Slashdot Mirror
Schizophrenia Is Not a Single Disease
An anonymous reader writes: New research from Washington University has found that the condition known as schizophrenia is not just a single disease, but instead a collection of eight different disorders. For years, researchers struggled to understand the genetic basis of schizophrenia. This new method was able to isolate and identify the different conditions (each with its own symptoms) currently classified under the same heading (abstract, full text). "In some patients with hallucinations or delusions, for example, the researchers matched distinct genetic features to patients' symptoms, demonstrating that specific genetic variations interacted to create a 95 percent certainty of schizophrenia. In another group, they found that disorganized speech and behavior were specifically associated with a set of DNA variations that carried a 100 percent risk of schizophrenia." According to one of the study's authors, "By identifying groups of genetic variations and matching them to symptoms in individual patients, it soon may be possible to target treatments to specific pathways that cause problems."
Next this needs to be done with what we call "autism". There's a reason it's called the "autistic spectrum"; it's a MUCH bigger but nebulous target than schizophrenia. There's so much symptomatic comorbidity that the diagnoses would be funny if the consequences weren't so depressing.
You will be amazed at how few babies people have once you give them (especially women) access to birth control (and the realistic ability to use it without terrible social stigma), as well as a livable income.
The stats have shown this throughout history....high birth levels are associated with poverty, and also with the unavailability of (completely voluntary) birth control. The wealthy class across the globe generally has zero or one child per couple, whereas indigents generally have 5 or more per couple. And government funded birth control being freely given to the populace has also been shown to significantly reduce birth rates.
Before you go sterilizing people, consider that there may be a much more just and humane way of achieving the exact same goals, and making everyone involved a whole lot happier about it.
That's an interesting hypothesis. But I don't buy it, certainly without some scientific testing (versus emotional, speculative anecdotes from people with dogs). Evolution doesn't work like leveling up in a video game. Once a local maximum is reached, further generations have no impact. I would also wager that, while there may have been some selection pressure to "read" a person's immediate emotional state, selection pressure for reading general personalities, etc. was likely much weaker. And, of course, the selection pressure for humans to "read" other humans would have been much, much greater. After all, we have to mate with each other. Dogs don't have to mate with us. They do, however, have to mate with other dogs, and interaction with other dogs probably dominated the selection pressure on dogs' social intuition faculties. So, I would speculate people are likely better judges of people than dogs are.
What probably happened with the schizophrenic people was perhaps they were anxious, because of delusions or whatever, and the dog picked up on that. You probably also did. That you had a single negative interaction with one person your dog didn't like is not an important piece of information, if we're going to go about this scientifically. But, hey, I'm speculating too. Someone would have to research this. How and why, I have no idea. But my speculation can beat up your speculation :P
vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
The trick is that doctors need to stop treating schizophrenics like we're sick. They need to start treating us like we're real people that just happen to have a different sense of reality.
In a sense, I sort of agree with you, in another, totally not. Depression is also another way of viewing reality. Is someone who's depressed "wrong" about concentrating on the negative aspects of living? No... but I think most people who're depressed would rather NOT be depressed. Obviously telling someone who's depressed to just "cheer up", and "things aren't that bad" isn't going to help much. But like a disease, it's an aspect of yourself you'd rather not have and aren't in total control of, and want to be "cured" of. So the disease model isn't too far from the truth. I don't see how scizophrenia is much different.
You yourself don't really like your symptoms, wouldn't you rather they be gone? So I'm not sure I really understand your point.
AccountKiller
The problem with meds is that they aren't a treatment, they are at best a bandage.
For the majority of medical afflictions being treated today there is no cure, so the best doctors can do is offer palliative care.
There is no cure for cancer, heart disease, athsma, arthritis, or even the common cold. So little is known about the human brain that zero percent of psychological disorders are effectively treated. Whenever I hear a doctor brag about how much they know about the human body or worse a psychologist remark about how much is known about the brain I always remind them how much there is they don't know.
Do you actually know anything about psychiatry, or are you just going by this particular article about a study that you think is iffy? Because it's not news that schizophrenia is at least partially hereditary, they've known that for decades. The same is true of bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder. The only debate is to what degree they are caused by hereditary versus environment. You can compare it to how diabetes runs in families, but in general can be triggered or not depending on your lifestyle. But some people will develop the disease even if they treat their body like a temple. This study has made the news because they're claiming to have identified the specific genes involved, not because there wasn't already general agreement that there were genes involved in predisposing someone to get schizophrenia.