Ini sekilas tentang VERTIGO, bagi yang belum pernah merasakannya sebaiknya DICEGAH, jangan sampai masuk dalam VERTIGO CLUB.
Ini pengalamanku sendiri, mungkin saja tidak sama dengan penderita lainnya, tapi aku hanya ingin sharing kepada para beberapa teman-temanku yang juga vertigo.
Hanya orang yang pernah mengalami VERTIGO bisa merasakan tersiksanya kalau sedang kumat, kita seperti berada di dalam sebuah ROUND TABLE lalu diputar berkeliling atau terkadang terasa seperti di ayun ke segala arah yg tidak jelas , di angkat tinggi dan berputar semuanya ...... ????!!!!!
Kepala saat diletakkan ke bantal sangat tidak nyaman, terus ingin berputar dan kita seakan mencari pegangan kemana-mana. Apalagi melihat atau menunduk ke bawah jelas tidak mungkin. Rasanya lebih baik tidur duduk saja.
Confidence level turun karena kita tidak tau kapan sang Vertigo akan muncul. Dia akan muncul begitu saja. Biasanya dengan MERISLON bisa hilang tapi TIDAK TUNTAS sembuhnya. Aku setiap tahun kumat sekali. Namun serangan vertigo yang terakhir menyebabkan aku tidak bisa tidur pada posisi kanan, setiap mau balik ke kanan maka vertigonya kumat. Aku merasakan ada sesuatu yang salah namun tidak tau apa itu ????.
Akhirnya ketika Reuni Lebaran di Bali seorang teman memberikan reference untuk berobat ke seorang Profesor di Mt E- Spore, dimana dokter ini seorang NEUROLOG dan ahli dlm penyakit Stoke, baginya vertigo enteng . Maka untuk mencari kesembuhan aku menemuinya Jumat kemarin.
Mula-mula dokter melakukan Blood Circulation Scan, di mana segera diketahui apakah ada bagian pembuluh darah yg mampet atau alirannya kurang lancar dls.
Sesudahnya dilakukan Therapy di kursi sofa oleh seorang suster sbb :
Aku telentang dengan kepala sebagian nongol keluar kursi tanpa bantal dan dipegang oleh suster, kemudian disuruh noleh ke kiri, ADUUHHHH langsung VERTIGOnya kumat, dunia berputarrrrrr, sampai tanganku menggapai-gapai mencari pegangan.... , disuruh relax sesudah hilang maka harus menoleh ke kanan, kumat lagi walau tidak separah yang kiri, relax lalu balik badan dan kepala melihat ke lantai, lalu bangun perlahan2 dengan mata melihat ke bahu , kemudian duduk kembali.
Hanya itu therapynya, tapi MANJURRRR, lalu aku diharuskan tidur bolak balik, kanan - kiri - kanan kiri dst ...dst ( Total waktu therapy sekitar +/- 15 menit )
Sesudah aku tanya kenapa bisa vertigo ternyata SANGAT SEDERHANA .
Apa itu ???
Vertigo terjadi karena kita salah posisi tidur, mungkin tanpa kita sadari kita selalu tidur pada satu posisi, misalnya kebanyakan kiri terus dan jarang kanan/kiri, sehingga ini akan memperparah vertigo, yang mengakibatkan adanya "christal" istilah mereka yg lepas dari telinga kita sehingga menyebabkan keseimbangan kita terganggu. Nah therapy itu utk mengembalikan posisi "Christal" itu, that'all ... So Simple ya, ternayta tidak ada related dengan kolesterol atau lain sebagainya. Aku hanya diberikan 1 jenis obat yang hanya diminum 1 kali saja pada malam sesudah therapy , itupun kalau masih merasa berputar. Pada malam hari itu aku tidur dengan nyenyak dan mengikuti advise nya agar tidurnya kanan-kiri-kanan-kiri, dan memakai bantal 2 buah ditumpuk agar tinggi serta harusmerubah pola tidurku yang salah. ITU SAJA cara pengobatannya.
Aku adalah penggemar pijet, maka aku sempat tanya ke dokter apakah masih boleh pijet kepala, disarankan sebaiknya tidak pijet kepala,krn kuatir tk pijetnya kan tidak tau jelas pembuluh mana yang kena pencet.
Huhuhu aku kini STOP pijet dulu deh, karena ketika kena serangan yang baru lalu itu aku pas sedang dipijet bagian kepala, mungkin saja saat itu ada yang kurang pas.
Sayangnya selama ini aku belum pernah di advise therapy begitu oleh para dokter yang pernah aku datangi. Kalau sedang vertigo maka akan dihubungkan dengan kolesterol/lipitor, istirahat, minum obat pengencer darah, dls... , sedangkan minum merislon itu membuat kita lemas.
