http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/3741/posterbeautifulmind6wo.jpg
A Beautiful Mind.
Schizophrenia caused by bad parenting? (http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20060514024158data_trunc_sys.shtml)

The Psychiatric profession looks set to be turned on its head if new evidence forwarded by researcher Paul Hammersley and clinical psychologist Dr John Read gains popular acceptance. Their theory is based on data collected from 40 studies which suggest that childhood abuse and not genetic factors are the main cause of the illness.

So instead of the condition being a fixed mental abberation which patients are born with and can't hope to change, it seems poor upbringing by delinquent parents is actually to blame. Drugging them up to the eyeballs was never the correct treatment at all.

:m:

Never trust a psychologist. They are all Quacks.

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/4681/paull1cs.jpg

I can believe that. My dad is a scitzo, and durring the time he was growing up, my grandma was a drunk, prostetute-crackhead, and my grandpa was in Las Vegas. However, I think that the medicine undoubtably halps my dad, as much as I hate the unnaturality of them.

Tell me something that I didn't already know.

There is a bit more to it, but that is a lot of it. I was a lot more capable of behaving normally until people started playing games with me. My experience is not comparable to that of so-called normals who avoided the pain and confusion that I experienced.

What are you saying Metakron?
And does that name have something to do with an angel?

It may be genetic.


"Researchers have made progress in understanding how a variant gene linked to schizophrenia may exert its influence in the brain. The findings are tentative but, if confirmed, could yield deep insights into the biological basis of the disease.

Continues:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/18/science/18schi.html?ex=1146456000&en=2a585a31fc414ec6&ei=5070

So.. I would contradict the hereditary and the upbringing scenario. My dad is a schizo, who had custody of me. He was in and out of hospitals because of his reluctance to drugs since I was very young. I've lived with just about everyone in my family durring my childhood. My mom, for quite some time was a cokehead-prostetute. So in virtually the same situation I've remained unscathed. It's most probable that the disease is a birth defect resulting from natural selection. However I've never remotely studied the subject.

interesting,
that you post a claim that "psychologists all are all quacks", preceded by an icon of a marijuana leaf.

are you aware that marijuana can trigger psychotic illness in people who are genetically predisposed to it, and its use by psychotic/schizophrenic patients often exacerbates their symptoms?

I'm in favour of its decriminalisation, and don't see it as being WORSE than alcohol, however the overall view is that its use is not advisable in those suffering from or at risk of mental illness.

marijuana can trigger psychotic illness in people who are genetically predisposed to itEvidence?

What are you saying Metakron?
And does that name have something to do with an angel?

I guess that one angel in the movie Dogma had a name something like that. His name was Metatron. I just chose a couple of buzzwords which aren't really words but parts of words that used to crop up a lot in B science fiction movies.

What am I saying? I knew very well when my alleged condition was diagnosed that it was caused by being beaten up and made to fear for my life, all of my life. There is no way in Hell for a person under those conditions to look entirely right in the eyes of someone who is looking for faults.

So.. I would contradict the hereditary and the upbringing scenario. My dad is a schizo, who had custody of me. He was in and out of hospitals because of his reluctance to drugs since I was very young. I've lived with just about everyone in my family durring my childhood. My mom, for quite some time was a cokehead-prostetute. So in virtually the same situation I've remained unscathed. It's most probable that the disease is a birth defect resulting from natural selection. However I've never remotely studied the subject.

One: We don't know that you are unscathed.

Two: The typical behavior of any English speaker is scarred by some kind of childhood trauma.

Three: Even if you are perfect, the odds that you would not be are greater because of the abuse. You could be part of the proof that one out of ten do well under such conditions.

Lightsmitten: it is difficult to believe you require evidence for the claim huwy made. The reason is simple: it should sound at least fishy enough to take in, evidence seems to follow, but, it's also sort of obvious. I myself I think was taken by it, that is, it does cause damage.

Of course that's not proof though...

