Helping partner return to sex

And writing a coherent sentence in English appears to be "far too complex" a cognitive task for you to master.

Thanks to neuroscience, we have already achieved an understanding of the pathways involved in the addiction process and why addiction occurs. The truth seems to be that you can't understand the state of knowledge that has already been attained.

That you now feel superior enough to dismiss even the Mayo Clinic as engaging in "junk science" is the height of self-deluded arrogance on your part. Of course you are more knowledgeable about neuroscience, and the addiction process, than those actively engaged in research in this area, aren't you?

Yes, indeed Firefly I had taken notice of your deep understanding of all branches of human knowledge on this website.

Your understanding of the mathematic field of statistic is also breathe taking to say the least. Lesser humans would for example assumed that one data point concerning the reaction of one person to a drug is meaningless but your advance knowledge allow you to clearly see otherwise.

You are a remarkable woman and a true all around expert of the type not seen since the death of Leonardo da Vinci in 1519.

We are all very lucky to have your wisdom on this website.

Not having your advance faith in a name such as the Mayo Clinic I look at the claims in your posting and in error saw no backing for them at least in the posting you offer to us.

We should not clearly dare to apply logic and commonsense to any claims as long as that claim come from someone associated with such a name as the Mayo Clinic either directly or indirectly.

I also find it amusing that when I suggested that an expert should check out our freind partner that did not seems needed to you but when I dare to question a news release that on it face seem junk science at it best you pointed out that I had sin for daring to question anyone who have any relationship with the Mayo Clinic.

Hmn, if you was not the most outstanding female known to had been born to the human race I would even dare to question your faith on the one hand in experts and your feelings that consulting them is not needed on the other hand.

You seem to have this situation backward.

In the case of sexual dysfunctions, we are generally talking about conditions that cause individuals a great deal of distress because they interfere with the ability to function adequately in situations in which the person wants to be able to function adequately--that's why they seek self-help solutions, or support groups, or professional treatment to help correct these problems.

Sexual arousal and satisfaction is determined by various neural pathways and interactions within the brain, and certain factors can cause these processes to become disordered so that normal sexual functioning is interfered with, causing personal distress or unwanted consequences to the individual who is so affected.

The popularity of drugs for ED (Viagra, Cialis, etc.), to treat one type of sexual dysfunction, should tell you that men are all too happy to find some solution for one cause of this problem--they don't need "minders" (whoever the hell they are) to try to convince them they have a problem, or to force "a correction" on them, they are generally quite relieved to find a solution for this problem.

And now, some men are reporting problems with ED, as well as other types of sexual dysfunctions, that they attribute to excessive consumption of pornography, particularly internet pornography accompanied by masturbation, which has interfered with their ability to experience satisfying sex with a partner. For some of these men, the craving for such pornography and the consumption of such pornography, acquires the properties of an addiction, and prolonged excessive pornography use appears to affect brain functions and brain centers in much the same way that substances such as opiates do. So, the underlying mechanisms for developing this type of addiction may be physiological in nature, and discontinuation of pornography viewing allows the brain functions to once again return to a natural state and that will permit the individual to again experience normal sexual functioning with a partner.

I am surprised that a self-appointed champion of "men's rights", which you repeatedly profess to be, is so indifferent to a cause of sexual dysfunction which appears to be affecting some other men. I would expect you to be concerned about something that interferes with sexually satisfying relationships for many men, and to want to see the problem taken seriously and properly addressed by professionals if attempts at self-help are insufficient. Instead, you discount self-reports from men who report having this problem, and you disregard scientific findings in support of such an addiction.

The issue is not pornography per se--it is the effects of excessive pornography consumption on some men, and the underlying neurological/organic reasons that the excessive use/addiction may develop and persist, and what can be done to help those men who report this as a problem for them. I'd like to see these men get help with problems of this nature, and I'm not sure you feel the same way, and I do find that surprising. Perhaps if you can't blame men's problems on "bitchy women" or "feminists", your usual scapegoats, you're just not interested in men's problems.

How dare the DOJ question how honest and truful the Mayo Clinic happen to be.

