I was Dx'd with ADHD in 2001. It explained a LOT of my childhood and my life (sadly). I got my formal epilepsy Dx later. I've talked to psychiatrists about getting the "formal, written down" Aspie Dx and they've told me not to bother having it put in a medical file at this point; I've learned whatever compensatory mechanisms I'm going to learn by now, and the comorbid conditions I have are the only things that are going to be "treated" anyway (seizures, adhd, etc.). It's not like I'm going to "magically" get more filters at 43 just because someone writes 299.80 in my file. Eh. asta (p.s. I went to a special program in middle school that was, in retrospect, a "how to function in the world if you have high functioning Asperger's" pull out program. So it's not like no one knew. It's just that no one wrote things down back then...)

Thanks. I'm not as angry today, but it helped to get it off of my chest. a

Let's see... DH is 46 and DS is 17... :lol: a

As one of my friends used to say: "Cheese is mold" It's just a matter of whether or not it is in a palatable stage... a

I'll answer questions on the board for everyone to see - I'm not proud. Or tired. (sorry - kid has been listening to Alice's Restaurant - a lot) a

I will pray for you if one of your airports is Schipol. Anyone who has been through there will understand. a

You have to have a chat with your doc regarding what kind of pain you are dealing with. Neurontin works on neuropathic pain (eg: nerve damage, such as a damaged back, or Impish's RLS). Narcotics are normally only prescribed when docs have run through all of the other, non-narcotic options for the specific type of pain being addressed. I'll give you an example: a doc giving narcotics to a patient for migraine will usually be turned in. Why? Because they simply don't WORK. The patient may *think* they work (because they're gorked and don't notice the pain), but physically, they don't address the issue (migraine is both a vascular and a neuron firing issue, not something an opioid addresses). For "Pain" in general: The first line of attack is NSAIDS, to reduce the inflammatory response to tissue injury. (that would be tylenol in your case... though tylenol isn't one of the best ones, frankly, IMO) Next up is reducing repetitive injury to the neurons using an anti-convulsant (like Neurontin or one of many others). Then they try to activate your own endorphin-secreting neurons (endorphin = feel good chemical) using either opioid analgesics [that would be the Lortab you're taking] or something called neuromodulators (drugs such as Depakote, Topamax, or Neurontin) Moving from "the top down", they then look at attempting to activate the "inhibitory" neurons moving from your brain to your spinal cord (the ones that can stop, or "break" the pain message) by using either antidepressants [this would be where Cymbalta or many other antidepressants would come in] or, again opioids. Finally, if all else has failed, they'll settle on only opioids, because they modulate the central processing of pain stimuli (they gork you out). No, I haven't memorized all of this. I keep books. There is a famous psychopharmacologist named Robert Julien who wrote a book called "A primer of drug action" that I refer to often. So, money. Cymbalta gets all of the press. They have a great ad campaign. But there are these really old antidepressants that fall under the category "tricyclics" that actually do the same thing. And they're on those $4 lists at Wal-Mart and Target, etc. The most common ones are desipramine, amitriptyline, and nortriptyline. They each work slightly differently, so one not doing the job is not indicative of another not working. When paired with a decent anti-inflammatory (say, naproxen), they have been proven to be as efficacious as opioids for generalized pain. Neurontin (gabapentin), Topamax (topiramate), and Depakote (divalproex sodium) are all in generic now. That's all I've got this morning. I need more coffee. a

I agree with you EM, but... The US educational system isn't set up that way. If the SAT2 test were being given to German students? Heck yeah! Go for it! Nuance away! Get down with your Buddenbrooks! But the US is a soundbite nation. I don't agree with it, I think it sucks, but the majority (NEA, anyone?) has decided that "the educational system" will be presented THUS. So to then turn around and say "oh, but, by the way, you are only worthy of moving forward in society [because the US has determined that only college graduates can get ahead] if you pick up these nuances we haven't bothered to even mention to you" or - WORSE - give you the skill set to discover on your own... I find that disingenuous. a

Yes. But I have no financial interest in the site. a

You check your luggage at airport A and pick it up at airport D to go through customs. It is a wave through - what could you possibly have to declare? (unless you're entering a country which the State Dept. has already told you not to go to, that is...) But not until you stand in the long-@ss "you do not have an EU/African/Asian/wherever passport" line behind every other person in the world to enter whatever country you're trying to enter. Going in the reverse, however, sucks. When you LEAVE the foreign country, the minute you hit US soil, you and your luggage will disembark and go through customs. There will be sniffer dogs. There will be people going through your luggage. You may have to hand it over to people so it can go through a fun-house "It's a Small World" tunnel out of your sight to be x-rayed and pawed. This will occur before you hit any connecting flight. If you have a connecting flight, you will re-check the bags and pick them up at the far end (no further hulabaloo). a

