Canon EOS 50D useful software links

The Canon download page

http://software.canon-europe.com/products/0010677.asp#

Canon 50D firmware update page

http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/firm-e/eos50d/firmware.html

And, possible the most useful link.

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/install_canon_software.html

How to get the Canon software if you've lost the CD. Canon only offer updates for the majority of their software so without the original disk they're useless.

another rant on psychosis's mispathologisation

Some people believe mental distress or mental health problems or mental illness or madness to be an illness and that's the truth of the situation. Others consider the truth is that they're only illness because people call them illnesses, i.e. they are a false construction but real because people believe in them and they have real consequences (though these may be due to society, its maladapted systems and the morals of the time).

Heard of drapetomania? Its worth a google. Its an old diagnosis given to slaves who kept on running away. They were ill weren't they?

There's another piece of the history of mental illness also worth noting. In the Seventies the American diagnostic criteria (DSM) finally removed homosexuality as a mental illness and in the Nineties the WHO finally removed it from their criteria (ICD) which is used in the UK.

So a century ago people said that being gay was an illness and that they should be treated. Now you might be one of those people who still consider it an illness in which case my point is going to fall on deaf ears. Hearing voices, unshared perceptions, schizophrenia, psychosis and their ilk are not illnesses per se.

They can be thought of as illnesses but in the same way that skin colour could be called an illness, so my brown skin may be a disadvantage and I could paint myself white and be less 'ill'. I hope that makes sense: its an illness only as a non-real construct of society.

That's evidenced by a famous study conducted by the World Health Organisation in the Seventies which showed that outcomes for schizophrenia were better in the developing world than the developed world. There are many hypotheses to explain this seemingly paradoxical result. One is the other cultures have different interpretations to the experience of madness and don't use the medical paradigm of neurological brain dysfunction to be treated by antipsychotics and these produce better results. I'm not sure what the situation in 2010.

I've heard that mania is destigmatised in Spain. Hearing voices has a number of interpretations around the world. There are examples in the West too, for example many of the stories in the Bible are of people who heard the voice of god and its easy to see that the story of Abraham could be seen today as a story of a schizophrenic. Goth culture considers depression ok. Black rappers like Dizzie Rascal consider being "bonkers" a good thing. I've had an experience of revealing a previous bipolar diagnosis at a writing group and being told I was lucky.

But in the UK the general stigma of unshared perceptions is as deep rooted and pervasive as the stigma of madness itself. Its one I've seen even amongst antistigma campaigners. Its the thing we don't talk about in public. Its the thing that we associate with axe-wielding psychos and not great artists and thinkers. Its weird and its mad.

Its not surprising. The experience is incomprehensible if never having lived it. I have to admit that some psychiatrists have a modicum of understanding but many still dogmatically see the experience as illness.

The experience that leads to a diagnosis of schizophrenia is also one of the most distressing. Its sad that its often not recognised. Studies have shown up to a 10% completed suicide rate. The pain and suffering is like a rending asunder of everything you knew was real before, the very perceptions trusted from birth become unreal and yet more real at the same time. The very foundations of identity and consciousness are shattered. Terms like "ego death" are more elucidating. That's why it can be seen as an illness because mental healthcare may be necessary to treat the distress but not to tell the individual that there's something wrong with them. If they choose to believe that then its up to them.

This may all sound like an interesting and fairly abstract conversation but there's a harsh reality. Calling it an illness means it can be dogmatically treated like an illness. Its better than the past where unshared perceptions could be diagnosed as as possession, witchcraft or heresy (or canonisation if the voice hearing experience agreed with the paradigm of the Church).

In 2010 it invariably means antipsychotic treatment. Antipsychotic medication reduces life expectancy. Its one of those things the doctors don't tell people. They're an easy treatment to give and forget that a human being is more complex than biology. NICE's guidelines for schizophrenia recommend against therapies like supportive psychotherapy and counselling, preferring medication and CBT. Sadly its an improvement on previous guidelines and there are a a handful of other recommendations for therapies but scant few for the most disabling and distressing mental illness. Drugs are always the first options and they're an easily solution. They're cheap too whereas talking therapy is expensive.