Even billions possible earning in a new drug treatment for a new condition would not have any affect on them.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Justice Department joins suit accusing Mayo of billing fraud
Minneapolis / St. Paul Business Journal - by Jim Hammerand, Staff writer
Date: Monday, September 27, 2010, 2:08pm CDT - Last Modified: Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 10:04am CDT
Related:Health Care, Legal Services A federal judge has unsealed a lawsuit that accuses the Mayo Clinic Mayo Clinic

Marcus-backed medical clinic undergoes shakeup

Follow this company of fraudulently billing for surgical services that weren't performed.

The suit was originally filed in November 2007 by attorney and neurologist David Ketroser. U.S. District Judge Richard Kyle unsealed the allegations last week after the Department of Justice joined the case.

"Over the course of the last ten years, Mayo has routinely billed Medicare, Medicaid and other federally sponsored health care programs for surgical pathology services that have not been performed," the complaint alleges.

The Department of Justice declined to litigate allegations that Mayo improperly obtained laboratory accreditation and didn't retain slides for a decade as required, but those claims have not been dropped from the suit.

The Mayo Clinic denied the allegations through a statement issued by spokesman Bryan Anderson on Monday.

“Upon discovering a billing error in 2007, Mayo corrected it and voluntarily refunded $242,711 to the federal government. The error was identified and corrected long before Mayo became aware that a sealed complaint had been filed and well before Mayo was notified that the Department of Justice was evaluating whether to become involved in the complaint. Mayo has fully complied with the law, and we believe our response to the billing error and our approach to surgical pathology represents a ‘best practice.’ Mayo’s strong culture of compliance allowed ...

A federal judge has unsealed a lawsuit that accuses the Mayo Clinic Mayo Clinic


Follow this company of fraudulently billing for surgical services that weren't performed.

The suit was originally filed in November 2007 by attorney and neurologist David Ketroser. U.S. District Judge Richard Kyle unsealed the allegations last week after the Department of Justice joined the case.

"Over the course of the last ten years, Mayo has routinely billed Medicare, Medicaid and other federally sponsored health care programs for surgical pathology services that have not been performed," the complaint alleges.

The Department of Justice declined to litigate allegations that Mayo improperly obtained laboratory accreditation and didn't retain slides for a decade as required, but those claims have not been dropped from the suit.

The Mayo Clinic denied the allegations through a statement issued by spokesman Bryan Anderson on Monday.

“Upon discovering a billing error in 2007, Mayo corrected it and voluntarily refunded $242,711 to the federal government. The error was identified and corrected long before Mayo became aware that a sealed complaint had been filed and well before Mayo was notified that the Department of Justice was evaluating whether to become involved in the complaint. Mayo has fully complied with the law, and we believe our response to the billing error and our approach to surgical pathology represents a ‘best practice.’ Mayo’s strong culture of compliance allowed us to identify the error, correct and refund the money," the statement read.

Anderson said the DOJ investigation is not related to "any patient or quality of care issues."

Ketroser declined to comment. In an interview with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review he said he discovered that Mayo billed for unperformed tests after obtaining records for clients.

Read Full Article
See Comments

You think billing fraud is even remotely connected to this topic Man, are you grasping at straws.

Face it, you just can't understand the explanation of neurological processes involved in addiction that is given in the research paper from the Mayo Clinic that I posted previously--and which specifically discussed internet pornography addiction. You actually admitted it is "far too complex" for you. So, if you can't understand it, it must be "junk science".

You are just out of your depth in this discussion.

Pornography you can understand--you like it, you've used it. You don't want anyone to think it can possibly have negative effects. You don't want anyone to take your porn away.

So, if you're not allergic to peanuts, that means no one should experience negative consequences from eating peanuts. And, anyone who suggests that adverse reactions can happen in response to consuming peanuts, is engaging in "junk science" and is threatening to cut off your supply of peanuts.

That's about the level of your thinking and understanding.

You are just out of your depth in this discussion.

Of course an outfit that is willing to had allowed wide spread Medicare fraud would never never allow the finances benefits of claiming a new drug treatment for a condition that is not even yet in the DMS but still could bring in billions to effect their research findings!!!!

We should not be allow to question that the research even when as given by your posting there is no hard evidence for the claimed results.

For most such research to be consider valid you would need double blind studies of hundreds of people and tight condition of how you define sexual addictions just to start with not an example of one patient reacting to a drug.

Yes I surely do not have your understanding of how results can be declared proven in any field of medical research without such double blind studies being done first.

