Tag: News

How Digital Hoarding May Affect Mental Health

Cluttered desktops and unread emails may be taking more of a toll on the psyche than previously thought.

When people think of hoarding, they often imagine people from the TV show Hoarders, who amass heaping piles of junk that they were never able to part ways with. But there is also a phenomenon called “digital hoarding,” where people can’t get rid of digital items.

Some experts believe that digital hoarding may be harmful to your mental health.

In a recent survey from Summit Hosting, 6.6% of people in the United States are holding on to 1,000-3,000 unread emails, while 1.9% have over 20,000 unread emails. The average American has also saved nearly 600 cellphone pictures, as well as nearly 100 bookmarked webpages, and has over 20 icons on their desktops, and even more clutter filling up cyberspace.

A case study published in the journal BMJ on digital hoarding examined a man in his late forties who would take thousands of pictures every week, and spend hours everyday organizing them on his computer. As it turns out, the man wasn’t just hoarding digital files, but he was also hoarding clutter in his apartment that he didn’t need like paper scraps and bicycle parts.

In the case report, Dr. Martine van Bennekom, a psychiatrist, explained that the man “enjoyed taking the photos. However, the processing and saving of the digital pictures caused suffering and distress.”

While treating the man, Bennekom felt that digital hoarding should indeed be “classified as a subtype of hoarding disorder,” according to Live Science.

Bennekom feels that if “digital hoarding” is defined as a disorder, it would be much easier for doctors to diagnose and treat people. Yet other doctors aren’t so sure about this and feel it could still be too early to classify digital hoarding as a disorder. (Funnily enough, some doctors who treat hoarders often encourage them to save items digitally to help make more space in their homes.)

Healthline reports that Jo Ann Oravec, PhD, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, saw the effects of digital hoarding in her students. With an overload of notes, PowerPoint information, PDFs, and personal items, her students felt overwhelmed by the volume of material they piled up over time.

For these students, digital hoarding also became a self-perpetuating cycle where they kept adding to their piles.

As Oravec explains, “Educational and social technologies were designed to make it easier for student to engage in critical thinking and analysis as well as in interpersonal interaction. Nevertheless, [they’ve] triggered a sense that ‘more is better.’”

Oravec would find her students coming to her “with inches of printed materials they’ve accumulated and then asking, ‘How do I find more?’”

Many hoarders hang on to things they think they’ll need in the future, or that they’re attached to emotionally. If you already exhibit signs of being a hoarder, you’re more likely to be hoarding things digitally as well.

Nick Neave, the director of the Hoarding Research Group, says that “everyone appears to be at risk of digital hoarding, especially in relation to work. Organizations bombard their employees with all manner of information that they don’t know what to do with, and just to be ‘safe,’ they keep it.”

View the original article at thefix.com

14 February 2019
Microdosing Study Yields Mixed Results

Researchers explored the physical and mental effects of microdosing in a new study.

The practice of microdosing—consuming very small amounts of psychedelic substances like psilocybin, allegedly to increase mental capacities—has gained popularity among individuals who have reported greater focus, happiness and creativity from the practice.

To determine whether these claims had any validity, researchers conducted a study that posed a daily series of questions to regular microdosing proponents about their mental and emotional responses to their chosen substances.

Their responses—which highlighted mostly positive but also negative reactions—underscored both the researchers’ and High Times‘ assessments that the subject was worthy of further study.

The study, conducted by researchers from Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia and published in the journal PLOS One, recruited 98 participants to conduct its research. And to circumvent any legal issues involved the study of psychedelics, all of the subjects were already involved in microdosing.

Over the course of a six-week period, the participants were tasked with answering sets of questions on a daily basis, as well as a separate and more intensive set at the beginning and end of the six-week timeframe.

Upon reviewing the results, the researchers found that the majority of the participants reported that their experiences were largely positive. They claimed to experience an increase in a number of areas, including creativity, focus, happiness and productivity, on days when they microdosed. Such reactions were reported less on days when doses were not taken.

Participants also claimed that they experienced lower levels of depression and stress, though study author Vince Polito also noted that none of the 98 participants reported problems with either condition prior to the launch of the study.

