I'll be interested to see if this leads to a massive shakeup in local politics from Beijing. I can't imagine they're pleased with the amount of doctored data (unless they already knew and were using it to appear stronger on a global scale)
When I read the title, I immediately imagined China faking growth at a global scale and maximizing its importance. It's not the case at all:
Of the 31 provinces, direct-controlled municipalities and autonomous regions in China, three have already admitted falsifying certain economic data. Starting with the northeastern province of Liaoning in January 2017, the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region and the city of Tianjin have said their statistics were wrong.
Of the three, only Tianjing has admitted doctoring the overall provincial gross domestic product figures. Liaoning and Inner Mongolia had padded something else: their fiscal revenues.
I had thought the same but I'm still wondering if it was a proxy to cover something else (ex. ability to pay debt obligations) that would have had ramifications in the global market
Of course they knew about it. It is just when one province do it, others have to do it too. There aren't any Top party members who hasn't been a head of region at least once when they were ranking up the ladder. So not only did they knew, they properly have done it themselves.
Now Xi is trying fix what's wrong. ( Only if you are not reading too much into it )
These numbers came out after shakeups. New local leaders (like company boards after an accounting scandal) want to get their base numbers low -- making their own GDP goals a lot easier to achieve.
It is today but things like lower-skilled manufacturing have a way of moving quickly to the lowest cost locale. Anecdotally from relationships with a few hardware companies (US & EU) there has been an increasing shift out of China for as wages have gone up on the mainland
tl;dr: The 'market' for guardianship is largely unmonitored by governing bodies and prone to abuses as told through personal anecdotes of individuals who have been taken advantage of.
Not to editorialize but this is scary for someone who lives abroad and has older parents and frankly makes me furious that we can let this happen
tldr: Most people who respond to surveys asking about the efficacy of the program are sober and skew the results, the anonymity of people in programs makes it difficult to identify who are potential candidates for study/surveys for external researchers, and no central authority monitoring programs so little standardisation between them meaning some groups may be more effective than others (this is somewhat reflected in a comment above about trying other groups which may mean that the real effectiveness comes from the community it brings, not the program itself, but that's pure speculation on my part)
In the UK Nalmefene is approved for this kind of alcohol treatment also. It's less toxic to the liver than naltrexone so GPs can prescribe it (without specialist intervention and liver checks).
Disclaimer: am shareholder in manufacturer. Feel there is a massive lack of emphasis on novel pharmaceutical interventions in drug and alcohol rehabilitation.
> In the UK Nalmefene is approved for this kind of alcohol treatment also. It's less toxic to the liver than naltrexone so GPs can prescribe it (without specialist intervention and liver checks).
Hadn't heard of nalmefene, thanks for the reference. Naltrexone is also useful in much lower doses than the standard 50mg tablets, as "low-dose naltrexone" (1-5mg).
IIUIC the Sinclair Method is very much a CBT hack. The drug disrupts the positive effects of alcohol. By making the experience of consuming alcohol unpleasant instead of rewarding, it becomes easier to overcome the psychological addiction.
Interesting - I've been thinking of trying it out but was going to use a clinic like contral.com in Finland. Maybe I'll just see if I can find a local doc who will write me a script
There's a book that outlines the treatment program. If I recall, I just found a PDF online. Basically it calls for a dose before drinking and before long it's no problem to just not drink any more.
I will say that drinking while taking Naltrexone was an odd experience because I felt none of the europhoria that typically comes with drinking.
I have never felt any kind of euphoria with alcohol; experimenting, I've reached large enough amounts to severely affect my balance, coordination and concentration, but was otherwise hardly affected at all (as confirmed by a teetotaler friend who was with me in some of those times).
Some people, when I tell them that, respond with "well, what did you expect? that's drinking" and some with "that can't be, perhaps your vodka was watered down". Your comment reminded me of that.
Having experienced both versions (euphoric and non euphoric), do you have any insight about the difference, how much of it is physiological vs. psychological?