Thank god for your advance understanding of such research.

People had kill themselves by overdrinking water but that does not mean water addiction is a problem in society.

People have also been long encouraged to drink a lot of water from the minders (and the bottled water merchants) , based upon slim to none scientific evidence.

Dont believe without examination everything you are told, far to many of the alleged experts are more interested in promoting their agenda than they are our well being.

And, it is unfortunate that you can't understand the research already done.

And you seem to have missed several salient factors in that Mayo Clinic research study,
1. They were acknowledging that there can be an addiction to internet pornography, as well as to other aspects of cybersex. New addictive disorders can be identified long before they will eventually appear in the DSM. That's one reason that the DSM is periodically revised and updated. And the DSM is primarily a classification system--for statistical and insurance billing purposes.

2. They explained the underlying physiological/neurological mechanisms involved in the addiction process--including those which would affect the development and maintenance of an internet pornography/cybersex addiction.

3. In a patient who was previously treatment resistant for internet pornography addiction, a drug mainly used for the treatment of chemical dependencies--opiates and alcoholism--proved effective in controlling his pornography and cybersex addictions, confirming the notion of a physiological basis for these addictive behaviors. In addition, it also reduced the patient's binge drinking.

The above supports the hypothesis that internet pornography addiction is a true addiction which is developed and supported by the same physiological/neurological mechanisms as addictions to opiates. And this is not the only study to have gotten such a result.

The drug in question is already marketed and in use for treatment of chemical addictions/dependencies. These particular researchers do not have to do full scale re-testing of the drug itself--they were simply testing its efficacy in one particular patient--who had been highly resistant to treatment by other means--who presented with a different type of addictive disorder, an addiction not related to a chemical or substance. Individual case studies are perfectly valid in a study of this type--the main goal was not to be able to widely market the drug in question for a particular condition, the main goal was clearly to help this particular patient because other treatment approaches had failed.

Already on the market drugs are often prescribed "off-label" for conditions not originally included in the original testing of the drug. Most often this happens when physicians (or medical researchers) note that the drug has a beneficial side-effect, or secondary effect, which suggests its use in the treatment of other, even un-related, conditions than the original disorders for which the drug was tested. A good example of this is the increasing number of conditions/disorders for which anti-convulsant drugs are now being prescribed.
Such off-label use does not require wide scale retesting of the drug for this new disorder before it can be used this way--ongoing evaluations regarding effectiveness can be based on feedback from individual physicians, or by smaller research studies. The main concern in drug testing is adverse reactions, not effectiveness. There are many drugs on the market where true effectiveness is very questionable.
And double blind studies are not the only research model. A patient (or patients) can be used as their own control--how their condition changes, or is altered, with and without the drug in question. Particularly if the aim is to treat a particular patient, as was the case in the Mayo Clinic study, this would be the preferred way of trying a drug off-label.

That particular Mayo Clinic study was done on a previously very treatment resistant patient. There are many other approaches to treating pornography addictions, starting with self-help and support groups, behavioral therapy, and even other drug treatments, and each of these can be tried before having to move on to the next one. But, that study does acknowledge the existence of such an addiction, and it offers an explanation of the physiological mechanisms involved in the development and maintenance of the addiction.

My goal is to try to offer some help to Comet83's friend--material he can read to increase his understanding of problems arising from pornography use/dependency which can affect sexual functioning with a partner.

I'm not sure what your goal is, other than to try to protect and defend internet pornography from any evidence that it might not be completely harmless for some people.

Sorry to dare to disagree with you but one person reaction to any drug prove nothing at all.

In fact it is even impossible to prove that the change behavior and or reaction is due to the drug or some other factor such as even the placebo effect.

That is why you do double blind testing of many people before coming to any conclusion.

The whole thing was not science but just PR from the Mayo Clinic.

Your thinking is very confused--Naltrexone, the drug used in the Mayo Clinic study, has been on the market for a very long time. The action of the drug is well understood.

You don't seem to understand the difference between a case study and a drug trial.

Case studies help to identify "off-label" uses of a drug which is already on the market. Naltrexone has been found useful in treating conditions which do not involve chemical dependencies (the primary use of this drug is for chemical dependencies to opiates and alcohol)--self-injurious behaviors, and behavioral addictions such as gambling and kleptomania have shown improvement when treated with Naltrexone. The Mayo Clinic study showed its successful use in treating a case of addiction to internet pornography.