There is definately a hereditary element here but other factors seem to be the main trigger.

you post a claim that "psychologists all are all quacks", preceded by an icon of a marijuana leaf.
are you aware that marijuana can trigger psychotic illness in people who are genetically predisposed to it, and its use by psychotic/schizophrenic patients often exacerbates their symptoms?

Yes I am. Thats why I posted the leaf. Bad parenting and marijuana both seem to be triggers.

Just like stress can trigger a nervous breakdown. I'm certain many people are more susceptible to nervous breakdowns than other people, but without the trigger of a stressful environment, they'd be fine, probably.

I'm in favour of its decriminalisation, and don't see it as being WORSE than alcohol, however the overall view is that its use is not advisable in those suffering from or at risk of mental illness.

I agree. Similarly, people who get violent after drinking alcohol should leave it alone. In Australia alcohol is a major problem for aboriginals. 'Koori's' up here in Queensland. I'm part Koori myself although you wouldn't guess. Luckily I've never had a problem with it. I rarely drink or care to. While white people have been drinking the amber nectar for millenia the indigenous people down under are relatively new to it.

Evidence?

Huwy is right. Atleast I know that such research results have been published. I haven't read the case studies or anything but they haven't been strongly refuted by other scientists as far as I know. I put it down to the increasing strength of THC in hydroponically grown plants. That in turn I blame on prohibition.

Atleast I know that such research results have been published
Where have they been published?

Hmm.
I'm not so sure this is really that much of an upset at all.
The blog (remember. This is blog, folks. Not a psychiatric journal or even a news source.) talks about it like it's this huge thing that is going to change psychiatry for ever, but the fact is that it really just seems to be a new interpretation of the same thing.

It is placing an emphasis on environment over genetics, but how can you judge how correct this new interpretation might be with the vague yet sensationalistic statements made in the blog?
You can't.

The researchers concede that genes may still have a role to play, but other evidence shows that genes alone do not cause the illness. A recent study compared 56 adoptees born to schizophrenic mothers with 96 adoptees whose biological parents did not have the illness. The families were observed extensively when the children were small and all the adoptees were assessed for psychiatric illness in adulthood. It was found that a high genetic risk combined with deficient care during upbringing increased the likelihood of developing schizophrenia. The researchers say this shows that genes alone do not cause the illness.

You see. This. Right there. That's basically the same thing that practically every mention of schizophrenia in introductory courses says... but just sorta twisted.

Here. This is from Neurophilosophy:
Third, there is strong evidence of familial susceptiblity to schizophrenia. In one study it was found that if one monozygotic twin is schizophrenic, then there is about a 45 percent chance the second will be so as well. The risk drops to about 13 percent if the twins are fraternal. The incidence of schizophrenia in the general population is roughly 1 percent. Additional studies on adopted children in Denmark also indicates an inherited susceptibility to the disease (Kety et al. 1975). Another study compared children born to schizophrenic parents but reared by normal parents with the opposite situation (children born to normal parents but reared by affected parents) and a control group (children born to normal parents and adopted by normal parents) (Wender, Rosenthal, and Kety 1974). The results pointed to a genetic effect: roughly 18 percent of the first group became schizophrenic, whereas the incidence of schizophrenia in the second group and the control group was the same, about 10 percent. (For a collection of papers on schizophrenia as a somatogenic disease see Henn and Nasrallah 1982.)

As a result of the work on familial histories and schizophrenia, the hypothesis that there is a genetic susceptibility to schizophrenia seems correct, though there is still considerable controversy regarding the adequacy of experimental controls and the interpretation of the data. No one has claimed that the genetic factor is all there is to it, for even assuming there is a gene implicated in the causal history of schizophrenia, environmental factos, whatever they are found to be, are certainly relevant. Otherwise the chance of a second monozygotic twin having schizophrenia if the first does would be 1 rather .45.
See? It says the same thing. But instead of chocolate on your peanut butter, it's peanut in your chocolate.

Sensationalism.