Sabtu pagi aku therapy sekali lagi sebelum kembali ke Jakarta, sekarang aku merasa FIT dan tidak vertigo lagi, moga-moga ini akan selamanya dan aku tidak minum obat apapun.
Nah moga-moga sharing ku di atas dapat bermanfaat bagi para teman yang kebetulan sudah masuk dalam VERTIGO Club , ataupun mungkin bisa di sharing kepada family yang kena vertigo ataupun kepada yang belum pernah kena vertigo .
* TIDURLAH dengan sikap yang baik yaitu BOLAK-BALIK kiri kanan !!!
* SEGERALAH perhatikan dan ubah pola tidur anda bilamana anda mempunyai kecenderungan tidur pada satu posisi.
* Lakukan pola tidur ini mulai sekarang walaupun anda belum pernah kena vertigo.
* PENCEGAHAN lebih baik .
Dealing With a Bad Boss: Strategies for Coping
by Randall S. Hansen, Ph.D.
Years ago, when I was a marketing manager at People Magazine, we had a boss who drove all his employees nuts. “Pete” would start wandering the hallways at 4:30 to make sure no one left work before 5, he would give assignments but then micromanage them to death, he seemed to enjoy being in everyone’s business, and he rarely gave good performance reviews
-- unless somehow it reflected back on him. We referred to him as Napoleon Pete. All-in-all, Pete drove everyone in the department crazy, and little-by-little just about every member of the department left. Pete is a perfect example of the workplace axiom that job-seekers join great companies but leave because of bad bosses.
Maybe you have a boss who is sexist or racist. Or perhaps a boss who takes all the credit for himself. Maybe your boss thinks you have no life outside work and makes you stay late everyday. Or perhaps a boss who gives out too many tasks with impossible to meet deadlines (or constantly changing deadlines). Maybe your boss is a pathological liar. Or perhaps the boss plays favorites.
One study found that almost 80 percent of the employees surveyed identified their boss as a lousy manager. And almost 70 percent in that 2001 study conducted by Delta Road stated that their immediate superior had "no clue" what to do to become a good manager. Author Harvey Hornstein, Ph.D., estimates that 90 percent of the U.S. work force has been subjected to
abusive behavior at some time. He bases his conclusions on a survey of nearly 1,000 workers over eight years.
So, what can you do if you are working for a bad boss? This article will provide you with the tools you need to manage the situation as best you can, but remember that sometimes the only solution is transferring to a different part of the company -- or switching employers.
Make sure you are doing everything right
The first solution is an honest analysis of your actions and behavior. How have you been handling yourself in your job? Have you always taken the high road, or have you resorted to occasional backstabbing, gossiping, or underperforming? If you’re human, it’s likely your bad boss has affected your performance, so try ignoring all these distractions and focus on your work to
see if that changes anything. Find other sources of positive reinforcement for doing your job to the best of your abilities.
Compile a list of bad boss behaviors
The second solution is a bit more involved, but should be a cathartic experience for you. Make a list of all the things that your boss does that drive you nuts. Let the list sit for a few days and then review it again, adding or deleting activities upon further reflection. Next, rank the list from most annoying to least annoying. Pick the top two or three worst offenses and develop some suggestions for how your boss could act differently in those situations. Edit the suggestions to remove sarcasm or anger. Show the suggestions to a trusted friend who has no vested interest in the situation. Edit the suggestions again.
Once you feel comfortable that your suggestions are positive and helpful, consider scheduling a meeting with your boss to discuss. Perhaps suggest meeting outside the office for breakfast or lunch. Leave your emotions at the door, but be prepared for your boss to have an emotional reaction. It’s possible that your boss is unaware of his/her actions, and this meeting could be
very positive for all involved; however, it’s also possible that the meeting will end badly.
Keep a journal of incidents
The third solution involves documenting each bad behavior of your boss in a journal. Don’t judge or write emotional reactions; simply document the facts of the situation and how the bad behavior impacted your performance -- as well as others in the department. Again, this process may be enough to relieve you of the stress so that you can cope. However, at some point in the future -- perhaps as you are leaving for a new job -- you might consider taking the journal to a trusted colleague in human resources or even a mentor within the company.
Find a mentor with the company
If you love the company but hate the boss, another solution is to develop a mentoring relationship with a boss/supervisor in another part of the company. Mentoring is a fantastic strategy that you should consider even if you have a good boss because a mentor is someone who can help you in many ways, from offering advice to suggesting you for a promotion. And in coping with
a bad boss, a mentor can be a good sounding board for you, and perhaps after you have documented all the offenses, someone who has the pull and the power to do something about your bad boss.
