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."

38 of 222 comments (clear)

  1. Then I guess you could say... by toonces33 · · Score: 4, Funny

    that schizophrenia itself has a bit of a split personality.

    1. Re: Then I guess you could say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You could also be referring to "multiple personalities," which is also known as Dissociative Identity Disorder. Neither Bipolar nor DID are the same as Schizophrenia.

    2. Re: Then I guess you could say... by sg_oneill · · Score: 4, Informative

      *rimshot*. I do realise your just making a joke, however it is worth noting that multiple personalities is not considered part of the schizophrenia spectrum, but rather part of the disasociative disorders spectrum. Its a ketamine disease rather than an Acid disease, to make a metaphor.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    3. Re: Then I guess you could say... by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, he's thinking of multiple personality disorder, which is extremely rare and much different than schizophrenia. It's confused with schizophrenia because of the hallucinatory voices common in schizophrenia, but those "voices" aren't different personalities of the afflicted; they're just hallucinations. Multiple personality disorder is the split personality one -- the person is basically like Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde, although the personalities don't have to be good/evil or working at cross purposes to each other, and there can be more than two.

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    4. Re:Then I guess you could say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm schizophrenic with mild hallucinations but I hear shit around the clock and it gets extremely annoying. I know it's not real, but there are days where I'm like leave me the fuck alone. I'd be cool with it if it were Ed Harris but everything I hear is abstract so I keep it pretty loud in my room to drown it out. Luckily my case is not too bad, but it's bad enough that I can imagine what people with serious cases go through. I feel extremely bad for people that have been drove out of their minds.

      The feeling of knowing what you're seeing or hearing is fake is indescribable.

    5. Re:Then I guess you could say... by Miamicanes · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've always wondered whether someone experiencing audio hallucinations they couldn't distinguish from real sounds could use software as a prosthetic. Say, write a program to continuously sample sound, display the past 5 minutes or so of waveform history on-screen, do realtime speech recognition, and annotate the waveform display with a transcript of what it thought it heard... so if they thought they heard something really disturbing, they could look at the display to see whether there was an organized waveform a few moments earlier, and listen to it again if they wanted to be sure..

      If someone with schizophrenia did that, would it help? Or would it stimulate the development of new neural pathways & eventually make matters worse by inducing visual hallucinations on top of the auditory ones in an attempt to bring their physical perception of reality in line with their mental one?

    6. Re:Then I guess you could say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That would likely help. For those that don't know if the hallucinations are real. However, the problem with hallucinations is that they'll drive you nuts even if you know they're not real. I remember the hallucinations would get so loud that I'd yell at them even though I knew they weren't real because I could barely hear anything else.

      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. Trying to force us to buy into a reality that's every bit as fake as the one they're trying to get us to give up is ludicrous. It's not curable per se, but if we're given the tools to evaluate things for ourselves, the brain will eventually rewire itself in a way that's more functional.

      Ultimately, people need to accept the symptoms as symptoms. Trying to fight the disorder is a losing battle. Eventually I got to the point where I missed the voices and started to intentionally cause the hallucinations. Before too long I was having trouble maintaining them and that aspect of the disorder was more or less gone.

      The rest is really psycho-social education. It's not that schizophrenics can't be treated or virtually cured, it's that the mental health establishment makes more money with ineffectual treatments than it does for treatments that would improve the situation. There's some very good work being done in the neurosciences that could make a huge difference. Unfortunately, it would put psychologists completely out of business as it requires work from psychiatrists and therapists, but not psychologists.

    7. Re:Then I guess you could say... by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 2

      And it has an expected end when things go back to normal.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    8. Re:Then I guess you could say... by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Insightful


      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
    9. Re:Then I guess you could say... by DigitalHammer · · Score: 2

      There is an ongoing study that involves having patients yell at computer generated avatars to get the source of their hallucinations to STFU. Perhaps it may interest you: http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read...

    10. Re:Then I guess you could say... by sound+vision · · Score: 4, Interesting

      From the people I've known with schizophrenia (three diagnosed, a couple others probably undiagnosed) the audio hallucinations can either be recognized as hallucinations, or accepted as real, depending on the severity of the disorder at the time. If they are in a less severe mode they usually recognize the voices are not real (not to imply they can stop or control them). The recorder would do no good there. In more severe conditions, they may be unable to tell the difference between the hallucinations and reality, and the hallucinations can be not just auditory but also visual and (most importantly) cognitive. With cognitive delusions, reasoning capacity goes out the window - any kind of "evidence" presented to them would be disregarded. In the really bad cases, when they are ducking out of view of windows so the snipers outside can't get a clear shot, you won't be able to get them to look at any computer program really.