Since the stigma is so high there's no public outcry about the deaths of so many people with this experience. When the evidence comes out about the number of older people dying prematurely when taking antipsychotics for dementia (which is not psychosis but shows antipsychotics used as a chemical cosh) there's a small public outcry. When the public see the figures on people dying from "killer" clozapine nothing happens. This is drug that's used to treat treatment resist

There's a long conversation to be had about what is normal and what is to be considered pathological but I've already rambled long ennough. One more study I'm afraid and that's it.. This one is one of my favourites. Its know to some as the "Thud" experiment. People who didn't hear voices said they did and were immediately hospitalised. When they got in they said they didn't hear them anymore but once they were in their behaviours were pathologised and they were given diagnoses of schizophrenia in remission. (http://web.archive.org/web/20041117175255/http://web.cocc.edu/lminorevans/on_being_sane_in_insane_places.htm)

Science in politics isn't science

Its just another shitty use of science. Ignore that data that doesn't support the preconceived perception. Use the data when it supports a preconceived perception.

Its most obvious in drug policy in the UK.

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=409670&c=1

Science is a very difficult pursuit. Evidence-based science may not always be the best paradigm but it works the highest number of times and more often than not comes up with the right answer.

Good science looks to defeat bias, prejudice, ignorant supposition and current thinking all in the pursuit of the absolute truth. Of course it is simply not enough to have the evidence - correct interpretation is vital. But that's all part of the struggle to find this truth.

In physical sciences this dogged determination to find the truth is clear. It may be easier than for social and soft sciences but the paradigm can be taken and its use practised in the harder to measure subjects.

It isn't in drug research. For a start its the most biased research I can think of though psychosanalogical (looking at wellness) research in psychosis is probably up there.

There is little to none high quality psychosanalogical drug research published, i.e. none considering drugs as enthogeons. What that means is that there are no studies accept by politicians that show the potential of illegal drugs for mental health and life, though there is an immense body of work on the internet of personal experiences. These positive experiences would be shared by vast swathes of the population who take drugs regularly.

It is interesting that the psychiatric profession love psychopharmaceuticals for (supposed) psychopathology but vilify illegal psychopharmaceuticals that have been used for aeons and are used recreationally today. None of the pro-drugs research ever makes it to commissioners and politicians probably because it is low quality though possibly because they wouldn't read it even if it was high quality. They'd choose not to investigate the potential of MDMA for therapy and treatment even though it has helped many people. (another post later on the potential of Ecstacy for mental health treatment).

Bias is the great evil of high quality research though seemed to be accepted and somewhat promoted by qualitative social research. Bias is usually the greatest cause of mistruth when scientific methods are used. Its why the gold standard is the Randomised Control Trial because the bias of knowledge of trial group caused results that were incorrectly showing treatments like insulin-induced comas (and/or seizures) to be an effective high risk treatment over less risky treatments in post-WWII Britain. In fact the modern gold standard is the double-blind RCT and the blind quality is another attempt to remove human bias that skews the results and can inflate them.

Publication bias is revealed through meta-analysis techniques which look at published and unpublished data and map out the studies using a funnel plot. Publication bias will mean that a treatment will look more favourable through the funnel plot, for example antidepressant studies that show lack of effectiveness compared to the placebo effect won't be published by drug companies. Recent meta-analyses and reviews have identify the publication bias and have suggested their lack of efficacy. This means the idea that antidepressants work more than the placebo effect isn't true though lots of single, published, high quality studies show them to be more effective.

A funnel plot isn't needed for the drugs research to see the immense bias is psychiatric and other scientific literature. Its not surprising of course. The stigma of drug use by the 'establishment' or those who are in power is very strong and rooted in Western history. An example of what happens to research in this area is the famous Harvard Psilocybin Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Psilocybin_Project) in the 70's. The battle between enthogens and mental health is once against seen, and unlike the Bible story its David that looses to Goliath.

Those who become policy makers often forget their experience of drugs and drug takers. Many have had a toke and may have tried other drugs. Most people hide drug use like they'd hide hearing voices. As people get older they may continue to take drugs or they may stop, but when asked to say if drugs are good or bad they'll forget their personal experience and go with the socially acceptable argument based on those who end up addicted or in crime. The memory bias means they'll forget all the good times they've had, all the great experiences and all the fun because the socially acceptable view is of a junkie with a needle in their arm robbing a grandmother. Its almost like its unacceptable to tell the truth about enjoying drugs.