While most of the responses skewed positive, some participants also reported a slight increase in neurotic feelings at the conclusion of the six-week test. Additionally, some reported such a negative response to their first experience with the psychedelic substances that they stopped their involvement after that initial experiment.

Noting that the participants’ previous and/or regular experiences might cause a degree of bias in their responses, the researchers also queried a group of 263 microdosers with varying degrees of experience about pre-existing beliefs and expectations about microdosing.

The researchers found that while all participants believed that microdosing would produce considerable and extensive benefits, what they believed would happen was markedly different than what was reported by the actual group undergoing the microdosing.

As High Times noted, Polito and his co-author, Richard J. Stevenson, observed that their study was based on very broad and general information, and was drawn from personal questionnaires and not scientific experiments.

Still, Polito noted that their findings showed “promising indications of possible benefits of microdosing, [as well as] indications of some potential negative impacts, which should be taken seriously.”

The study authors concluded that research on microdosing is in its early stages, and requires more comprehensive studies to make more specific determinations.

View the original article at thefix.com

13 February 2019
Did A Cannabis Lollipop Trigger A Man's Heart Attack?

Researchers investigated whether a marijuana edible was responsible for giving an elderly man a heart attack.

Canadian researchers are calling for more research into the cardiovascular effects of cannabis after a 70-year-old man reportedly had a heart attack after consuming a lollipop containing a high level of THC.

According to a paper in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology, the man had existing heart conditions. He took the cannabis edible hoping that it would help him sleep better and cope with the pain he experienced from arthritis. Instead, he started experiencing chest pains within half an hour and was found to be having a heart attack.

Researchers say that this shows the need for more research into the health effects of marijuana, which was recently legalized for recreational use in Canada.

“The outcome of this case is important with new marijuana legalization—hopefully with marijuana use no longer criminalized, more research into the cardiovascular side effects will emerge,” they wrote.

According to Live Science, the man said that he had occasionally smoked marijuana as a teen, but had not used edibles before. The lollipop he consumed contained 90 milligrams of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, which is about 12 times the amount found in a typical joint.

Although the man had had heart attacks in the past, he hadn’t experienced one in two years, and was on medication for his heart conditions. Researchers said that consuming the edible put a “sudden and unexpected strain” on the man’s heart, causing him to have a heart attack.

In addition to chest pain, the man experienced “fearful hallucinations” and anxiety, which can increase heart rate and strain the cardiovascular system even more, researchers wrote.

Dr. Alexandra Saunders, the lead author of the study, said in a press release that people need to be aware that marijuana can have dangerous side effects, even when it is used in a medical setting.

“Marijuana can be a useful tool for many patients, especially for pain and nausea relief. At the same time, like all other medications, it does carry risk and side effects. In a recent case, inappropriate dosing and oral consumption of marijuana by an older patient with stable cardiovascular disease resulted in distress that caused a cardiac event and subsequent reduced cardiac function,” Saunders said.

Dr. Robert S. Stevenson said that the paper shows that doctors need to discuss the risk of cannabis use with their patients.

“Most previous research on marijuana-induced myocardial ischemia focused mostly on younger patients and did not focus on its different formulations and potencies. As a result of widespread marijuana legalization, healthcare providers need to understand and manage cannabis use and its complications in older patients, particularly in those with cardiovascular disease,” he said.

View the original article at thefix.com

13 February 2019
Opioid Crisis Activists "Die In" At Guggenheim Over Sackler Family Ties

After the Guggenheim, protesters walked two blocks to the Metropolitan Museum, which has a wing named after the Sackler family.

Protesters dropped fake prescriptions from balconies, handed out empty pill bottles and laid down as if they were dead at the Guggenheim Museum in New York City to call attention to the opioid epidemic and call for the museum and others like it to stop acknowledging the billionaire philanthropists of the Sackler family, members of which founded the company that would become Purdue Pharma, the manufacturers of OxyContin.