    11. Re:Then I guess you could say... by JimSadler · · Score: 2

      Thank God those of us who are not afflicted do not know what it is like to be overwhelmed with voices and visions. It has to be painful beyond understanding. The social losses also must be awful. And with this now found to be eight different diseases I wonder what effect the medications applied must have been having as the chances of getting the right meds for a particular disease must be really lousy. I fear that this new understanding may cause a lot of patients to cease taking there medications. On the up side just maybe we have reached a starting point for a real cure for this plague that has ruined millions of lives. And I hope the lawyers take notice as the discrimination by insurance companies against what is now considered an organic disease must have been illegal all along.

  2. i knew that. by jaeztheangel · · Score: 3, Funny

    well, when i say 'I', its more of a consensus decision.

    1. Re:i knew that. by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      We are not amused.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  3. Schizophrenia is not multiple personality disorder by mod+prime · · Score: 4, Informative

    AKA Dissociative identity disorder. There is a slight comorbidity between the conditions, but depression and anxiety are also comorbid.

  4. DNA? by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If it is embedded in DNA, is it hereditary?

    If it is, I hope it does not bring back Eugenics or the forced sterilization practices of the early 19th century. That didn't end well on several fronts.

    1. Re:DNA? by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      Let's be honest there is quite a bit of difference on a planet with 7 billion people to enact laws making procreation and child rearing a privilege and responsibility only for those appropriate to do so versus you can spit out all the ones you want expecting the rest of society to care for them and take responsibility for them, this versus extermination camps.

      Suck it up, despite all the whining about how badly it was done in the past it will not ever stop all of us or future generations from biting the bullet, it is a matter of inevitability or total collapse from the 20 billion idiocracy taking over and an extinct species replacing them.

      A whole lot of problems can be safely easily eliminated in a generation or three or we can continue to fail future generations with them.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    2. Re:DNA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:DNA? by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      That's one way to look at it. Another is that we'll strive to develop the techniques and technology that can be used to correct this problem through medical intervention. That ability would go a long way towards being able to cure several other hereditary diseases as well. Perhaps being able to meddle with our own genetics will end even more poorly, but we'll likely learn something along the way.

  5. 5 Ridiculous Myths You Probably Believe by tepples · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder if the depression and anxiety are more side effects of the medications used to treat schizophrenia, or effects of trying to avoid discrimination against people with schizophrenia due to its misrepresentation by Hollywood, as a recent Cracked article suggests.

    1. Re:5 Ridiculous Myths You Probably Believe by mod+prime · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well - they make you feel a little sluggish, and quite drowsy for about 8 hours (more at higher doses) after they kick in (so don't take them for breakfast if you have plans), but not depressed. It is possible to feel despair because of your chronic condition and the prospect of long term sluggishness I suppose but

      Schizophrenics who seek help often do so for anxiety and depression rather than psychosis. There is often a history of these issues predating medication, but not always.

      It's not just Hollywood, it's everywhere. The psychotic=violent myth is in every media that has discussed the issue. Newspapers only mention schizophrenia if someone was hurt, furthering the association in people's minds. My current employer refused to let me work without supervision because I had advised them I have had psychotic episodes and am undergoing treatment until I gave them a psych's letter telling them they were being morons (small and new business, so I forgave and educated instead).

    2. Re:5 Ridiculous Myths You Probably Believe by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      Part of the problem is that some schizos ARE dangerous - we just don't know ahead of time who they are. If this lets us tell the two apart, awesome. Of course, there's the problem of false positives, as well as the question of environment (does a tendency to be dangerous still need an environmental trigger to manifest itself)?

      Unfortunately, all meds have side effects. It's up to the patient, in consultation with their doctors and therapists, to find the right balance, which can change over time. "I feel fine now, I guess I don't need this anymore" is almost always a lie, but a tempting one.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    3. Re:5 Ridiculous Myths You Probably Believe by dcollins117 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:5 Ridiculous Myths You Probably Believe by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Part of the problem is that some schizos ARE dangerous

      So are sociopaths and psychopaths. What you are trying to imply is that schizophrenics are more dangerous than other mental disorders.

      I never came near implying that. Not once did I mention sociopaths OR psychopaths. To the contrary, I wrote that if this finding lets us tell the dangerous schizos from those who aren't, this will be awesome. My answer presumes that many schizos are not dangerous. I even went further, posing the question of whether a tendency towards violence might still need an environmental trigger.

      A real-life example from one of my classmates in high school. Diagnosed as schizophrenic at 8 years of age, his father basically tried to "beat the devil out of him" for the next 8 years. That's akin to pounding on a bomb to see if it's armed. Even if he wasn't dangerous before, this course of conduct almost certainly lead to "arming the bomb." He beat his father to death right in front of me, and I was next on his list. He was found to be not criminally responsible, in part due to my testimony, and having seen and heard what he did that night, I believe the jury got it right.