At heart the UK's policy makers love drugs. That's why there's a tax-free bar right at the centre of the House of Commons - Annie's bar if I remember correctly. I'm sure a large amount of UK policy across a number of areas is done while politicians sup on a drug. Its a legal one and an accepted one as is much of the social ill of alcohol. After all, taxation funds education and rehabilitation.

And a dissenting voice like Professor David Nutt who points out the obvious is silenced and removed from a position on the UK's scientific advisory committee, one that he'd held for many years.

So many dictators would be proud to see their way of working is still alive in 2010. Criticism, free thought and the fucking obvious pointed out when it is contrary to the party line should be silenced. Evidence is only to be used when it is convenient and ignored when it isn't.

What someone thinks is 'right' is more important than real truth.

Doctor's mental health and how to help them

I'm having a frustrating situation. A friend and extended family member is in hospital. She's not talking to me but she's responding to my texts. I want to go see her.

What I'd like to do is phone the hospital where she is and find out what happened, then try and persuade her to let me see her. I can't do that though because I assume the staff would respect her confidentiality.

I think the reason why she has only told me last night is because she doesn't want the rest of the family to know. She's told me stuff before she's never told anyone else so I think I'm in the right zone to help her through this but at the moment she's shutting me out.

She's a doctor too so she may not be in her local hospital where I'd expect her to be. NHS staff are usually hospitalised at a different PCT.

Yep. That's how prevalent the stigma is amongst doctors. Mental ill health is something to be hidden from colleagues even outside the workplace. Its still fundamentally seen differently to physical illness by doctors outside (and perhaps even inside) psychiatry.

So I'm facing a struggle. At the moment she's responding to some of my texts. Any text that has an important question she doesn't respond to. So I'm just nattering with her about my life in the hope that it'll distract her for a moment, give her something else to think about, maybe say something that will make things a little bit better and maintain human contact. At the moment it feels very much like a waiting game and in the meantime I'm having a quick look to see if I can find something that will help me.

She's also a tough case. Tougher than me perhaps. The self-stigma is probably quite high but she knows me and I think she respects so I hope that my destigmatising, mad pride arguments might work and they'd be based on the evidence of my life. But she's a doctor and she's seen more than me, and she's a good scientists so she knows one single example (apart from in her own life) is not a truth.

She's exceptionally intelligent and driven when she's on form. She may easily have a genius level IQ and behaviour. Her capability at philosophical thought is far beyond most philosophy professors and she knows the material too. That makes it very difficult to argue with her rationally but I'm quite good at that.

But I'm not sure its worked for me in the past though because rational arguments not well communicated can mean a person gets defensive and builds walls around whatever they rationalise. I've had some very expensive therapy before from and had the problem that my intellect meant even the smartest doctor hit a wall with my counterarguments.

I feel stuck as what to do. I sadly see it as something of an intellectual challenge as well as helping out another soul. I've looked for some research and found a useless paper. (Doctors who kill themselves: a study of the methods used for suicide - http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/93/6/351).

Grr. Quantitative without decent qualitative stuff. Another US paper is also useless. (Suicide in Male and Female Physicians - http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/228/3/323) except for one useful bit. Young, trainee, female doctors have a significantly high suicide rate. But the stupid paper doesn't go into any detail as to why and what to do. Thankfully there's a reference....but the fucking paper is pay-for access. (SUICIDE IN PROFESSIONALS: A STUDYOF MALE AND FEMALEPSYCHOLOGISTS - http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/98/6/436)

I hope what's the abstract includes is useful though.

"Losses in ascertainment may contribute to the apparent deficit in males. The excess of suicide in females was consonant with the results of a similar studycarried out in physicians. Marginality, role conflict, and ambivalence about theachievement of success were discussed as possible factors contributing tosuicide in female professionals."

Sadly the paper is on data from the 60's but its all I've got to go on at the moment. Its a useful example of when research is useless I guess. That small gem is all I've got to work on at the moment.