“I want the Guggenheim and others publicly to disavow themselves from the Sacklers and refuse future funding from them, and I want them to take down the Sackler name from the museums,” Nan Goldin, who organized the protest, told The Guardian.

Goldin, a photographer who art displayed in the Guggenheim, has been an outspoken critic of the Sackler family after she nearly died of an opioid overdose, following an addiction that she says started when she was prescribed OxyContin, a pill produced by Purdue Pharma.

The Sackler family has its name on the Guggenheim and other museums and institutes for the arts. Since the opioid epidemic — and Purdue’s misleading advertising claims — have been in the spotlight more, some have called on these institutions to distance themselves from the family.

“We’re here to call out the Sackler family. By failing to disavow them now, by refusing to take down their names, the museums are complicit in the opioids crisis.”

Distributing fake prescriptions from the balconies was meant to call attention to comments made by one member of the Sackler family, claiming that the launch of OxyContin would “followed by a blizzard of prescriptions that will bury the competition,” said Goldin.

According to The New Yorker, the fake scripts were for 80 milligrams of OxyContin to be taken 24 times a day. They also contained a quote: “If OxyContin is uncontrolled, it is highly likely that it will eventually be abused. . . . How substantially would it improve our sales?” The words were pulled from court filling in Massachusetts, where Purdue is being sued for its prescribing practices.

After the Guggenheim, protesters walked two blocks to the Metropolitan Museum, which has a wing named after the Sackler family.

Visitors to the Guggenheim were initially confused, but a few who spoke to The Guardian said that the protest resonated with them.

“It reminded me of stories of protesters laying down in Wall Street during the Aids epidemic. These institutions all have dirty hands,” said Alex Viteri.

Another man was visiting from New Hampshire, one of the states hardest hit by the opioid epidemic. The man said that his brother-in-law became hooked on opioids after being prescribed OxyContin. Like many people, the brother-in-law progressed to illicit opioids and died of a drug overdose.

View the original article at thefix.com

13 February 2019
Kamala Harris Reveals She Smoked Pot In College

Harris discussed her stance on marijuana legalization and revealed a bit about her past use in a recent radio interview.

Citing her Jamaican roots and past inhalation of pot, Kamala Harris firmly stated her support for the legalization of marijuana on a New York-based radio show, “The Breakfast Club.”

While the bill S.420 to legalize marijuana was submitted to Congress just last week, the issue of marijuana’s legality is bigger than ever. Harris, a former California attorney general and 2020 presidential contender, was speaking with the radio show’s co-host Charlamagne Tha God about the social issue of legalizing pot.

When Charlamagne asked Harris if she’d ever smoked pot, Harris laughed and said yes, she had inhaled from a joint, and now was probably breaking news with the admission.

Harris’ views on the legalization of marijuana have slowly altered since her vocal opposition in 2010. Five years and many studies and nationwide discussions later, Harris changed her position to one of support for medical use.

CNN reports that in her interview with “The Breakfast Club,” she intimated support for recreational use of pot, citing “”that it gives a lot of people joy and we need more joy.”

In Kamala Harris’ book The Truths We Hold: An American Journey, she moves beyond just legalization of the drug and calls for prison reform. “We need to legalize marijuana and regulate it, and we need to expunge nonviolent marijuana-related offenses from the records of millions of people who have been arrested and incarcerated so they can get on with their lives.”

Answering the radio hosts about her position on the legalization of marijuana and if she opposes it, Harris was clear: “That’s not true. And look I joke about it, half joking—half my family’s from Jamaica, are you kidding me,” Harris laughed along with the radio hosts.

“No, I do not—no, no,” Harris continued. “I have had concerns, the full record, I have had concerns, which I think—first of all, let me just make this statement very clear, I believe we need to legalize marijuana,” she said. “Now, that being said—and this is not a ‘but,’ it is an ‘and’—and we need to research, which is one of the reasons we need to legalize it. We need to move it on the schedule so that we can research the impact of weed on a developing brain. You know, that part of the brain that develops judgment, actually begins its growth at age 18 through age 24.”

View the original article at thefix.com

13 February 2019
Does Marijuana Affect Sperm Count?

A new study suggests it does—but not in the way you might think.

