[leminaseri]

we can assume that chronic dpd did hit at least 50 multi millionaires on the world (>100million$).

now if we consider that people with dpdr suffer so badly, we would await that those rich people spend money for further research to alleviate at least their own illness. but we dont see this? so my conclusion is rich people dont suffer that much from dpdr. there isnt another explanation for me. everyone on this forum would spend almost all of their money to ger rid of this. but this doesnt happen.

 

[Diego]

It is a interesting thing and I never thought about it. I think that probably rich people with dpdr spend their money with momentarily "reliefs"

 

[coolwhip27]

Tbh it’s not about money, it’s not about research, it’s about how much will you give, not financially but of yourself to find out. Money won’t, can’t, and never will fix it. You cannot buy your own freedom

 

[leminaseri]

Tbh it’s not about money, it’s not about research, it’s about how much will you give, not financially but of yourself to find out. Money won’t, can’t, and never will fix it. You cannot buy your own freedom

as you know we share similar opinions on how to „recover“ from dpd. but my question wasnt targeting that topic. its about, if dpd is so painful and makes life unbearable or it is underresearched so why dont those rich guys spend money for further research? im very sure there is somewhere a guy sitting with dpd and 100 million dollars on his account. so he could build a whole research center. although i know researching something wont give immediate results but still. these people seem to not give a fuck about dpd because we dont hear anything of them.

 

[ThoughtOnFire]

Not saying this is the only reason... but consider big pharma: they don't want to cure people, there's no money in that. Keep spending your paycheck on medications... which fills the pockets of those money hoarders. If there was a cure discovered... then it'd take a big chunk out of their profits.

 

[ThoughtOnFire]

Also if there was a simple meditation technique: The elites don't want a bunch of awakened humans who no longer need a government to get along. The military industrial complex doesn't want world peace.

 

[coolwhip27]

Also if there was a simple meditation technique: The elites don't want a bunch of awakened humans who no longer need a government to get along. The military industrial complex doesn't want world peace.

No it’s because people don’t want world peace, you might SAY you do according to a “good” ideal, but that isn’t what brings it. Eliminating violence isn’t controlling what’s out there, you get rid of it on the level of yourself. So its not just a special club of people which has made the world the way it is, it’s all humans. That’s the harsh truth, that most of us are violent and the opinions we have, fighting for whose right and whose wrong etc, make us violent. That’s just a summary, I don’t doubt that certain people running businesses are happy about their making money so they try keep it that way but the actual truth isn’t found out there, this violence I speak of is in all of us. The system is rigged against the soul

 

[nocturnalman]

They do spend lots of money on research.But not on this condition.All money is spent on dementia, alzheimers disease and parkinsons disease.And you probably know why.So the they can enjoy their money and power at old age without having one of these 3 conditions.If any of them had dpdr, they would probably have seen top doctors and been told it's just stress and anxiety, moving to a newly bought villa in the bahamas could help alleviate many of it's symptoms.

 

[Peter]

we can assume that chronic dpd did hit at least 50 multi millionaires on the world (>100million$).

According to a table on the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_high-net-worth_individual there are a bit more than 50000 people on the world with a net worth of 100 million dollars. If we assume that 1% of them suffer from depersonalization disorder, we would even arrive at 500 people.

Still this assumption may be incorrect, since rich people are probably less likely to suffer from depersonalization disorder. There are several reasons for this. On the one hand depersonalization disorder usually hits at a young age like the 10s or 20s. Given the severity of depersonalization disorder you are simply incapable to become rich anymore once the disorder set in. Children of ultra rich people are probably less likely to get depersonalization, too, since depersonalization surely involves a genetic component that is absent in people who got rich. If you are on the camp that proposes psychosocial factors as the root of depersonalization, then an argument may also be that ultra rich people probably give their children an optimal psychosocial environment that minimizes the chance to get mental disorders related to excessive stress.

Apart from that, I think I remember that a rich family actually paid for much of the research done by the british Depersonalization Research Unit, so it might already have happened.

so my conclusion is rich people dont suffer that much from dpdr. there isnt another explanation for me. everyone on this forum would spend almost all of their money to ger rid of this. but this doesnt happen.