Lego Education. My kid started with Duplo and now he's reading Feynman. a

And this is where a kid with experience in a college course has an advantage. So, no, CB isn't putting "non-high school level material" on the test. What they are doing is putting the material on in such a manner that kids who haven't been exposed to higher ed (or haven't been coached on "how to take the SAT" - at which point, what the heck?) are at an automatic disadvantage. a

And mania can lead to psychosis. And both can lead to not sleeping. asta

Unfortunately for me, my kid figured it out. Which is why he 1st refused to go to college at all, and then 2nd agreed to go, as long as we didn't send him to America. This has been a stressful year. And we still have another one to go. a

I PM'd the OP Any substance can be addictive. Cough drops can be addictive. It depends more on the person than the medicine. Benzos are meant for long term use by certain populations. The key is knowing the difference between addiction, dependence and tolerance: Epileptics take them for life, as do some mentally ill people. When they are used in conjunction with other medications, dosing tends to stay stable for 5, 10, 20 years. Depends on the AD, depends on the person. Effexor and Paxil have known side effects of brain zaps. They must be tapered down extremely slowly (slower than most people would even think humanly possible - like, to the point where, at the end, people are opening the Effexor capsules and counting granules out of them) to avoid "the zaps". In regards to coming off of the Prozac, once you get to the 10mg pill, you can split it to two, 5mg pills (I'm assuming no extended release here). After that, you can request a prescription for the oral solution. It is a 20mg/5ml, [eg: 1ml = 4mg] but your pharmacist can write out a dilution/taper plan for you. Buspar is known for not working in people who have previously taken benzos. But there are always outliers. HTH a

This is a valid point. Unfortunately, most people are content to read sensationalistic news reports about mental illness rather than fact based data (such as the link I provided). If you feel like wrapping your brain around some statistics regarding who commits more violent crimes (hint: it isn't the crazy people), read this brain twister. a

THAT. How can they say it is the "standard" they use that shows everyone in reference to everyone else ("we need to have something we can look at as a baseline to be able to weed out applicants") when the kids taking the dang test... ARRRGGG I give up. I'm not making sense to anyone. And my kid isn't even going to college in the US. a

Sadly, this is pretty much true. Most suicide attempts are cries for help, not actual death wishes, when it gets right down to it. What people really want is for the pain to stop, and death seems like the only route. If you know someone in this place, there is a national suicide hotline that is free and confidential: 1-800-273-TALK Gotta agree with Dawn. You might want to read my post on schiz. I spend every day with severely mentally ill individuals. In many ways, they are a heck of a lot more sane (and kind!) than anyone else I encounter. a

There are some apples and oranges being mixed in that statement. A good person (Jane) can have an illness (schiz) that tells her she is a bad mother, and that she will never be capable of caring for her children (this is a delusion stemming from Jane's illness). Jane is convinced (by this delusion, or "false belief system" - think of it as an entity if that makes it more understandable) that she is, indeed, not capable of caring for her children. It becomes a Catch-22. She is not capable of caring for her children = she is not capable. She is not capable = she must act, to show she is capable. (stay with me - remember: Jane is under a delusion, she is not "in her right mind") While in her delusion, Jane begins hallucinating: seeing, hearing things that no one else can. They may be whispers or shadows out of the corners of her eyes, or they may be full on visuals and clear voices. Often they start as the first and end as the latter. Jane is doing something that is referred to as "decompensating" - meaning, the mechanism you and I normally have in place to "compensate" for the daily ups and downs of life - it is disintegrating in Jane. She is unable to compensate for her illness. Her whispers have become screams. Her shadows have embodied themselves. And they have told her exactly what it is she needs to do to show the world she is capable. In the case of Andrea Yates, she was "told" that the children "needed" to be killed (or die - I'm not exactly sure which it was). I don't know what justification her mind gave her. The papers wrote that she said something about the devil telling her to do it, but that isn't consistent with the pathology - that isn't the justification. Faith's sister has probably read whatever the justification was. If I had to guess, I would say it was something along the lines of "you're such a capable, loving mother who loves your children so much you're sending them to heaven", or some such. That would be consistent. Schiz is a scary place when the patient is off meds. And sometimes when they're on. Here is a short, unbiased discussion of what schizophrenia actually is, put out by the National Institutes of Health. asta