Here's some details of Kety's study which was done in Denmark because of the excellent adoption records that they keep. The sample size was HUGE. I'm talking enormous. And the groundwork done to gather all the data was truly staggering.
Neither adoptive parent is schizophrenic and neither biologic parent is schizophrenic: 1%

One adoptive parent is schizophrenic and neither biologic parent is schizophrenic: 3%

Nonschizophrenic adoptive parents. One schizophrenic biological parent: 9%

Schizophrenic adoptive parent. Schizophrenic biological parent: 16%

See? Environment alone triples your chance of getting schizophrenia.
Genetics gives you an almost 10-fold likelihood.
And. Interestingly. Combining genetics and environment is greater than the sum of its parts.
But. Taken seperately. Genetics wins out over environment.


Another thing to consider is this:
In their review of the 33,648 studies conducted into the causes of schizophrenia between 1961 and 2000, they found that less than 1 percent of research budgets was spent on examining the impact of parental care.

So? If this is the case. Then so what? They're performing a review of pre-existing research and thus the fact that less than 1 percent of research budgets being spent on examining the impact of parental care lends no credence to the reinterpretation of the evidence.
Why?
Because no new evidence is being brought to the table.
And, from what is written in the blog, the reinterpretation is weakly defined.

Hammersley and Read point out that if patients believe their illness is an unchangeable genetic destiny requiring a physical solution, they will readily accept a drug prescribed to them when in fact they require quite different treatment. Worse, say the researchers, those who buy the genetic fairytale are less likely to recover.

What does this have to do with science?
This means absolutely nothing without some type of researching indicating that some type of treatment other than pharmaceutical is able to compete with pharmaceutical results.
The fact of the matter is that medicating schizophrenia is what works best.
It doesn't work perfectly. And has much room for improvement.
But it does work the best of all the treatment options available at present.

This 'report' brings nothing to the table.
Nothing.
It's pure sensationalism.


(A note. The research by Kety focuses on households with schizophrenia, not abuse. Abuse is likely to occur because of schizophrenia, but really should be another factor altogether and would likely ramp up the odds even higher. But, I seriously doubt that it weighs in with greater weight than genetics.)



Metakron,

I guess that one angel in the movie Dogma had a name something like that. His name was Metatron.

Metatron is also the angel that Santana thinks talks to him. He told Santana to make that Supernatural album which is a tribute to Santana's fanatic christianity.
Wonder if he was abused as a child?




Edit:
Hmm.
Just noticed something.
The stats I gave on the four groups differ from the stated numbers in the italicized quote from neurophilosophy above...
I think the numbers in neurophilosophy are wrong.
They give 18% as the percentage for schizophrenic biological parents and normal adoptive parents. And 10% for normal biological parents and schizophrenic adoptive parents and also for both normal.
10% is too high. It should be 1% which throws the whole statement from neurophilosophy in question.

The second set of numbers I gleaned from a lecture by Robert Sapolsky who is a professor of neurology and biology at Stanford University. This is more dependable than Neurophilosophy which is written by a.. neurophilosopher.
Hmm.
Interesting. Though.

I believe the numbers Sapolsky is talking about refers to the first Kety research from Denmark. Not the second with the other people.
But, the numbers are still off.

Hey. Huwy. You're in school for psychiatry, yes?
Can you get us some numbers here? Confirmation?

Resource: Academic Search Premier (EBSCO)
Title: Gone to Pot: The Association Between Cannabis and Psychosis.
Author: Malik, Asif R.
Add.Author / Editor: Malik, Asif R.
D'Souza, Deepak Cyril
Citation: Psychiatric Times Apr2006, Vol. 23 Issue 4, p28
Year: 2006
Abstract: Looks at the evidence supporting and refuting the association between cannabis use and psychosis. Probability of the hospitalization of heavy cannabis users for schizophrenia; Criteria used to establish causal relationship between cannabis exposure and risk of psychosis; Role of a family history of psychosis in the occurrence of the mental illness.




