[Blindtlk] non 24
Carly Mihalakis
carlymih at comcast.net
Fri Jan 8 15:40:58 UTC 2016
Good morning, Larry, and everyone,
So you see, it's not just about blind people as usual.
Car08:34 PM 1/7/2016, Larry Wayland via blindtlk wrote:
>Also I think they are planning to sell it to
>help shift workers Adjust to their shift
>changes. I don't know if Vanda is involved for
>sure are not, but a lot of research is going
>into the study of sleep problems of Astronauts
>on the space station. they go through 16 sun
>sets and sun rises a day, and that is playing
>havoc with their sleep patterns. Larry
>-----Original Message----- From: blindtlk
>[mailto:blindtlk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
>Of Mike Freeman via blindtlk Sent: Thursday,
>January 07, 2016 8:36 PM To: 'Blind Talk Mailing
>List' Cc: Mike Freeman Subject: Re: [Blindtlk]
>non 24 Bob: Certainly an employer who actually
>admitted that he/she didn't hire someone because
>he/she was blind and therefore had the potential
>to sleep the workday away would be guilty of
>discriminatory hiring practices. Presumably,
>though, an employer who was prejudiced against
>the blind would not be so foolish as to admit
>such prejudice and leave himself/herself open to
>such charges. I'm rather thinking of just the
>implication of the ad itself and the whisper of
>doubt it could potentially put in the mind of a
>potential employer. This would be akin to the
>old stereotype of African-american people as
>lazy or shiftless. Actually, a friend commented
>that he thinks Vanda is ultimately aiming to
>sell hetlioz as an antidote to jetlag. Who
>knows? Mike -----Original Message----- From:
>blindtlk [mailto:blindtlk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
>Behalf Of Bob Hachey via blindtlk Sent:
>Thursday, January 07, 2016 2:00 PM To: 'Blind
>Talk Mailing List' Cc: Bob Hachey Subject: Re:
>[Blindtlk] non 24 Hi Mike, I agree with you
>about how Vanda seems to have put a lot into
>marketing to a very small population. Could it
>be that maybe Vanda is, in this case, putting
>altruism above profits? That would be an oddity
>for sure in the Corporate States of America. But
>I do disagree with your second point. Why should
>we be horrified that there's a blindness-related
>condition that could cause one to fall asleep at
>work, at home or anywhere else? Frankly, I’m
>much more horrified that it's possible an
>employer would refuse to hire us just because he
>or she saw a Vanda add for non 24 sufferers.
>That's immoral in my view and ought to be
>illegal. Instead of pointing the finger at
>Vanda, we ought to be pointing the finger at any
>employer who would use this or any other of a
>number of excuses not to hire us. Bob Hachey
>-----Original Message----- From: blindtlk
>[mailto:blindtlk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf
>Of Mike Freeman via blindtlk Sent: Wednesday,
>January 06, 2016 4:07 PM To: Blind Talk Mailing
>List Cc: Mike Freeman Subject: Re: [Blindtlk]
>non 24 Steve: I completely agree with you. I
>find it somewhat odd that the pharmaceutical
>firm put so much effort into advertising and
>marketing to such a small population.
