the first time people have a proven medication that can help them get their behavior under control.”
The research is published in the June 2008 issue of the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
Compulsive gamblers are unable to control their behavior, and the habit often becomes a detriment in their lives, Grant said. He estimates between 1 to 3 percent of the population has a gambling problem.
While the drug is not a cure for gambling, Grant said it offers hope to many who are suffering from addiction. He also said the drug would most likely work best in combination with individual therapy.
“Medication can be helpful, but people with gambling addiction often have multiple other issues that should be addressed through therapy,” he said.
See also;

Effects of Gambling Addiction
Gamblers Anonymous
How can I overcome my addiction to gambling?
Subscribe to Twelve Step Facilitation by e-Mail




         
Counselling for Problem Gambling (Living Therapy)by Richard Bryant-Jeffries
Read more about this title…



Brief-TSF manual US$9.95 Buy Now with Paypal, Visa or Mastercard
Subscribe to Twelve Step Facilitation by Email (Source: Twelve Step Facilitation.com)

Posted on Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:43:24 +0100 at http://twelvestepfacilitation.com/alcoho...-gamblers/
Author: Twelve Step Facilitation.com
Comments: http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1526457]]> http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=602 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:50:22 -0500 http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=602 .................................................................
gin davis]]> .................................................................
gin davis]]> http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=601 Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:17:07 -0500 http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=601
Posted on Tue, 17 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EDT at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...125751.htm]]>
Posted on Tue, 17 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EDT at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...125751.htm]]> http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=600 Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:17:07 -0500 http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=600
Posted on Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:00:00 EDT at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...170831.htm]]>
Posted on Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:00:00 EDT at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...170831.htm]]> http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=599 Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:11:40 -0500 http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=599
Posted on Mon, 16 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EDT at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...170831.htm]]>
Posted on Mon, 16 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EDT at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...170831.htm]]> http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=598 Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:33:42 -0500 http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=598 Men in recovery from addiction, alcoholism and gambling often report they have slipped up in the bedroom. Recovery often includes finding out conventional manners and practices in all avenues of life, including sexuality.
Dr. Yvonne K. Fulbright, a sex educator, relationship expert, columnist and founder of Sexuality Source Inc., has come up with top mistakes men make in bed…
The biggest mistakes men make include:

Foreplay doesn’t start in the sack
Don’t head south straight away
Get to that G spot
Don’t be too goal-oriented
Let her be naughty
She’s not a porn star
And men aren’t supposed to look like porn stars
One orgasm is not always enough

Explanations and full story at; Times of India.
See also;

Women’s Sexual Arousal
Alcohol and Sexuality
Better Oral Sex
Cooking up Recovery
Mature Women and Sex
The Sexual G-spot, Male and Female
Subscribe to Recovery Is Sexy by e-Mail




         
Seven Weeks To Better Sexby Domeena Renshaw
Read more about this title…



Subscribe to Recovery Is Sexy by Email (Source: Recovery Is Sexy.com)

Posted on Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:02:33 +0100 at http://recoveryissexy.com/8-top-sex-mistakes-men-make/
Author: Recovery Is Sexy.com
Comments: http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1502794]]> Men in recovery from addiction, alcoholism and gambling often report they have slipped up in the bedroom. Recovery often includes finding out conventional manners and practices in all avenues of life, including sexuality.
Dr. Yvonne K. Fulbright, a sex educator, relationship expert, columnist and founder of Sexuality Source Inc., has come up with top mistakes men make in bed…
The biggest mistakes men make include:

Foreplay doesn’t start in the sack
Don’t head south straight away
Get to that G spot
Don’t be too goal-oriented
Let her be naughty
She’s not a porn star
And men aren’t supposed to look like porn stars
One orgasm is not always enough

Explanations and full story at; Times of India.
See also;

Women’s Sexual Arousal
Alcohol and Sexuality
Better Oral Sex
Cooking up Recovery
Mature Women and Sex
The Sexual G-spot, Male and Female
Subscribe to Recovery Is Sexy by e-Mail




         
Seven Weeks To Better Sexby Domeena Renshaw
Read more about this title…



Subscribe to Recovery Is Sexy by Email (Source: Recovery Is Sexy.com)

Posted on Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:02:33 +0100 at http://recoveryissexy.com/8-top-sex-mistakes-men-make/
Author: Recovery Is Sexy.com
Comments: http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1502794]]> http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=597 Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:33:37 -0500 http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=597
Posted on Tue, 10 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EDT at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...071947.htm]]>
Posted on Tue, 10 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EDT at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...071947.htm]]> http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=596 Sun, 08 Jun 2008 17:36:42 -0500 http://www.toughondrugs.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=596
Posted on Fri, 06 Jun 2008 15:00:46 +0100 at http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PharmaGaz...amble.html
Author: PharmaGazette
Comments: http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1499986]]>
Posted on Fri, 06 Jun 2008 15:00:46 +0100 at http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PharmaGaz...amble.html
Author: PharmaGazette
Comments: http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1499986]]>