Report your bad boss
A last resort is reporting the bad actions/performance of your boss to his/her supervisor -- or to someone in human resources. While logic would hold that the company would not want a manager who is hurting performance or productivity, the reality is often that you become branded as a trouble-maker/ whiner/complaine r and your days at the company quickly become
Don’t sacrifice your health or self-esteem
The worst thing you can do is simply to do nothing, hoping the problems will get resolved. No job, boss, or company is worth losing your health, sanity, or self-esteem. If you can’t find a way to resolve these issues and/or your boss simply will never change his/her behavior, you should immediately start working your network and begin looking for a new job -- within or outside the organization. Again, if you love the company, a transfer might be the best option -- but keep in mind that your boss might be as evil as to sabotage that transfer. And try not to quit before you find a new job, but again, if work just becomes too unbearable, you may need to consider quitting to save yourself.
Not All Bosses Are Bad
As much as we like to complain about our bosses, a recent survey found that 79 percent of workers respect their bosses a great deal. The survey, by accounting and financial staffing company Ajilon Finance, also asked what were the most important traits for a boss to posses:
· Leading by examples
· Strong ethics or morals
· Knowledge of the business
· Overall intelligence and competence
· Recognition of employees
Bernanke Is Fighting the Last War
'Everything works much better when wrong decisions are punished and good decisions make you rich.'
On Aug. 9, 2007, central banks around the world first intervened to stanch what has become a massive credit crunch.
Since then, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury have taken a series of increasingly drastic emergency actions to get lending flowing again. The central bank has lent out hundreds of billions of dollars, accepted collateral that in the past it would never have touched, and opened direct lending to institutions that have never had that privilege. The Treasury has deployed billions more. And yet, "Nothing," Anna Schwartz says, "seems to have quieted the fears of either the investors in the securities markets or the lenders and would-be borrowers in the credit market."
[The Weekend Interview] Randy Jones
The credit markets remain frozen, the stock market continues to get hammered, and deep recession now seems a certainty -- if not a reality already.
Most people now living have never seen a credit crunch like the one we are currently enduring. Ms. Schwartz, 92 years old, is one of the exceptions. She's not only old enough to remember the period from 1929 to 1933, she may know more about monetary history and banking than anyone alive. She co-authored, with Milton Friedman, "A Monetary History of the United States" (1963). It's the definitive account of how misguided monetary policy turned the stock-market crash of 1929 into the Great Depression.
Since 1941, Ms. Schwartz has reported for work at the National Bureau of Economic Research in New York, where we met Thursday morning for an interview. She is currently using a wheelchair after a recent fall and laments her "many infirmities," but those are all physical; her mind is as sharp as ever. She speaks with passion and just a hint of resignation about the current financial situation. And looking at how the authorities have handled it so far, she doesn't like what she sees.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has called the 888-page "Monetary History" "the leading and most persuasive explanation of the worst economic disaster in American history." Ms. Schwartz thinks that our central bankers and our Treasury Department are getting it wrong again.
To understand why, one first has to understand the nature of the current "credit market disturbance," as Ms. Schwartz delicately calls it. We now hear almost every day that banks will not lend to each other, or will do so only at punitive interest rates. Credit spreads -- the difference between what it costs the government to borrow and what private-sector borrowers must pay -- are at historic highs.
This is not due to a lack of money available to lend, Ms. Schwartz says, but to a lack of faith in the ability of borrowers to repay their debts. "The Fed," she argues, "has gone about as if the problem is a shortage of liquidity. That is not the basic problem. The basic problem for the markets is that [uncertainty] that the balance sheets of financial firms are credible."
So even though the Fed has flooded the credit markets with cash, spreads haven't budged because banks don't know who is still solvent and who is not. This uncertainty, says Ms. Schwartz, is "the basic problem in the credit market. Lending freezes up when lenders are uncertain that would-be borrowers have the resources to repay them. So to assume that the whole problem is inadequate liquidity bypasses the real issue."
In the 1930s, as Ms. Schwartz and Mr. Friedman argued in "A Monetary History," the country and the Federal Reserve were faced with a liquidity crisis in the banking sector. As banks failed, depositors became alarmed that they'd lose their money if their bank, too, failed. So bank runs began, and these became self-reinforcing: "If the borrowers hadn't withdrawn cash, they [the banks] would have been in good shape. But the Fed just sat by and did nothing, so bank after bank failed. And that only motivated depositors to withdraw funds from banks that were not in distress," deepening the crisis and causing still more failures.
But "that's not what's going on in the market now," Ms. Schwartz says. Today, the banks have a problem on the asset side of their ledgers -- "all these exotic securities that the market does not know how to value."
"Why are they 'toxic'?" Ms. Schwartz asks. "They're toxic because you cannot sell them, you don't know what they're worth, your balance sheet is not credible and the whole market freezes up. We don't know whom to lend to because we don't know who is sound. So if you could get rid of them, that would be an improvement." The only way to "get rid of them" is to sell them, which is why Ms. Schwartz thought that Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's original proposal to buy these assets from the banks was "a step in the right direction."