      Does that sound like someone who's unsympathetic to the problem?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  6. Helps explain a few things ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

    Helps explain why my dog reacts differently to different people with the diagnosis of schizophrenia. Some he's very friendly with, others he makes it abundantly clear that he wants nothing to do with them - or with them being around me.

    Dogs can sense a lot of things we miss - maybe they can pick up something about the dangerous ones that we can't. And yes, one of the ones he kept growling at eventually went looking for a gun. Told my neighbor (who has 3 registered hand guns) that he hated my guts and where could he buy a gun? Stopped a few weeks later after dusk walking around with a holster with what appeared, in the dark, to be a gun. Knees on the ground, hands in the air, the whole bit. Apparently he wasn't happy that I had reported him to Youth Protection for moving back to the neighborhood after he had assured the court he wouldn't be having any more contact with a kid living in the next building.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    1. Re:Helps explain a few things ... by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 2

      Or your dog could just not like certain people because they smell bad to him. Some schizophrenic people have poor hygiene. Or maybe the dog doesn't like the color of their skin. I met a racist dog once -- it was hilarious :)

      In any case, I think it's more likely a coincidence of some sort than the dog peering into someone's soul. Remember, we're the species with orders of magnitude more neurons than everyone else, and dogs are about as smart as small children.

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    2. Re:Helps explain a few things ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Dogs have had many more generations of breeding to tailor their responses to us than we have had to them - something like 10x as many generations, since they breed about 10x quicker than humans. So they can read us much better than we can read them - they've self-selected for that ability, since the ones that can read us best know best how to suck up to us and get us to feed and shelter them and pick up their poop. Todays dogs are specialists - and their specialty is humans.

      Given this, dogs are probably better judges of people than we are.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    3. Re:Helps explain a few things ... by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
  7. Next deconstruction: autism. by macraig · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. Docs have long suspected as much. by sg_oneill · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One of the problems of Psychiatry is that because the brain has been bit of a black box to us for so long (We can see the input, we can see the output, but the gears and cogs inside remain a bit of a mystery) disorder classification has been mostly about symptomology rather than causes, most of the time. Docs have long suspected that "schizophrenia" was a collection of disorders with similar-ish results. This finding appears to confirm it.

    See also: ADHD and Autism.

    --
    Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
  9. Re:Schizophrenia is multiple diseases, really? by gargleblast · · Score: 2

    Well - no, and no. Recall that schizophrenia is a perception-of-reality disorder and has almost nothing to do with dissociative identity (a.k.a. multiple personality) disorder

  10. Re:Eugen Fischer by nine-times · · Score: 4, Informative

    Are you joking? "Eugenics" comes from Greek. 'Eu' meaning good, like euphoria, euphemism, or utopia. 'Genic', dealing with birth, breeding, and production, like in genetics, generate, or hydrogen.

  11. Old news by mescobal · · Score: 4, Informative

    Please stop repeating something like it is new. Since its origins the concept is called "the schizophrenias". We knew that 100 years before now: http://schizophreniabulletin.o...

    --
    La culpa no es del chancho...
  12. Flavor of the week by briancox2 · · Score: 2

    When you don't need to prove anything ... and it only needs to be "evidence based" ... a diagnosis can change as frequently as insurance billing requirements.

    --
    We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
  13. Re:Eugen Fischer by Guy+Harris · · Score: 2

    I'd expect most people to interpret "eugenics" as the Greek stems for "good" and "genes", because that's where the word comes from. A fairly obscure nazzy doktor with a similar name isn't what tainted the word.

    I'd expect most people neither to associate it with the Greek stems in question nor with Eugen Fischer; I'd expect them to have no clue where the word came from.

  14. it is not, probably doesn't exist by globaljustin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    oh man...so is crazy genetic?

    no...but this study is from the University of Washington St. Louis wants to say it is...they analyzed data and this is what they conclude, from full text:

    Schizophrenia is a group of heritable disorders caused by a moderate number of separate genotypic networks associated with several distinct clinical syndromes

    That's what they say..."group of heritable disorders"...it reminds me of when I studied Mendell in HS science and fruit flies and hemophilia.

    It sounds fish as hell to me...psychology is great but it's so often wrong. ex: one year the DSM lists 'homosexuality' as an actual disorder...next year...not a disorder! magic!

    again...i actually love psychology...but it's just full of random theories from the 19th century that are floating around...so many disorders to describe very similar and overlapping symptoms...symptoms very often open to interpretation...

    I wanted to see if this passed the basic "correlation is causation" test...because this is just spreadsheets here these guys are looking at...they are re-analyzing data.