But that is my point - it isn't judging a high school applicant's level of preparation - maybe at one time it did (way back when, when they were called subject exams, maybe?) - but not now. I went to school with some brilliant kids. Kids who, with or without "advanced classes" were just... SMART. They read, they were INTERESTED. These were the kids who were going to find their way to college no matter what. Oh, and yeah - their grades usually sucked - they were bored out of their skulls. Those kids were "prepared" intellectually. We had AP back then - nobody gave it a second thought - half of the people (raises hand) didn't even bother to take the test - and yes, I know "things are different now". All colleges aren't letting kids test out of classes with AP scores. They're giving "liberal studies credit", sure, but kids aren't getting to skip courses in their major or anything. Heck, that very point has been written all over this board! I guess my gripe/point/whatever is that there are really smart high school kids who want to go to college. The progression is supposed to BE high school -> college for those smart enough to do so. It isn't supposed to be "be lucky enough to take college classes" while in high school, then take standardized tests based on high school standards -> be put on the top of the stack to go to college because YOU ALREADY WENT TO FLIPPING COLLEGE. Let's face it: no matter how uneven "standards" are across school districts, a driven kid is a driven kid. They are going to read the whole World Civ book. They are going to go to the library and read a study guide to try to do well on a test. But there is NO way that what they are doing can compete with a kid who has ALSO taken the SAME subject at the college level. There is simply a different dynamic at work. Anyone who has ever taken a college class knows this: there is a different way of looking at subject matter. A different way of processing information. Heck, a different way of taking tests! This is why we have so many "getting our kids ready for college level work" threads!" It is a different mindset. And, in my opinion, a significant advantage when it comes to the tests kids are taking to "present themselves" to LACs and universities. Are these kids "fully" in the "college mode"? Nah - I doubt it. But they have a foot in a world that most kids taking these exams don't. (all bets are off for homeschoolers; they usually aren't even on the world) a

This was the opinion, BTW: and a similar synopsis:

My first (decent) neurologist was dual boarded as a neuropsychologist and a neurologist. He was the first one to examine her and had to testify at her trial. I still remember, the first time I went to see him - I had seen 2 neuros who were real jerks, who had that "you're just an hysterical woman" approach to medicine - I was really starting to think I was just crazy, just imagining everything. He was doing a mirroring test on me, stopped my hands, looked in my eyes and said (extremely seriously), "I've seen crazy, and you're not crazy." It was very out of character to his otherwise gentle manner. It wasn't until I googled him that I knew who he was talking about. He died rather recently, but I have to tell you, every time I have to meet with a new neuro, I steel myself with his words. And I always wonder why he wasn't allowed to examine Rusty; he would have had him dead to rights. asta (just to clarify: my neuro wasn't her mental health provider before she killed her children - he was called in as an expert after the fact to assess her competency)

Or maybe I'm just an Aspie. It *literally* never occurred to me (or my husband, or my kid) that high school kids would go through the (pain, extra studying, whatever) to take an AP (college level) course, take the AP exam (hopeful that they would score high enough to get college credit!), and then... TAKE THE SAT II SUBJECT EXAM FOR A HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL COURSE IN THAT SUBJECT!!!! How in God's name is the SAT II subject exam supposed to be a "standardized test representing how well a student knows ____ subject at the high school level" if high school students (we're talking smart, regular students w/o AP courses - because, I'm sorry - the whole world DOESN'T have access to AP courses, despite how it may look in the press or whatever) are taking the test with students who have completed a COLLEGE level course in the same subject? And screw the "curve"! This p!sses me off. It's the PRINCIPLE of the thing. It's GAMING the system. If you want to take AP? Fine. Take AP. Study hard - they'll be a test. You want to take HIGH SCHOOL? Study hard - they'll be a test. It's called the SAT II subject exam. I hate College Board. End rant. asta

Well, it isn't what you're looking for, but it's free and way cool. History and Praxis of Eastern Orthodoxy, a Textbook And it goes up to 1917. a

How do you teach Western Civ w/o religion? Do you skip the crusades, the inquisition, the reformation, Henry VIII and the formation of the Church of England, the religious forays and subsequent subjugation of native peoples in S. America, N. America, etc. and the mass exodus to the colonies? The Salem Witch trials? For World Civ, what about Mao and the reeducation camps? Lenin, Marx, Stalin? An integral basis there was the stomping out of religion. I'm not trying to be snarky - I honestly thought I would/could do secular history in 8th grade. Do public schools skip all of that? Or do they start at the Industrial revolution and go forward from there? I mean, I can see observing it all from an objective viewpoint (given that everyone's viewpoint has its own objective), but it still has to be IN there. a