The problem with that idea was, and is, how to price "toxic" assets that nobody wants. And lurking beneath that problem is another, stickier problem: If they are priced at current market levels, selling them would be a recipe for instant insolvency at many institutions. The fears that are locking up the credit markets would be realized, and a number of banks would probably fail.
Ms. Schwartz won't say so, but this is the dirty little secret that led Secretary Paulson to shift from buying bank assets to recapitalizing them directly, as the Treasury did this week. But in doing so, he's shifted from trying to save the banking system to trying to save banks. These are not, Ms. Schwartz argues, the same thing. In fact, by keeping otherwise insolvent banks afloat, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury have actually prolonged the crisis. "They should not be recapitalizing firms that should be shut down."
Rather, "firms that made wrong decisions should fail," she says bluntly. "You shouldn't rescue them. And once that's established as a principle, I think the market recognizes that it makes sense. Everything works much better when wrong decisions are punished and good decisions make you rich." The trouble is, "that's not the way the world has been going in recent years."
Instead, we've been hearing for most of the past year about "systemic risk" -- the notion that allowing one firm to fail will cause a cascade that will take down otherwise healthy companies in its wake.
Ms. Schwartz doesn't buy it. "It's very easy when you're a market participant," she notes with a smile, "to claim that you shouldn't shut down a firm that's in really bad straits because everybody else who has lent to it will be injured. Well, if they lent to a firm that they knew was pretty rocky, that's their responsibility. And if they have to be denied repayment of their loans, well, they wished it on themselves. The [government] doesn't have to save them, just as it didn't save the stockholders and the employees of Bear Stearns. Why should they be worried about the creditors? Creditors are no more worthy of being rescued than ordinary people, who are really innocent of what's been going on."
It takes real guts to let a large, powerful institution go down. But the alternative -- the current credit freeze -- is worse, Ms. Schwartz argues.
"I think if you have some principles and know what you're doing, the market responds. They see that you have some structure to your actions, that it isn't just ad hoc -- you'll do this today but you'll do something different tomorrow. And the market respects people in supervisory positions who seem to be on top of what's going on. So I think if you're tough about firms that have invested unwisely, the market won't blame you. They'll say, 'Well, yeah, it's your fault. You did this. Nobody else told you to do it. Why should we be saving you at this point if you're stuck with assets you can't sell and liabilities you can't pay off?'" But when the authorities finally got around to letting Lehman Brothers fail, it had saved so many others already that the markets didn't know how to react. Instead of looking principled, the authorities looked erratic and inconstant.
How did we get into this mess in the first place? As in the 1920s, the current "disturbance" started with a "mania." But manias always have a cause. "If you investigate individually the manias that the market has so dubbed over the years, in every case, it was expansive monetary policy that generated the boom in an asset.
"The particular asset varied from one boom to another. But the basic underlying propagator was too-easy monetary policy and too-low interest rates that induced ordinary people to say, well, it's so cheap to acquire whatever is the object of desire in an asset boom, and go ahead and acquire that object. And then of course if monetary policy tightens, the boom collapses."
The house-price boom began with the very low interest rates in the early years of this decade under former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan.
"Now, Alan Greenspan has issued an epilogue to his memoir, 'Time of Turbulence,' and it's about what's going on in the credit market," Ms. Schwartz says. "And he says, 'Well, it's true that monetary policy was expansive. But there was nothing that a central bank could do in those circumstances. The market would have been very much displeased, if the Fed had tightened and crushed the boom. They would have felt that it wasn't just the boom in the assets that was being terminated.'" In other words, Mr. Greenspan "absolves himself. There was no way you could really terminate the boom because you'd be doing collateral damage to areas of the economy that you don't really want to damage."
Ms Schwartz adds, gently, "I don't think that that's an adequate kind of response to those who argue that absent accommodative monetary policy, you would not have had this asset-price boom." Policies based on such thinking only lead to a more damaging bust when the mania ends, as they all do. "In general, it's easier for a central bank to be accommodative, to be loose, to be promoting conditions that make everybody feel that things are going well."
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, of all people, should understand this, Ms. Schwartz says. In 2002, Mr. Bernanke, then a Federal Reserve Board governor, said in a speech in honor of Mr. Friedman's 90th birthday, "I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again."
"This was [his] claim to be worthy of running the Fed," she says. He was "familiar with history. He knew what had been done." But perhaps this is actually Mr. Bernanke's biggest problem. Today's crisis isn't a replay of the problem in the 1930s, but our central bankers have responded by using the tools they should have used then. They are fighting the last war. The result, she argues, has been failure. "I don't see that they've achieved what they should have been trying to achieve. So my verdict on this present Fed leadership is that they have not really done their job."
Mr. Carney is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board.