As I said, that may be the reason. I suppose that most diseases are less likely for rich people, both for genetic and environmental reasons.

as you know we share similar opinions on how to „recover“ from dpd. but my question wasnt targeting that topic. its about, if dpd is so painful and makes life unbearable or it is underresearched so why dont those rich guys spend money for further research? im very sure there is somewhere a guy sitting with dpd and 100 million dollars on his account. so he could build a whole research center. although i know researching something wont give immediate results but still.

The development of a new drug from animals trials to FDA-approval can take as much as several billions. Even if you are extremely rich, you cannot afford this out of pocket.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_drug_development

Not saying this is the only reason... but consider big pharma: they don't want to cure people, there's no money in that. Keep spending your paycheck on medications... which fills the pockets of those money hoarders. If there was a cure discovered... then it'd take a big chunk out of their profits.

Nope. They could simply charge a high amount of money for a cure, like for example for the hepatitis C treatment.

Also if there was a simple meditation technique: The elites don't want a bunch of awakened humans who no longer need a government to get along. The military industrial complex doesn't want world peace.

If there was a "simple meditation technique" they couldn't stop it.

 

[Dutchhighlander]

It's simple, millionaires mostly are selfish, indifferent, antiphatetic people ... so they don't suffer dpdr as much as emphatic, caring and social ones.

 

[Peter]

so they don't suffer dpdr as much as emphatic, caring and social ones.

From my experience this doesn't generally fit people with depersonalization disorder or at least not more than normal people.

 

[NoDevils]

People with hundreds of millions of dollars often engage in philanthropy. Most commonly I see them funding mental health treatment centers where there are social workers and psychiatrists. Far as psychopharma and new modalities you can consider that research. Research is supposed to be funded by the government, capital investment, and philanthropy. Many people believe the level of funding for research is currently inadequate. Most research being conducted is directed at treating depression, anxiety, psychotic disorders, and sometimes PTSD. Depersonalization in the United States is considered a secondary symptom of these disorders. Depersonalization Disorder exists in the DSM 5 as a distinct disorder but its diagnosis as a primary disorder is discouraged.

Some people are more inclined to conspiratorial thinking but really education is a better path to understanding. Not a single drug has been solidly proven to treat depersonalization, and therapies have mostly involved coping skills rather than total resolution of the depersonalized feelings. Imagine you're a policy expert, investor, or philanthropist. Would you rather invest in an area where effective treatments have been discovered, such as depression, or would you rather invest in an area where no effective treatments have been discovered, such as depersonalization? You mentioned an important point: what about people who have a special interest in depersonalization? Much depersonalization research is fueled by this special interest in the syndrome, but it is a niche and underfunded area of research. Consider how often depersonalization syndrome presents as a secondary effect of other disorders like drug abuse, mood, anxiety, trauma, and psychosis; now you see there's more incentive to treat these conditions rather than some 1% of the population who suffer from depersonalization syndrome.

Currently, the easiest and most cost effective way to help people with depersonalization is awareness. When sufferers and clinicians are aware of what depersonalization is this can avoid a lot of unnecessary suffering and save health care systems money that would otherwise be spent on unnecessary appointments and tests. Peer support such as this website is also helpful. Knowing we're not the only people suffering from this condition can in itself be healing.

Research into depersonalization is very important and I hope it continues. This post is merely to point out the problems we're facing.

 

[NoDevils]

From my experience this doesn't generally fit people with depersonalization disorder or at least not more than normal people.

I also disagree with the notion that rich people are all insensitive. Most people are born into a consumerist, competitive culture and have a metastatic relationship with money. The poor person is adapted to live off very little, the middle income off a modest amount, and the rich off a grotesque amount. A person might transition from rich to poor, but this would be a traumatic transition like an addict abruptly coming off a drug. Rich people live in insular communities where everyone's needs are more or less addressed and have next to no understanding of the plight of people living beneath them. It's the same as how a low income Westerner knows next to nothing about the plight of an impoverished villager in the developing world. Believing that financially less fortunate and mentally ill people are the only ones who possess empathy is, ironically, an unempathetic perspective. The problems of our society are structural and due to financial corruption, and will not necessarily be solved by chastising the rich as humans have already been doing for thousands of years.