Its very difficult dealing with doctors because they're arrogant and have something of an ego problem, much like myself. Sadly they often know their stuff too.

They seem to have a totally different culture to 'normal' and perhaps something akin to soldiers. This is where lived experience helps. She knows about my own deep, dark psychiatric past. She knows a little about my unshared perceptions as well. I think that's the tool that's most going to work to get her to at least talk about what's been going on.

The research has provided useful though. Its identified something I already knew. Doctors' mental health is usually pretty poor. Its so sad. My family and extended family are daily examples for me. Had I become a doctor I'm sure I'd be no different.

They're the arbiters of mental health and they're the healers given the highest respect, but underneath their professional exterior I know they're often miserable. I know the public wouldn't want that if they knew.

I feel they're the hardest to help and I'm totally stuck for ideas on what to do. There is one hope. Dr Liz Miller and the Doctor's Support Network. They may be my next port of call.

Its a shame no one read this blog yet. I could really do with some comments to help me out today.

Will assisted suicide laws ever allow for mental illness

This is a very cold piece devoid of consideration of the arguments against suicide or compassion for the loved ones left behind. It is primarily a piece of free thinking rather than an argument for or against assisted suicide.

In a handful of countries and states there is legislation that allows for assisted suicide if a person has a terminal physical illness and are in extreme pain. It is seen as both compassionate to let the person die though many opponents argue that it assisted suicide should remain criminalised for a variety of reasons.

Reading Derek Humphry's assisted suicide blog (http://assistedsuicide.org/blog/) has an interesting post that describes what the mainstream assisted suicide movement is campaigning for.

"Only subscribe if you in principle support the right of a competent adult to choose to die when physical suffering is unbearable."

Reading other posts on the blog is elucidating on the shift in euthanasia laws worldwide. A recent post about assisted suicide in the Netherlands is related to mental health. I was quite surprised to see that a group of people were trying to change the already progressive euthanasia laws si that people over the age of 70 who are "tired of life" should be allowed professional help to end their lives.

I assume the phrase "tired of life" has lost something in translation but I think it may be possible to understand the concept better than the words express. 7o years of living may be enough for some people.

There may be reasons why elderly people may want to end their life early, not least because of the problems caused by the proliferation of the 'nuclear family' unit that removed the value of the third generation from most households and left them to spend their last years in homes or looking after themselves.

Those people aren't dying from a physical illness nor is there extreme or untreatable physical pain. I think many a reader may jump to the conclusion that they are depressed and that's not true in my opinion. Their state of mind, their rational decision, their choice is, perhaps, sane.

This would be a challenge for the best psychiatrist to judge what may be rational suicide and what is a mental illness. Assisted suicide for an untreatable, terminal and painful physical illness is not considered a mental illness. I'm sure in practice equivalents of diagnostic tools like the mini-mental state examination are used to weed out signs of depression or other psychiatric illness.

I suppose what I'm perhaps poorly trying to ask is is there such a thing as a rational suicide for mental illness, or could it be possible that in the future a person defined as having an untreatable and deeply painful mental experience could be assisted to take their own life?

I'll end up ruminating over that because I feel it is a complex question that quick judgements would do no justice to. It is a question that needs a precise definition of what is mental illness outside (though not necessarily above) the lay opinion.

Wanting to die clearly isn't a mental illness in itself. Its ok in some countries if physical pain is unbearable. It can be a sign of a mental illness as can many things. I suppose that the arguments that it will never be legal for mental illness is that there are treatments available that can take away the pain. For example a seizure can be induced electrically and this has been found to work for some people with chronic depression. Personally I see ECT as a form of physical reset of personality or emotional state and as a form of death in itself though a death of a state of consciousness rather than physical. Neurosurgery for mental disorder is another option though comes with a higher risk to life.

For some though all the antidepressants, electric shocks and attempts at fixing the problem neurologically don't work. Would society ever evolve to the point where a person with a persistent desire to die that isn't irrational could be assisted in dying with dignity? I doubt I'll see it in my lifetime. My heart says that its not something I'd want to see either but my head says that people have free will.