Harvard researchers were surprised to find that men who have smoked marijuana had better sperm counts than their counterparts who had never used cannabis—but scientists are cautioning that the link does not mean there is a causal connection between smoking marijuana and increased fertility.

A study published this week in the journal Human Reproduction found that men who had smoked marijuana at some point in their lives had higher sperm counts, which is associated with increased fertility.

Researchers examined 1,143 semen samples from 662 men, all of whom were undergoing fertility treatments with their partners at the Massachusetts General Hospital Fertility Center.

“Men who had ever smoked marijuana had significantly higher sperm concentration than men who had never smoked marijuana,” study authors wrote. There was no difference in sperm count between current and previous marijuana smokers.

These findings came as a surprise, since previous research has indicted that smoking marijuana had a negative effect on fertility. A 2015 study found that men who smoked weekly had a lower sperm count than those that did not, and a study published in 2018 found that THC can change the structure of sperm.

Researchers said that it’s possible that low-level exposure to cannabis could aid fertility by stimulating the endocannabinoid system in the brain. However, they said that it’s just as likely that testosterone levels affect both the likelihood that a man uses cannabis (a risk-taking behavior) and his sperm production.

“Our findings could reflect the fact that men with higher testosterone levels are more likely to engage in risk-seeking behaviors, including smoking marijuana,” Dr Feiby Nassan, who was involved with the research, told Bloomberg.

Allan Pacey, professor of Andrology at the University of Sheffield in Britain, said that men who are trying to have a child should continue to avoid cannabis.

“As the authors point out, men with higher sperm concentrations are likely to have more testosterone in their bodies and thus may be more likely to smoke marijuana because simply they are willing to take more risks,” he said. “In conclusion, I am not convinced that this paper moves us any further forward in this debate. Moreover, nor does it give support to any apparent fertility benefits of smoking marijuana. In my opinion, this should be avoided at all costs in any couples trying to start a family.”

Lead author Dr. Jorge Chavarro said that the findings highlight the need for more research into the effects of cannabis on male fertility.

“These unexpected findings highlight how little we know about the reproductive health effects of marijuana, and in fact of the health effects of marijuana in general,” he said. “Our results need to be interpreted with caution and they highlight the need to further study the health effects of marijuana use.”

View the original article at thefix.com

13 February 2019
Lip Balm Addiction: Reality or Urban Myth?

A group of experts gave their take on whether or not you can actually be addicted to lip balm.

As Health.com recently noted, the belief that one can become dependent on lip care products like lip balm has become a topic of intense online discussion.

Everyone from dermatologists to lip care product manufacturers have been forced to weigh in on the possibility.

And while both parties dismiss the possibility of a real “addiction” to lip balm, they also note that frequent use of such products can have both physical and psychological side effects that users should be aware of the next time they feel the need to keep their lips moisturized.

Blistex, which manufactures an array of personal care products, including dozens of lip balms, outlined the argument against dependency on lip care products in a post on the Frequently Asked Questions page of its website.

The post quoted Dr. Charles Zugerman, associate professor of clinical dermatology at Northwestern University Medical School, who stated that individuals do not become physically “addicted” to the products or their ingredients.

Anyone who stops using lip balm or related products can stop using them and experience none of the symptoms associated with withdrawal from addictive substances or conditions.

However, Zugerman did note that individuals who frequently apply lip balm may become accustomed to the “moist, comfortable” feeling associated with its use, and may experience discomfort when their lips dry out due to environmental exposure.

That notion is corroborated by Joshua Zeichner, MD, who directs cosmetic and clinical research in dermatology at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, who told Real Simple that applying ointments that form a barrier on the skin can “create an artificial barrier to lock in moisture, but when overused, can cause lips to become lazy, because the skin doesn’t have to work to maintain its own hydration level.”

Additionally, some lip balms have ingredients that can potentially irritate your lips. These include camphor, menthol or salicylic acid. According to Zeichner, these ingredients can inflame lips and cause them to lose hydration. “This, in turn, causes your lips to need more moisture, so you keep applying the product, and it turns into a vicious cycle,” he explained.