You are also missing the point that psychiatrists are already grappling with the problem of trying to treat addiction to internet pornography--patients, such as the one in the Mayo Clinic study, are presenting themselves for treatment either because this problem is affecting sexual functioning with a partner or because it is disrupting other aspects of their lives. So there is a search for appropriate and effective treatment modalities which might, or might not, involve drugs. The better the underlying neurological/physiological mechanisms of such non-chemical addictions are understood, the better the treatment modalities can be formulated.

Internet addictions or dependencies, of various types, are a fairly new phenomenon. They haven't really been around for a very long time because wide-spread personal computer use is fairly recent. And, as technology continues to expand, and more devices become part of everyday life, even more dependencies may become evident because the internet can now be accessed from cell phones, ipods, etc.

The internet has enormous power to deliver highly arousing/rewarding stimulation and that can set the stage for development of addiction. People who might not ordinarily develop gambling problems can become addicted to on-line gambling fairly rapidly. People who might not have compulsive buying habits in everyday life can become addicted to on-line shopping or even the "rush" of bidding on e-bay auctions. And people, who never before had immediate, continuous access to an unlimited supply of pornography of every conceivable variety, can find themselves addicted to porn. And all of this may change how we view and understand the whole process of behavioral addictions and how they develop. In general, psychiatry has moved toward a neuroscience model, and that model is now casting light on the behavioral problems that present themselves for treatment in the offices of mental health professionals.

There is already a huge body of scientific literature on pornography and it's various effects on attitudes and behavior--porn has been around for a long time. But the study of the effects of internet pornography viewing, and the variables associated with such viewing and consumption, is still in its infancy. And already, there are indications that, for many people, the excessive, or prolonged, solitary consumption of internet pornography may impair sexual functioning with a partner. And people, and their partners, who are so affected may turn up in the offices of marital counselors, pastoral counselors, sex therapists, psychotherapists, and psychiatrists. And even professionals may lack adequate experience in treating these conditions because they have not been prevalent until relatively recently. Therapists and physicians might not even think to inquire about pornography use and patients might not volunteer the information--internet pornography viewing is generally done in private and often in secret. And in general conversation, and even on internet blogs and forums, most people don't talk openly and honestly about their pornography habits or the possible negative effects of such behaviors.

Over the last several decades, we have made great progress in treating various kinds of sexual dysfunctions stemming from many different causal factors, and this has helped countless numbers of people to enjoy more satisfying sexual experiences and relationships. And, the more frank and open our discussions of sexuality become, the more issues affecting sexual functioning we will continue to discover.

So, to irrationally insist that internet pornography consumption cannot possibly have adverse effects on overall sexual functioning, because that has not been your own personal experience, is absurd. To dismiss perfectly reputable case studies as "junk science", because you personally don't accept that type of methodology, is absurd. To deny the self reports of men (or their partners) who report that excessive consumption of internet pornography has adversely affected inter-personal sex, or other aspects of life, is absurd.

Your goal in this thread appears to be to win an argument that pornography consumption is always harmless. In your own way, you are just as bad as the religious moralists who claim that all pornography is always bad. You are so rigid and closed minded in your thinking, that you cannot incorporate the evidence that, for some individuals, internet pornography consumption may become addictive or may result in adverse effects on sexual functioning with a partner. And, for that reason, you certainly can't be helpful to someone, like Comet83's friend, who feels he may suffer from such a problem.

One or even a small group of people who had seems to benefit from that drug that were given the label as sexual addicts is not proof of anything about this condition or this drug in relationship to this condition.

Any attempt to get this drug approval for an on label treatment of "sexual addiction" even if such a condition was in the DMS would need the kind of testing programs that I had stated. Countless drugs who had been used in an off label manner had been found later to not had been either useful or safe in such treatments.

For the Mayo Clinic to promote the use of a drug in an off label manner is of questionable morals in my opinion. If they have any finance ties to the drug manufactor they could also end up in legal trouble.

Oh there is one hell of a lot of lawyers who had gotten wealthy indeed from suing over drugs that was well known! That even after going through millions of dollars of testing with a large population.