 

[Peter]

I also disagree with the notion that rich people are all insensitive. Most people are born into a consumerist, competitive culture and have a metastatic relationship with money. The poor person is adapted to live off very little, the middle income off a modest amount, and the rich off a grotesque amount. A person might transition from rich to poor, but this would be a traumatic transition like an addict abruptly coming off a drug. Rich people live in insular communities where everyone's needs are more or less addressed and have next to no understanding of the plight of people living beneath them. It's the same as how a low income Westerner knows next to nothing about the plight of an impoverished villager in the developing world. Believing that financially less fortunate and mentally ill people are the only ones who possess empathy is, ironically, an unempathetic perspective.

Very well said.

The problems of our society are structural and due to financial corruption, and will not necessarily be solved by chastising the rich as humans have already been doing for thousands of years.

I think one part of the reason why depersonalization disorder is ignored ties into the "financial corruption" part. At the moment I'm reading the book "7 Shrinks: 60 Years in an Undiagnosed Altered State", which was written by a woman, who suffered from depersonalization disorder for more than 60 years without ever getting relief. She tried several treatments and reports that she paid 675,400$ for her medical expenses regarding depersonalization disorder out of her own pocket and adds that this isn't adjusted to inflation. So, if we take inflation into account, by today's standards psychiatrists and therapists might have earned one million dollars from the lifetime of a single patient with depersonalization disorder - without delivering anything. This is insane and shows that even without treatment depersonalization disorder already is very profitable.

 

[NoDevils]

Very well said.



I think one part of the reason why depersonalization disorder is ignored ties into the "financial corruption" part. At the moment I'm reading the book "7 Shrinks: 60 Years in an Undiagnosed Altered State", which was written by a woman, who suffered from depersonalization disorder for more than 60 years without ever getting relief. She tried several treatments and reports that she paid 675,400$ for her medical expenses regarding depersonalization disorder out of her own pocket and adds that this isn't adjusted to inflation. So, if we take inflation into account, by today's standards psychiatrists and therapists might have earned one million dollars from the lifetime of a single patient with depersonalization disorder - without delivering anything. This is insane and shows that even without treatment depersonalization disorder already is very profitable.

$600,000? That's atrocious. So would $60,000 be. Ineffective psychiatric treatments have many characteristics of a scam. In the UK where their mental health system is funded by the government functional patients get approved for like eight sessions at a time and disabled patients sometimes wait months to be seen.

 

[Peter]

$600,000? That's atrocious. So would $60,000 be. Ineffective psychiatric treatments have many characteristics of a scam.

I still have a long way to read the book completely, so I don't know which type of therapy amounts to the largest share, but my guess would be psychotherapy.

In the UK where their mental health system is funded by the government functional patients get approved for like eight sessions at a time and disabled patients sometimes wait months to be seen.

They probably know how expensive, yet often ineffective psychotherapy is. I'm not sure if my memory is correct on that part, but I remember that someone said that Elaine Hunter was getting about 400$ per session. So I don't want to condemn them for being unwilling to pay for long stretches of psychotherapy.

The british health care is popular for it's long waiting time. For example in the book "Life on Autopilot: A Guide to Living With Depersonalization Disorder" by Joe Perkins the author waited one year for his appointment with the depersonalization clinic in London - which in the end led to nowhere.

 

[Chip1021]

When it comes to the question “why don’t rich people with DPDR spend their money on research?” I think that Peter was probably substantially correct in his analysis. Rich people (who earned their wealth) are unlikely to have DPDR or any other major problem that disabled them at a young age. A person with DP or even schizophrenia might be able to work, but would probably be much less capable of becoming very wealthy.

Now, a person born into wealth might be able to spend his money on DP research, but the question he might have is: what is the nature of DP? To whom should I be giving my money? Psychiatric researchers? Neurological/neuroscientific researchers? Genetic research? Something less scientific in its approach? Just throwing money at a problem is a waste if you have no idea what the nature of the problem is or how to go about approaching it.

But when it comes to the general question of why there is relatively research into DPDR than other conditions, I think the answers are obvious. DPDR isn’t strongly associated with violence toward self or others, or if it is, those violent actions are usually attributed to Depression or Psychosis or even to the psych meds the person was using. DPDR is also not a directly fatal condition, nor is it functionally disabling for many who experience it. A lot of D-people can work and live and act “normally” from the point of view of others. In other words, DP is not considered a problem for society generally, so why should society spend its resources trying to understand and treat it?

 

[Grindelwald]

Same reason they don't give to starving people in Africa. and elsewhere. They're out of touch greedy scumbags.