Title: Cannabis use increases the risk of young people developing psychotic symptoms, particularly if already predisposed: Commentary.
Author: Addington, Jean
Add.Author / Editor: Addington, Jean
Citation: Evidence-Based Mental Health Aug2005, Vol. 8 Issue 3, p87
Year: 2005
Abstract: Comments on the research paper "Prospective Cohort Study of Cannabis Use, Predisposition for Psychosis, and Psychotic Symptoms in Young People," published in the 2004 issue of the British Medical Journal. Focus on increased risk for psychosis in people using cannabis; Association between cannabis use and increased risk for schizophrenia; Information on the harmful effects of cannabis.




Title: Cannabis as a risk factor for psychosis: systematic review.
Author: Semple, David M.
Add.Author / Editor: Semple, David M.
McIntosh, Andrew M.
Lawrie, Stephen M.
Citation: Journal of Psychopharmacology Mar2005, Vol. 19 Issue 2, p187
Year: 2005
Abstract: Various lines of evidence suggest an association between cannabis and psychosis. Five years ago, the only significant case-control study addressing this question was the Swedish Conscript Cohort. Within the last few years, other studies have emerged, allowing the evidence for cannabis as a risk factor to be more systematically reviewed and assessed. Using specific search criteria on Embase, PsychINFO and Medline, all studies examining cannabis as an independent risk factor for schizophrenia, psychosis or psychotic symptoms, published between January 1966 and January 2004, were examined. Additional studies were also reviewed from references found in retrieved articles, reviews, and a cited reference search (ISI-Web of Science). Studies selected for meta-analysis included: (i) case-control studies where exposure to cannabis preceded the onset of schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychosis and (ii) cohort studies of healthy individuals recruited before the median age of illness onset

http://www.schizophrenia.com

Chocopeanutblock full of tasty info! :)

Being a disease of the brain I don't expect they'll fully understand how it works until we figure out exactly how the brain itself works. Still a bit of work to be done there.

Trivia.
"Schizophrenia is a chronic, severe, and disabling brain disease.
Affects 2 million Americans a year. Affects men and women with equal frequency. The disorder often appears earlier in men, usually in the late teens or early twenties. Women are generally affected in the twenties to early thirties. People with schizophrenia often suffer terrifying symptoms such as hearing internal voices not heard by others, or believing that other people are reading their minds, controlling their thoughts, or plotting to harm them.
These symptoms may leave them fearful and withdrawn. Their speech and behavior can be so disorganized that they may be incomprehensible or frightening to others."

Sounds very similar to paranoia, and ofcourse 'paranoid schizophrenia' is a rare form of the condition in which people can become violently sociopathic.

News and entertainment media tend to link mental illness and criminal violence; however, studies indicate that except for those persons with a record of criminal violence before becoming ill, and those with substance abuse or alcohol problems, people with schizophrenia are not especially prone to violence. Most individuals with schizophrenia are not violent; more typically, they are withdrawn and prefer to be left alone. Most violent crimes are not committed by persons with schizophrenia, and most persons with schizophrenia do not commit violent crimes. Substance abuse significantly raises the rate of violence in people with schizophrenia but also in people who do not have any mental illness. People with paranoid and psychotic symptoms, which can become worse if medications are discontinued, may also be at higher risk for violent behavior. When violence does occur, it is most frequently targeted at family members and friends, and more often takes place at home.

Sounds very similar to paranoia, and ofcourse 'paranoid schizophrenia' is a rare form of the condition in which people can become violently sociopathic.

It's a bit more than just average, run-of-the-mill paranoia.

Did you know that schizophrenic behavior can be induced by L-dopa? Excess dopamine levels in certain parts of the brain is thought to be the cause of schizophrenia. Schizophrenic medication acts to block dopamine activity, either by blocking production, reception, or increasing absorption or breakdown of dopamine in the synapse.