>Additionally, I find it horrifying when I hear
>ads purporting to come from blind people which
>say that a blindness related illness causes
>them too fall asleep at work. What an example of
>the capability of the blind!!! Mike Freeman > On
>Jan 6, 2016, at 11:49, Steve Jacobson via
>blindtlk <blindtlk at nfbnet.org> wrote: > >
>Gary, > > For a long time, I've had a very
>negative reaction to sleep study > conclusions
>that involve blind people. In the past, there
>has been a > history of even educated people
>thinking of blindness as living in the > dark
>and feeling that there must be negative effects
>of constant > darkness. It seemed sometimes
>that they would go to great lengths to > prove
>what they already knew just had to be
>true. Over the years, I > have had to adjust my
>original position some partly because people I >
>trust, such as yourself, have felt that there
>may be a connection > between blindness and
>sleep irregularities. Still, I read
>statements > even in this current discussion
>that raise red flags to me, and there > are
>issues with the ad campaigns that really puzzle
>me. Perhaps some > of the questions I have are
>answered somewhere and I just have not gotten to
>them. Here are some examples. > > There always
>seems to be a few people who use the logic "I am
>blind, I > have a sleep problem, therefore blind
>people have a sleep problem." > It isn't put
>that simply or directly, but there is often a
>sense that > any sleep problem we have must be
>connected to blindness. I find > myself
>wondering if there is really an understanding of
>the depths of > sleep problems that exist among
>sighted people. I find that more than > once
>when the subject comes up that persons who are
>sighted > acknowledge sleep difficulties. I
>know of sighted people who have > fallen asleep
>at their desks, for example. When one looks at
>the > marketing of sleeping aids, clearly sleep
>is a fairly widespread > problem. Of course, I
>am not claiming that this disproves Non 24, but
>it means we need to keep what we experience in
>perspective. > > It is my understanding that non
>24 can apparently be diagnosed by the > presence
>of a chemical in one's blood. Therefore, I
>accept that this > condition exists and can be
>diagnosed accurately. However, given that >
>sleep problems are encountered by sighted
>people, and given that it is > likely that many
>of them do not have non 24, how can it be
>assumed > that if a blind person has non-24 that
>it is the only sleep issue? Do > we know that
>the Vanda drug might not be correcting other
>issues, > issues that sighted people might have,
>for example? In other words, > whether the
>Vanda drug works or not, how do we know that Non
>24 is > playing the major role that is being
>publicized? > > We know that each of us can
>react differently to many things. If we > have
>non-24, how is it determined whether the
>symptoms justify > treatment? Many Gary, > >
>For a long time, I've had a very negative
>reaction to sleep study > conclusions that
>involve blind people. In the past, there has
>been a > history of even educated people
>thinking of blindness as living in the > dark
>and feeling that there must be negative effects
>of constant > darkness. It seemed sometimes
>that they would go to great lengths to > prove
>what they already knew just had to be
>true. Over the years, I > have had to adjust my
>original position some partly because people I >
>trust, such as yourself, have felt that there
>may be a connection > between blindness and
>sleep irregularities. Still, I read
>statements > even in this current discussion
>that raise red flags to me, and there > are
>issues with the ad campaigns that really puzzle
>me. Perhaps some > of the questions I have are
>answered somewhere and I just have not gotten to
>them. Here are some examples. > > There always
>seems to be a few people who use the logic "I am
>blind, I > have a sleep problem, therefore blind
>people have a sleep problem." > It isn't put
>that simply or directly, but there is often a
>sense that > any sleep problem we have must be
>connected to blindness. I find > myself
>wondering if there is really an understanding of
>the depths of > sleep problems that exist among
>sighted people. I find that more than > once
>when the subject comes up that persons who are
>sighted > acknowledge sleep difficulties. I
>know of sighted people who have > fallen asleep
>at their desks, for example. When one looks at
>the > marketing of sleeping aids, clearly sleep
>is a fairly widespread > problem. Of course, I
>am not claiming that this disproves Non 24, but
>it means we need to keep what we experience in
>perspective. > > It is my understanding that non
>24 can apparently be diagnosed by the > presence
>of a chemical in one's blood. Therefore, I
>accept that this > condition exists and can be
>diagnosed accurately. However, given that >
>sleep problems are encountered by sighted
>people, and given that it is > likely that many
>of them do not have non 24, how can it be
>assumed > that if a blind person has non-24 that
>it is the only sleep issue? Do > we know that
>the Vanda drug might not be correcting other
>issues, > issues that sighted people might have,
>for example? In other words, > whether the
>Vanda drug works or not, how do we know that Non
>24 is > playing the major role that is being
>publicized? > > We know that each of us can
>react differently to many things. If we > have
>non-24, how is it determined whether the
>symptoms justify > treatment? Many people have
>sleep difficulties that they address >
>successfully through various means, and it would
>seem reasonable to > assume that in some cases
>other approaches might be adequate. How is this