    From the full text:

    The 4,196 cases and 3,827 controls in the MGS study were combined to identify SNP sets. We had data of good quality on 696,788 SNPs on these cases and controls, and **from these we preselected 2,891 SNPs that had at least a loose association (p values,1.031022) with a global phenotype of schizophrenia (see the data supplement)**.

    Emphasis added. Honestly that's enough for me to want to see it for myself, the actual data on a computer screen, before I give this any credence.

    Obviously mental disorders exist. Just like anything it is related to our genetics and our environment and our choices...I would need to see alot of evidence before I believe TFA's assertions to the heritability.

    Examine this list of behavior (copied from wikipedia which quotes the DSM):

    According to the revised fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR), to be diagnosed with schizophrenia, three diagnostic criteria must be met:[10]

    Characteristic symptoms: Two or more of the following, each present for much of the time during a one-month period (or less, if symptoms remitted with treatment).

    - Delusions
    - Hallucinations
    - Disorganized speech, which is a manifestation of formal thought disorder
    - Grossly disorganized behavior (e.g. dressing inappropriately, crying frequently) or catatonic behavior
    - Negative symptoms: Blunted affect (lack or decline in emotional response), alogia (lack or decline in speech), or avolition (lack or decline in motivation)
    If the delusions are judged to be bizarre, or hallucinations consist of hearing one voice participating in a running commentary of the patient's actions or of hearing two or more voices conversing with each other, only that symptom is required above. The speech disorganization criterion is only met if it is severe enough to substantially impair communication.
    - Social or occupational dysfunction: For a significant portion of the time since the onset of the disturbance, one or more major areas of functioning such as work, interpersonal relations, or self-care, are markedly below the level achieved prior to the onset.
    - Significant duration: Continuous signs of the disturbance persist for at least six months. This six-month period must include at least one month of symptoms (or less, if symptoms remitted with treatment).

    I want to say that if you talk to a "good" psychiatrist or psychologist they will be able to explain how *they* personally in practice diagnose these different disorders and it may make sense. Furthermore, I'm convince psychology is a great area for scientific investigation.

    All that said, as I look at that list of behaviors, then I look at the data as presented, I can only conclude that "schizophrenia" is *probably* an obsolete distinction and this data is being erroneously interpreted.

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:it is not, probably doesn't exist by Risha · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  15. Bangs head against wall by John+Allsup · · Score: 2

    Bipolar Disorder, Psychosis and Schizophrenia for Dummies who know a little physics etc.

    Life is generally in a good position when it has potential (like gravitational potential in the case of high ground) and the capacity to use it in a controlled fashion. That means balancing in a position that would otherwise be considered an unstable equilibrium in the sense of dynamical systems theory. Our bodies are at their most efficient when well balanced (just watch a good dancer to see this in action) and our brains are at their best when similarly balanced. If something disturbs the equilibrium, this disturbance and the required correction can be used to understand the disturbance. This is how stimulation affects us.

    Now consider a simple example of a balancing physical object, but with no control mechanism: a spinning top. This has three states--spinning upright (when the gravitational potential is near its maximum), wobbling (when the gravitational potential is slightly lower, in which case it behaves erratically and gives up its energy randomly until...) finally we have the fallen over state. This is what medical people term depression. The simple solution is to get upright and balanced again, but this is hard in our modern overly complex society, and the result of trying to get up is often a lot of wobbling, which gets diagnosed as things like mania, psychosis and schizophrenia depending on how exactly this wobbling manifests itself. The key is to get balanced before you get pushed over, and that is hard when the medical mental health people seem to have the idea that you fix a wobbling spinning top by knocking it over and gluing it to the floor.

    Trying to understand mental health in a 'sum of the parts' way is just dumb, but it is the obsession of the medical fraternity, and is to the extent that it is politically very difficult to suggest otherwise. How our genetic code creates us is an approach that misses the point that without the environmental context in which that genetic code develops, it won't develop, so you need to understand the environment as well (and that means understanding the entire world in complete detail, which is rather a long way the other side of impossible).

    Viewed as an equilbrium seeking system, 'mental illnesses' like mania and schizophrenia are just seen as things like oscillations and resonant modes that are being excited by either an appropriate drive, or are resonating within the equilibrium seeking system. The biological stuff is just an implementation detail in much the way that transistors on a chip are implementation details of your python program that you are running that you can safely ignore in most cases. Medication is basically trying to solve a software problem by randomly pumping noise into the processor. A computer will crash instantly if you do this, but humans are rather more robust, and can survive for a long time in an unbalanced state. They are, however, rather unproductive in this state and won't tend to find life enjoyable. But they can survive for a long time, but can become desperate to get out of such states.

    --
    John_Chalisque