I thought I'd end it there but there's one more consideration. Personality disorders are very complex and are often defined as difficult to treat, i.e. the people are difficult to change. This may simply be because of lack of research or perhaps lack of resources to pay for long treatment programs. Imagine the scenario where an individual has accepted they have a personality disorder and they want to change because they see their behaviour as destructive to their life but no treatment works. Imagine that this drives them to despair as months and years and decades of treatment are to no avail and their, their life is in tatters and the doctors have given up. They are not depressed per se but decide after deliberation and consultation that it would be better to "catch the bus" (to borrow a term from the suicide underground) but they've never attempted it before (if that's possible with personality disorders. I'm afraid I don't know a huge amount about them but I think that some, e.g. schizotypal, may not have suicide as one of the symptoms.)

In this example there is the possibility of a non-mentally ill suicidal wish but unrelated to the diagnosis. It is possible to see parallels with the reasoning of assisted suicide for mental illness. There is a difference in that the condition is not terminal per se. The pain and the lack of hope are what is in common with the physical illness argument. Compassion for the life of someone who wants to change but can't and can't be helped to change would make me think that assisted suicide for intractable mental health conditions could be a moral thing however the above example is a philosophical or thinking example. I'm not aware if that's based on reality, i.e. I don't know if there people with intractable personality disorders who want to change but can't and whose suffering is so great that suicide is rational.

The best sort of innovation

http://practicalaction.org/food-production/zeerpots

The pain and pleasure of unrequited love

Its an old friend of mine.

I know it well. I know the joy it brings me so fertile and enriching. The pain of repressing and impotence is equally so. The sweetness of the pangs of what could be but never will be are like a perfect riff played on the guitar strings of my soul.

A little bit of perspective on psychosis

I wish it would go away, for me and for others. But I know that's not an answer. I know the pain will always be part of my life as it is for others. I hate it but that doesn't change the fact that I must accept it. Its something that will kill me one day and that day will be a good day. In the meantime the struggle through it all is almost purpose in itself.

The struggleis with 'god' or whatever name people give to the entity and experience. The knowledge that there is a controlling, noncorporeal force or being in my life causing the harm and upset, controlling and manipulating everything, toying and playing with me and my life and my senses and my reality was a brutal awakening. The conventional view that this entity is responsible for the good only is incorrect. It saves the lives of people after the tsunami but also caused the tsunami.

Facing it alone was very hard. There was no one I could talk to about this experience. There was no one to help me cope. I couldn't open up while I was going through it because I didn't have the strength or resolve. I was afraid of being thought of as a psycho or a schizo. I didn't want people to think I was mad.

That's changed though. I now know I am mad. It makes me sad because I know the negative meaning of that term. I know the expectation is that I will become a social pariah looked after by the mental health system but I don't expect that to be true in my case. I know that expectation is only caused by stigma and society's maladaption to the full spectrum of the human experience. I know mad is just a word and the concept is only half the picture.

I know I am not alone in my madness. There are other people who go through the awakening or whatever it is called but are never seen by the mental health system or never reveal their true experience so never get the social label of weirdo or mad. My choice is to become more open about my madness and take the stigma of madness by the horns because there is nothing wrong nor ill about psychosis except that it is a distressing experience that is intensely, deeply stigmatised.

My hope is that through more openess from me there will be more openess. I see that as the way the stigma will change. Perhaps the fact that I can do it without (I hope) becoming a social pariah is a sign that the stigma is already changing. 40 years ago I'd have been immediately hospitalised were I to tell a psychiatrist that I have an unusual experience of consciousness.

It is an ill in society that can not be seen: the perscution, false pathologisation and stigmatisation of the same experiences that created the idea of god. It is an ill that creates the ill of psychosis. Post-Industrial Revolution society has forgotten what to do when psychosis happens. Less developed countries have better outcomes for schizophrenia because of their cultural alternative nonpsychatric explanations and perhaps also because of their lack of treatment with psychopharmaceuticals.

Friends and family are likely to tell a person to see a doctor because they have no idea what to do (a result of the 'great confinement' where the mad were housed in the asylums and removed from view (and this, again, was done for compassionate reasons)). Doctors are tell the person there is something wrong with them. They explain it as a problem with the person's brain and treat it with avolition and sedation-inducing medication that slowly kills the patient.