And. Interestingly. Too little dopamine is linked with Parkinson's disease and medicated schizophrenics often suffer Parkinsonian tremors.

What's more interesting is that the problem is that two different areas of the brain are involved in the two disorders. If one could figure out how to target the drugs to the right brain structures then there would be less side effects.


Huwy,

Read my edit to prior post.

They can come back and mess with my dopamine levels when they have something more substantial than "thought to be."

schizophrenia is caused by bad company.

j/k. but most are wickedly smart. drugs aren't what they need, they need good direction. given half a chance most "crazy" people are worth a shit.

In my opinion, there's no single reason or cause for schizophrenia. See my other post: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=55756

But. Taken seperately. Genetics wins out over environment.

You can't take the two apart. Impossible. The genes are clearly triggered by outside influence as well, explaining the sudden rise of psychoses almost together with the industialisation.
But that's not all, the genes remain in society because they have advantages (schizophrenics hardly get lung cancer even though a huge percentage of them is a smoker).

I'm not going in any details backing this up, but it's just nonsensical to claim genetics somehow outcompete the environment. The whole point is that they respond and evolve in regard to it. "Taken seperately" --> no.

I'm not going in any details backing this up, but it's just nonsensical to claim genetics somehow outcompete the environment. The whole point is that they respond and evolve in regard to it. "Taken seperately" --> no.

Of course they can't be taken seperately. Environment and genetics go hand in hand, but it is fairly obvious from the numbers that genetics play a larger role than environment. 1% for random chance. 3% for environment. 9% for genetics. 16% for both.

Note. This is not saying that the earlier numbers are environment without genetics. Far from. It's saying that the combination of what could be termed as positive and negative values in a simple spectrum of genetic and environments has different odds of leading to schizophrenia.

There is still genetics involved in the 1% and 3% chances of the early numbers. The person has genes, after all. But, it's not a directly inherited form of genetics. A pre-existing condition from the biological parent.

There is also environment involved in the 9% chance of the mid number. Just not an environment provided by a pre-existing schizophrenic condition. Not an environment that directly 'teaches' schizophrenia as a form of 'culture'.

Also, the research I mention is not entirely on target as it doesn't mention abuse, merely schizophrenia. The table becomes more complex with 3 factors thrown in. And I have little doubt that with all three being 'positive' (I.e. biological parent with schizophrenia, adoptive parent with schizophrenia, abusive environment) that the odds go way up past 16%.

But. Guessing is not science. Is it?

Is it?

The article doesn't support its contention. That's all.

It's sensationalism.
I'd say the guy is trying to get noticed to receive funding. Hence the statement about only 1% of research funding going to these types of studies. He's saying that he wants money for research.
It's fairly obvious.

And that's ok. But it's important to see things as they are.
Perhaps his research will bear fruit.
Perhaps not.
It's all smoke and mirrors right now.
And the fact of the matter remains that medication is, at present, the most effective way of dealing with schizophrenia.
Until new studies that suggest different and more effective treatments are brought to the table, then his statements are out of place in anything but a sensationalistic setting.
They're just the sort of thing that people like Metakron et al latch on to to shore up their own unscientific belief systems.
Hook. Line. And sinker.

And I'm not even saying that those involved intend such a consequence. As I said, this is a fairly obvious bid for research funding. But, that's the 'real world' effect that this type of thing has. This is what it does 'on the ground'.
And is irresponsible to say the least.
Makes one wonder if such irresponsibility should be rewarded with funding?

http://www.schizophrenia.com

Chocopeanutblock full of tasty info! :)

Being a disease of the brain I don't expect they'll fully understand how it works until we figure out exactly how the brain itself works. Still a bit of work to be done there.

Trivia.
"Schizophrenia is a chronic, severe, and disabling brain disease.
Affects 2 million Americans a year. Affects men and women with equal frequency. The disorder often appears earlier in men, usually in the late teens or early twenties. Women are generally affected in the twenties to early thirties. People with schizophrenia often suffer terrifying symptoms such as hearing internal voices not heard by others, or believing that other people are reading their minds, controlling their thoughts, or plotting to harm them.
These symptoms may leave them fearful and withdrawn. Their speech and behavior can be so disorganized that they may be incomprehensible or frightening to others."