>accommodated? > > We have become polarized to
>some degree around this issue. Those of > us
>who are somewhat skeptical are often seen as
>clearly not having a > problem and therefore not
>understanding that others may not be so >
>fortunate. The questions we raise are
>discounted. Well, I don't > raise questions to
>prove that anyone does not have a sleep
>problem. I > also do not maintain that the
>Vanda drug may not help some people, > maybe
>even many people. What concerns me is that an
>environment is > being created that more or less
>funnels people into this particular > solution
>when there are valid questions. Also, the
>picture painted by > the ad campaign is pretty
>bleak. I just don't see 70% of us > struggling
>to stay awake at our desks even though some of
>us do from > time to time. I just think we need
>more answers than we have, and > they need to
>come from objective sources that don't stand to
>gain or loose depending upon the answers. > > To
>those who have found the Vanda solution to be
>the answer and can > afford it, I am sincerely
>glad it has worked out. Nothing said here > is
>meant to deny the fact that this drug may be a
>welcome solution in > some or even many
>cases. It just seems to me that there are >
>unanswered questions, and a tendency to jump on
>the bandwagon while > remaining silent about the
>ad campaign. > > Best regards, > > Steve
>Jacobson > > -----Original Message----- > From:
>blindtlk [mailto:blindtlk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
>Behalf Of Gary > Wunder via blindtlk > Sent:
>Tuesday, January 05, 2016 5:36 PM > To: 'Blind
>Talk Mailing List' <blindtlk at nfbnet.org> > Cc:
>Gary Wunder <gwunder at earthlink.net> > Subject:
>Re: [Blindtlk] non 24 > > I have enjoyed reading
>the comments about non-24, and when I 1st
>heard > about the efforts of a pharmaceutical
>company to market to blind > people, I was
>suspicious. I think I was also a bit defensive,
>assuming > that the worst would happen. > > I
>suspect that I suffer from non-24. There are
>times when I have to > work very hard to stay
>awake, even when I find things around me to be >
>interesting and thought-provoking. There are
>times when at 4 o'clock > in the morning I am
>totally wide-awake and mad about it. Then I
>will > be walking through a store or working at
>my desk or even exercising, > and I find that I
>am exceedingly tired. This suggests to me that I
>do > have a body clock and that periodically
>that body clock gets off. > > I relate to the
>comments about being embarrassed while at work
>and > unintentionally falling asleep. It does
>not reflect well on any > employee when this
>happens, and I admit that more than once I
>have > been embarrassed about nodding off at
>times when I was paid to be > awake. I have
>developed a number of strategies for combating
>this, but > I can't claim that they work 100% of
>the time. If I catch myself in > time, I can
>always stand up, pace, do toe touches, or engage
>in other > activities that I can blame on
>needing to stretch my legs or my sore > back.
>Sometimes they too require attention, but it is
>more likely that I am trying to ensure that I
>stay awake. > > I don't know that this adds
>anything, but I do believe that the > subject is
>important enough that I am likely to put it on
>our > convention agenda here in Missouri. If
>non-24 is real, we should not > try to run from
>it. If the marketing is not what it should be,
>we should not run from that either. > > > >
>_______________________________________________ >
> blindtlk mailing list > blindtlk at nfbnet.org >
>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindtlk_nfbnet.org
> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or
>get your account info for > blindtlk: >
>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindtlk_nfbnet.org/steve.jacobson%40visi.
> > com > > > >
>_______________________________________________ >
> blindtlk mailing list > blindtlk at nfbnet.org >
>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindtlk_nfbnet.org
> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or
>get your account info for blindtlk: >
>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindtlk_nfbnet.org/k7uij%40panix.co
> > m
>_______________________________________________
>blindtlk mailing list blindtlk at nfbnet.org
>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindtlk_nfbnet.org
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get
>your account info for blindtlk:
>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindtlk_nfbnet.org/bhachey%40verizon.net
>_______________________________________________
>blindtlk mailing list blindtlk at nfbnet.org
>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindtlk_nfbnet.org
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get
>your account info for blindtlk:
>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindtlk_nfbnet.org/k7uij%40panix.com
>_______________________________________________
>blindtlk mailing list blindtlk at nfbnet.org
>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindtlk_nfbnet.org
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get
>your account info for blindtlk:
>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindtlk_nfbnet.org/lhwayland%40sbcglobal.net
>_______________________________________________
>blindtlk mailing list blindtlk at nfbnet.org
>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindtlk_nfbnet.org
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get
>your account info for blindtlk:
>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindtlk_nfbnet.org/carlymih%40comcast.net
More information about the BlindTlk
mailing list