People can be bothered by a thing without “going in hot”. Having your feelings get hurt but being emotionally mature means you can call it out without rage or impulsivity being in play

So I didn’t know this was a thing, it kind of made me realize how bad my vision has gotten seeing the contrast

I think ACE stuff really is chosen because it’s stuff backed by published research and encompasses more common occurrences

I think it holds value in that it paints a clear, simple picture that childhood trauma directly links to a lot of measurable health or social problems that maybe otherwise people would be unlikely to relate to childhood trauma

I agree it would be nice to include more things in it, and perhaps that will happen eventually. I feel it’s especially odd how it specifies someone at least 5 years older for sexual abuse, I’m sure there’s a reason for that that I’m missing, but it’s an odd limitation.

As for omitting health problems, I’d suspect it’s due to that being a different type of trauma than some other things, as it’s not really relational trauma while all the other stuff is, which while trauma in itself, maybe makes sense to consider separately and just study that one on its own. Loss of a family member perhaps is the same way, worthy of looking into how it impacts people of course, but perhaps not something you want to lump in with other relational trauma. I’d argue that a lot of ACE stuff focuses on some kind of betrayal of trust, where you counted on someone close to you for love and stability and they betrayed it, likely leading to a lot of problems trusting others or letting others get close in a way these things don’t. It’s not that these things are any less traumatic, but they aren’t things that drive home a “I can’t trust other people not to harm me” message like all the ACE stuff does

Seriously if you want to see a lot more of this kind of study, look at all the stuff linked to ACE scores. We’d already linked higher ACE scores to obesity so this isn’t surprising

I might be sharing something you already know, but maybe you or other people reading this thread don’t know about this, but have you ever looked into DBT (Dialectical Behavioral Therapy)? It can be helpful for a lot of things but is really optimized for Borderline Personality Disorder, PTSD, and Complex PTSD.

It requires a bit more time investment than other kinds of therapy (usually a 1 hour session a week plus a 1-2 hour separate segment called skills training, which a lot of places offer virtually nowadays) but it’s not too crazy of a time investment. There’s been a lot of research verifying that DBT is really effective, especially for these sorts of things. Basically a while back, there was CBT (a pretty common type of therapy), but they found it fell short for people with Borderline Personality Disorder and Complex PTSD especially, so they really reworked it over a number of years and developed a more optimized approach for these things

I just wanted to share this since with therapy, you tend to see a bunch of acronyms and styles of therapy and it’s easy to get lost and overwhelmed with what they all mean, but for Borderline Personality Disorder and Complex PTSD, it’s very much the gold standard for efficacy. Granted, finding a therapist you actually mesh with and like is still very important, but it’ll be very worth looking into “Full Model DBT”

I’ve learned a lot about this as someone close to me has struggled with the sorts of things it’s especially good for, and I hope maybe this can help point you or someone else reading this some help

I think part of the problem is that many protests tend to have broad goals protesting a broad problem

They’re much more effective when it’s “Hey, that law you passed, the X act? Get rid of it, and we’ll chill” or “give us a law that protects against Y and we’ll chill”.

The specific message allows for easy buy in, makes it hard to misrepresent their demands, and gives a clear path for politicians to calm things down and resume normalcy.

Like for example, protesting “gun violence” is too broad, it’s hard to get sustained but in, easy to distort what they actually want to drum up opposition, and vague to fix, but if you were to protest and demand “we want to raise the age to buy guns to 21”, that’s very specific, there’s no questioning what they want, it’s really easy to know which side you’re on, and it makes it VERY clear what needs to be done for the protests to stop. I’m not trying to make any specific arguments here, rather just providing an example about what I think works better.

Protesting to express frustration over a problem and saying “please do something” is much less effective than “we demand this law be stricken down” or “we demand this law be put in place”. But in the US specifically, a lot of protests have been more vague, which doesn’t mean they’re invalid in what they’re upset about, but the vagueness of demands make sustained buy in difficult, make disinformation campaigns easier to leverage against it, and give politicians too much leeway in how to handle it, so they kind of fizzle out because it’s unclear when enough has been done to meet demands.

Compare this to France’s current “don’t raise the retirement age”, it’s very clear what they want, and if their politicians want to quell unrest, it’s very clear what needs to be done, if they simply do not raise the retirement age, things go back to normal immediately, and it’s kind of hard to distort such a simple demand

Stopping it from spreading more is always going to be good

This paired with targeted approaches like surgery and radiation which are only going to target a particular tumor would be nice since these approaches only target what is known about already

A lot of people go into remission only for it to pop back up elsewhere, this would presumably make that less likely

It’s not going to help with everyone, but reducing its ability to spread at all or at least to spread more than it already has would certainly be good

It’s a strategy to interrupt cancer’s ability to spread, this isn’t just about staying alive and limping along, this would actually improve quality of life in the meantime and make your chances of full remission much more likely

It means Intermittent fasting is good for lowering systolic blood pressure, but doesn’t do much for diastolic blood pressure. Systolic blood pressure is more strongly correlated to all sorts of health problems (both matter, but systolic matters more barring edge cases) so this is good

However, it’s basically saying that there isn’t some magical thing going on with intermittent fasting specifically, the only reason it’s good for lowering systolic blood pressure is because it’s good at helping you lose weight, but it’s no better at reducing systolic blood pressure than any other approach to weight loss