A third concern comes from licking your lips. Dermatologist Rachel Nazarian, MD, told Health.com that saliva contains enzymes that help to digest food, and when you lick your lips, the enzymes can dry out your lips and make them feel chapped, which again, requires more lip balm. In this case, as Nazarian noted, the core issue is licking your lips, but the impact on your lip moisture may cause increased lip balm use.

There are a handful of solutions to the issue of dryness: Zeichner suggested to Real Simple that using a product with lanolin will create a barrier on the skin but still allow for lips to naturally hydrate themselves.

Dermatologist Debra Jaliman also told Health.com that drinking plenty of water during the day will help to keep lips hydrated, but the best approach, according to Zeichner, is to simply use lip balm “when you need it, rather than compulsively throughout the day. Constant reapplication can cause more harm than good.”

View the original article at thefix.com

12 February 2019
NYC Cracks Down On CBD Edibles

Some NYC restaurants that sell CBD-infused foods are having their products “embargoed” by the state’s Department of Health.

Despite the fact that New York State is moving forward with plans to legalize cannabis, officials in New York City are cracking down on restaurants selling food products laced with cannabidiol, commonly known as CBD.

C.J. Holm, the owner of Fat Cat Kitchen in the East Village, recently told The New York Times that health department officials showed up at the restaurant asking questions about products that contained CBD. Fat Cat Kitchen sold brownies, cookies and honey infused with CBD, a non-psychoactive compound in cannabis which many people believe has health benefits.

The inspectors put the CBD-infused food, worth about $1,000, in a bag labeled “Embargoed,” according to Eater. They left the product with Holm, but couldn’t explain to her why she was not able to sell it.

“They couldn’t even intelligently explain to me exactly what the problem was when I spoke to them on the phone,” Holm said.

Similar events took place at at least five restaurants around the city.

CBD falls into murky legal territory. Although it is legal to buy and sell, it isn’t an approved food additive, the Department of Health said.

“Restaurants in New York City are not permitted to add anything to food or drink that is not approved as safe to eat,” a New York City Department of Health spokesperson told The Atlantic. “Until cannabidiol… is deemed safe as a food additive, the department is ordering restaurants not to offer products containing CBD.”

Holm said that inspectors from the Department of Health have been to Fat Cat Kitchen twice before and never paid much attention to the CBD-infused product, which Holm began selling two months ago. She said that a ban on selling CBD edibles could have a big impact on her business’s bottom line.

“My CBD stuff is absolutely the No. 1-selling revenue source in the store.”

Holm was frustrated by the lack of transparency about the policy.

“It just seemed so random and arbitrary to me. And it was really difficult getting answers as to what the exact issue is,” she said. “Now, just out of the blue, they’re just going to randomly embargo restaurants’ products? I just don’t feel like it was done properly.”

The controversy over CBD edibles is gaining attention in other cities around the country, with Departments of Health arguing that food and drinks containing CBD need to be labeled and regulated.

“The packaging and labeling requirements aren’t there yet in states that don’t have a cannabis regime,” said California lawyer Griffen Thorne. “If you go buy a CBD beverage and it’s not specially packaged—it just looks like another coffee or whatever—someone might take a sip who doesn’t intend to.”

View the original article at thefix.com

12 February 2019
Five Finger Death Punch Bassist Celebrates Sober Milestone

Before getting sober, bassist Chris Kael used about an eightball of cocaine a week to help manage untreated mental health issues.

Chris Kael, who plays bass in the heavy metal band Five Finger Death Punch, has been sober for a year and took to Twitter to celebrate his milestone.

“May my hitting my first sober birthday yesterday give hope to those of you also struggling with addiction. It can be done. And, you will thank yourself when you too hit these milestones. Keep your chin up and those feet moving! #ShitYesSon #SoberAsFuck #SFG” Kael wrote on February 4, according to Blabbermouth.

Kael had previously said that he used about an eight-ball of cocaine each week to help manage his untreated mental health conditions.