 

[Peter]

When it comes to the question “why don’t rich people with DPDR spend their money on research?” I think that Peter was probably substantially correct in his analysis. Rich people (who earned their wealth) are unlikely to have DPDR or any other major problem that disabled them at a young age. A person with DP or even schizophrenia might be able to work, but would probably be much less capable of becoming very wealthy.

Now, a person born into wealth might be able to spend his money on DP research, but the question he might have is: what is the nature of DP? To whom should I be giving my money? Psychiatric researchers? Neurological/neuroscientific researchers? Genetic research? Something less scientific in its approach? Just throwing money at a problem is a waste if you have no idea what the nature of the problem is or how to go about approaching it.

That's non-sense, it's a mental disorder, that's clear.

But when it comes to the general question of why there is relatively research into DPDR than other conditions, I think the answers are obvious. DPDR isn’t strongly associated with violence toward self or others, or if it is, those violent actions are usually attributed to Depression or Psychosis or even to the psych meds the person was using. DPDR is also not a directly fatal condition, nor is it functionally disabling for many who experience it. A lot of D-people can work and live and act “normally” from the point of view of others. In other words, DP is not considered a problem for society generally, so why should society spend its resources trying to understand and treat it?

In contrast, that is good and something I thought about, too, and already hinted with my idea of mail bombing. Maybe the solution for giving depersonalization disorder more attention would be to change this? To become a threat or at least nuisance to society?

 

[Chip1021]

That's non-sense, it's a mental disorder, that's clear.



In contrast, that is good and something I thought about, too, and already hinted with my idea of mail bombing. Maybe the solution for giving depersonalization disorder more attention would be to change this? To become a threat or at least nuisance to society?

Yes, I know it is defined as a mental disorder, but what the hell is a mental disorder? Nobody has ever been able to answer that question for me in a scientific way! Is it a material condition of the brain? If so, what is the difference between a mental disorder and a brain disease? Is it a way of classifying undesirable, disturbing, destructive or self-destructive behavior? If that is the case, why is psychiatry a branch of medicine and not a branch of the law (or is psychiatry a branch of the law)? Why are there “mental health” laws? Why can a person be treated for a “mental illness” against his will (despite the fact that there are no valid diagnostic tests for any mental illness, and treatments are underwhelming and frequently destructive), but he cannot be forcibly treated for physical illness, even when the presence of that illness can be validly identified, effectively treated, and otherwise can be fatal? Well, he can be forcibly treated if psychiatrists also testify that he is mentally disordered as well. Can you provide me a scientific definition of mental disorder that is either materialistic-mechanistic or at least descriptive and phenomenological? Why should DPDR, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Pedophilia, and Factitious Disorders (I.e. faking or intentionally making oneself sick) belong in the same category? What do they all have in common?

The DSM-V describes mental disorder the following way:

1) A behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual (in other words, a stereotyped pattern of thinking or acting)

2) Reflects and underlying psychobiological dysfunction (would anybody care to explain to me what a “psychobiological dysfunction” is? It sounds a lot like when Descartes incoherently claimed that the soul was a non corporeal entity that was nevertheless located inside the pineal gland)

3) The consequences of which are clinically significant (whatever that means) distress or disability (in other words, suffering or disability is a necessary condition for a mental disorder, but not for an organic disease)

4) Must not be merely an expected response to common stressors or losses, or a culturally sanctioned response to a particular event or ritual (in other words, the person who does what he is expected to is not mentally ill, but the person who acts differently or thinks for himself might be)

5). Primarily the result of social deviance or conflicts with society

The only one of those 5 descriptions that is even suggestive of a scientific medical problem is #2, and I have no idea what “psychobiological” even means. This would all be so absurd to anybody who is interested in thinking clearly, but it makes perfect sense if we understand psychiatry as as an extra-legal form of social control.

In contrast, an organic disease is “a morbid condition of the cells, tissues, organs, or physiology of an organism that is causally related to a significant reduction in that organism’s agential capacity or life expectancy.” A very straightforward scientific materialist and mechanistic definition.

In answer to your final question, becoming a threat or a nuisance to society is out of the question for us. We’ve already been denominated—voluntarily or involuntarily—as crazy mental patients. Becoming a more visible menace to society would only validate that we are crazy and likely lead to forced hospitalization and “treatment” for a non-existent disease.

To paraphrase Voltaire: clearly, if mental illness were not to exist, it would be necessary to invent it.