Sounds very similar to paranoia, and ofcourse 'paranoid schizophrenia' is a rare form of the condition in which people can become violently sociopathic.

News and entertainment media tend to link mental illness and criminal violence; however, studies indicate that except for those persons with a record of criminal violence before becoming ill, and those with substance abuse or alcohol problems, people with schizophrenia are not especially prone to violence. Most individuals with schizophrenia are not violent; more typically, they are withdrawn and prefer to be left alone. Most violent crimes are not committed by persons with schizophrenia, and most persons with schizophrenia do not commit violent crimes. Substance abuse significantly raises the rate of violence in people with schizophrenia but also in people who do not have any mental illness. People with paranoid and psychotic symptoms, which can become worse if medications are discontinued, may also be at higher risk for violent behavior. When violence does occur, it is most frequently targeted at family members and friends, and more often takes place at home.

I think of schizophrenia as a garbage-dump, catch-all diagnosis anyway.

The violence against friends and family: Throw someone in with a group of strangers. If that group of strangers treats him kindly, it is normal for him to respond with kindness in turn. If that group starts violent confrontations with him, it is normal human behavior to use violence to defend yourself, especially if there is simply no other way to stop the violence against yourself.

My family got off on it. A lot of families do. I had to become tougher than they were and the violence stopped. Then I was convicted of being a paranoid schizophrenic and my mother responded predictably by becoming predatory again every time she saw a weakness in me. I had to deal with her violence again. Only, if I didn't make an effort to toe a line that she might move without notice, (that act maddens me) then she would be quite ready to bring the police in and have them do me. So I became a liar. Cute, on top of my other problems, I was a sociopath. Rarely did I ever process in my brain the fact that I was dealing with sociopaths. They were liars from day one, and they were violent. I was the receiver of violence. The people who gave me that violence treated me as if I was crazy when I started hitting back.

It is easy to see that a lot of times when these schizophrenics get violent with friends and family, they want them to stop pushing them around and trying to control their lives. For everything violent that such a person does, he has previously absorbed several hundred acts of mental and physical violence against him. Then the people who he is rightly trying to push away escalate the level of violence, using his responses as an excuse. If he were a normal person his behavior would be considered normal. A normal person being shoved around like that is not being treated for his illness, he is being assaulted and battered.

I mean, really. The people who accused me of being likely to harm myself and others had hair-trigger tempers connected to swinging arms and fists. They were quite likely to call the police and lie about something that I did. I didn't have to test that much. I knew how they had behaved before. They would do something to me and lie about it. If I did something to them they did their best to bring about Armageddon, no matter how much they had to scream and lie. I've got to ask the world. If someone has the habit of hitting me across the face, how many times do they get to do it before I have the right to even hit back once?

The fights that were never resolved are what drive me mad today. If I want to be "treated" I have to take drugs that could damage my internal organs, will shut down my emotions so that I can never feel good either, and I will not be able to work this through at all. The so-called therapeutic goal, one of them anyway, will be so that I will be unable to do violence to people who put me through more than a decade of violent hell, beating me with impunity.

This is part of the life of a "schizophrenic." He becomes a "schizophrenic" so that he doesn't poison his own parents at the age of ten, so that part of his life he can feel somewhat like a normal person, and so that he doesn't go after his schoolmates with a baseball bat while they feel free to do anything they want to him, which is usually violent. Then the twisted bastards want to cure him of that, destroying the part of him that tries to carry on a normal life and working really hard to pump up the side of him that has developed in response to the violence. One of the reasons that he won't hit back is because it won't teach them a lesson. They can't learn lessons. They are safe because they can't be taught. This gives a person the firm impression that they are not human.

If there is any goal to this system, forget it. It is sick.