“That got to be the biggest problem for me,” he said. “That and depression, the two things, were not good. I didn’t realize it until I got into rehab that I was self-medicating with cocaine to get my dopamine levels up to fight the depression. I never even thought about that. And then when you come off it, you crash hard.”

Kael said that it was difficult to watch the band’s lead vocalist Ivan Moody struggle publicly with addiction, while Kael kept his substance use more private.

“Ivan was going through his thing, and me, no one really knew, I was the quiet one that was kind of doing things on the side. That was one of the things that was eating away at me too—my guy had a huge problem, and here I am, a quiet problem.”

Although Moody missed some tours for treatment, Kael usually was at his worst when the touring ended, he said.

“It hit me hard when I got off the road. Going home was always hard anyway, ’cause you’ve got so much stimulation out on the road, and then you come home and you’re, like, ‘Wait a minute? I’ve gotta take out the trash? That’s the biggest part of my job now?’”

Kael said on Twitter his wife helped him get into treatment and kickstart his sobriety.

“Had she not busted me trying to restock after burning through $1300 in blow in two days in late January [2018], I truly believe that I would not be here today,” he said. “She has silently and bravely dealt with far more than what would have crushed any other woman. Her loyalty, patience, TRUE love and resolve are unmatched by any other woman I’ve ever known.”

Although admitting he was powerless was difficult, Kael is glad that he did it.

“Throwing my hands to the universe and admitting I was at a fucking low and no longer able to do it myself was one of the most humbling and powerful things I’ve ever done in my life.”

View the original article at thefix.com

12 February 2019
Can SSRIs Interfere With Opioid Pain Relief?

A new study examined whether patients who were on SSRIs received less pain relief from certain opioids.

SSRIs—the most common type of antidepressant—can make some opioid pain relievers less effective, exposing patients to higher levels of pain, according to a new study.

For the study, published in the journal PLOS ONE, researchers examined medical records of 4,300 patients who underwent a major operating room procedure at a medical center between 2009 and 2016. They found that patients who were on SSRIs and who received a certain type of opioid had less pain relief following their operations.

To understand the study, it’s important to note that opioids come in two varieties, according to NPR. Direct opioids, including morphine and OxyContin, begin working as soon as they are administered. Prodrugs, which include Vicodin and hydrocodone, have to be broken down in the liver before they can begin relieving pain.

SSRIs interrupt this process. This is because they affect a liver enzyme that is needed to break down prodrugs. With less of the enzyme breaking down drugs, the pain relief is less effective.

“There was theoretical evidence that suggested SSRIs might block prodrug opioids, but we didn’t know if it actually affected patient outcomes,” said Tina Hernandez-Boussard, who authored the study.

People on SSRIs who were prescribed prodrug opioids were in more pain up to two months after their procedure.

Because SSRIs and opioids are some of the most common prescriptions in the country, the study could have widespread implications for how pain is handled, said Jenny Wilkerson, a professor who teaches pharmacodynamics at the University of Florida.

“This is an important study,” she said, before calling for additional research.

People who get less effective pain relief from opioids are likely to take more pills, which “could lead to misuse or abuse down the road,” Hernandez-Boussard said.

“If the opioids aren’t being activated and you’re not getting appropriate pain management, you’re going to take more opioids and you’re going to take them for a longer period of time,” she said.

One way around this would be to prescribe direct-acting opioids to patients on SSRIs.

“Every opioid has a side effect, not one opioid that is better than another. Possibly for patients taking SSRI, morphine or oxycodone, direct-acting drugs which don’t need to be broken down by the liver might be a better choice,” Hernandez-Boussard said.

Wilkerson said that patients should be confident in advocating for themselves when it comes to effective pain relief.

“Patients shouldn’t feel stigmatized for being depressed or in pain. Patients have to advocate for their best personal care.”

However, Hernandez-Boussard acknowledged that this can be difficult for people who are depressed. Instead, she believes the medical community should work to better understand the interaction of SSRIs and opioids.

She said, “We need to think about how we can tailor treatment towards more vulnerable groups. More work needs to be done, but this is a good first step.”

View the original article at thefix.com

12 February 2019