Few understand the sheer misery of the experience. Its not surprising the completed suicide rate is estimated at up to 10% of people with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Depression is a walk in the park in comparison. Its not surprising people want to kill themselves when they go through this because the often face it alone and have no way to attempt to understand it other than as a malfunction of the brain.

I know it will change. I know it will get better. I know it takes time to shift this immense wrong that few can even see. I hope I can make that happen faster. There's purpose enough in that to keep me going.

A bit on stigma and exclusion and my life

Many would consider it appropriate to hide my unusualness and make sure I fit in with normal behaviour. That's something I do and have to do and its something I like to do because being different can be very lonely. There have been times when my madness was beyond my control such that unintended consequences made me something of a social pariah.

I think many people hide their madness, from hiding their inner child's inappropriate playfulness to keeping silent feelings of attraction to never speaking about unusual experiences or thoughts. Its something we all have to do to fit in and perhaps there is a need for this because without it could be a social anarchy where social taboos no longer exist. (Frankly my opinion is that this would be an ideal society but that's probably why I'd be considered a libertine.)

I think its wrong that we have to hide the truth about ourselves because to me that is a real truth, or moreso than the truth that openness and honesty leaves an individual open to ridicule, scorn, social disgrace, discreditation and perhaps, counterintutively, mistrust. Its fear of that latter that makes people do it.

Its a fear that feels like a leftover from the playground: the fear of being a weirdo. "Weirdo" was one of the earliest mental health diagnoses I came across. Its a diagnosis without sophisticated epidemiological studies but it has an estimatable prognosis. There's usually a degree of social isolation and in childhood this can be a direct cause of depression. Some children rise to the name of "weirdo" but for others it can be a shattering experience. Breaching the unwritten social laws of behaviour at school can bring harsh punishments to young minds. Exclusion, ridicule and devaluation are hard to take as an adult but for a child the impact is far worse and I wonder if it could cause future psychiatric symptoms.

Some children are different and grow from their difference rather than hide it for fear of the consequences. I can reflect somewhat on my miserable childhood and see that it helped make me whatever I am. I was weird then but didn't really realise that it was important not to be weird. I just bumbled along regardless.

This isn't the post where I retell my childhood but I can describe some of the impact. I'm reflective and perhaps somewhat intense person now underneath my mask of vacuous cheer. The me underneath the mask came from long periods of loneliness, solitude and time spent with my own thoughts. My friends were often my books and I read prolifically. They took me away to fantasy worlds away from the terrible present like the joints I smoke today. I would make dreams and stories for myself to escape the present and entertain my bored mind. Some children have imaginary friends but for me science and science fiction were enough.

From an early age I remember experiencing lows but not really knowing that they were bad. They felt bad but I didn't know that that it was something that could have been stopped. I got on with things and day after day would continue to function to the necessary measures, i.e. turn up to school, do the minimum amount of homework, eat, sleep and make sufficient social contact to get through my life. On the inside I'd be carrying the weight of depression and I just stumbled on through.

Loneliness became solitude as I grew used to it and learnt to appreciate it. I relied on myself as much as I could, hiding away my problems and developing the mask. I never stopped being weird but I managed to find groups of people that accepted me and disregarded or even enjoyed my uniqueness. I became able to find friends like that whenever, wherever and that's something that I'm thankful for because adult life has seen many crises where I've lost lots of friends.

There's a point to all this. Its that there can be a positive to the loneliness and solitude that comes with exclusion. Its not all good. Conquering the overbearing sense of self-reliance that came from having to rely on myself has been a struggle in adult life. Its made my recovery considerably longer and more arduous, but there is still a sense of pride derived from the challenge. I was a weird child and now I'm a very weird, mad, mentally ill adult and that comes with all sorts of scientific evidence that my life is disadvantaged because of my unusualness and I will die sooner. (The former is bareable because the lesson I've learnt is that sometimes its better to be different and true than happier and false and the latter is a pleasant thought.)

I'd originally started this piece with the line "I've committed the sin of hiding my madness". The information above is in my usual vein of attempting to see positivity in negative experiences. But the point I originally started to make was about changing stigma, openness and individual responsbility. I've clearly gone off on a tangent but its a worthwhile one.