The main emphasis of the article, whose title translates into: "High school certificate a good weapon against schizophrenia", is on the role of education in terms of recovery from so-called "schizophrenia".
The researchers followed 547 people labelled with "schizophrenia" over a 5-year-period.
Results: 19% achieved full recovery, most of them, as mentioned in my previous post, were not "treatment compliant", respectively didn't use psych drugs at all. 15% achieved significant improvement. 53% didn't achieve lasting improvement, but are able to live independently, and without longer hospitalizations. 13% are dependent on assisted housing, or need long-term hospitalization.
Among those who achieved full recovery or significant improvement, a higher education is prevalent, most of them are women, and most of them come from a family background with both parents living together. On the other hand, "negative symptoms" like social withdrawal and passivity indicate a less favorable outcome.
Education: the so far only comment on the article at Dagens Medicin (the journal only allows professionals to comment... ) concludes that a higher education equals to a higher IQ which equals to more benefit from CBT - "something we've known for a long time".
In my opinion, a higher education equals to the ability to search for information on one's own, if necessary - and when it comes to "mental illness" it is necessary, since true information in Danish is thin, to put it mildly - also information in foreign languages like English. Information that may have the individual choose to, by and large, do without neuroleptics, that may have him/her question the (Danish) mh system's messages about a chronic, biological brain disease, and that may have him/her investigate into alternative views of the experience. A higher education often equals to a stronger belief in one's own intellectual capacities, "intellectual self-reliance", so to speak, and thus to less blind confidence in others' - the "experts' - authority.
A higher education often provides tools to think analytically, critically and independently. Invaluable tools when it comes to finding meaning with one's experience, and become an expert on one's own behalf: "I know what's good for me." It's called empowerment, and it's decisive in the recovery process.
Drugs: well, I'd say, it's self-evident that substances which interfere with and reduce cognition, memory, self-/consciousness, etc., which in fact often render researching, googling, reading and understanding unsurmountable challenges, are not helpful in the process of resolving crisis.
Women: in general, women are more socializing than men, and don't have the same reservations against opening up and talking about personal problems. And if people who experience crisis need anything, it is the possibility to communicate their experience to someone they can trust unconditionally.
Family: a somewhat well-functioning family can be a valuable resource of support. Especially if family members are minded to resolve problems rather than to just brush them under the carpet, or run from them.
It doesn't look like the researchers have done much else than gathered statistics about "symptoms" experienced, hospitalizations, education, family background, and whatever else can be observed from the outside. Also this study seems to be a shining example of the lack of empiricism in psychiatric "research" in general. Participants obviously were not asked what in detail was helpful for their individual recovery. As a result, the researchers stand with a bunch of data they, due to their preconceived idea of the nature of "schizophrenia" - it's still referred to as an "illness", of course -, and the resulting preconceived idea of what kind of treatment is indicated, don't really know what to make of.
Probably, their reasoning will not go beyond conclusions like the one mentioned above, that CBT is the decisive factor, while they just as probably will be unlikely to admit the quite logic causality between "treatment" with consciousness reducing, and in the long run brain damaging substances and long-term outcomes. Actually, the article explicitly states, that "antipsychotics" are effective treatment for "psychosis": "Don't draw the 'wrong' conclusions from the research results! Take your meds!" Also, an undertone can be traced in the article that clearly emphasizes that "full recovery" doesn't mean "cured". "Schizophrenia" still is a chronic brain disease: "You're still ill! Don't you dare to believe anything else! You're only as lucky as to be in remission!" So, it is unlikely that this study will change anything about how "schizophrenia" is perceived by the "experts", or how it is being treated. Concerning the fact that most of the fully recovered participants either went off neuroleptics, or never used them, this is probably not interpreted as a precondition for their recovery ("remission"), but rather as a result of it. Just as the article doesn't mention the connection between "negative symptoms" like social withdrawal and passivity on the one hand, and the these "negative symptoms" increasing effects of neuroleptic drugs on the other, with one word.
If at all this study makes it to one of the major journals in the field, I suspect it will suffer the same fate as other long-term outcome studies, and soon be buried in the archives, under a load of crap like Thomas Werge's eugenic "research", that allegedly found the genetic cause of "schizophrenia" to be chromosome mutations which are found in 60 - 90% of the general population... (Can't recall whether I wrote about it here, but well, now you know: 60 - 90% of the general population are genetically predisposed to develop "schizophrenia". In other words: to be a human being predisposes you for "schizophrenia". LMAO.)
BTW: the article calls OPUS a "psycho-social" project. Not by any stretch of imagination can I find much "psycho-social" about a project that explicitly promotes " - psycho education with weight on a biological model (guilt reducing)", and "antipsychotic medical treatment" as "indicated" for "most of the patients".
Showing posts with label genetics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label genetics. Show all posts
Tuesday, 16 March 2010
Thursday, 3 September 2009
The end of suffering - genes and schizophrenia
This is a post I wrote for Gianna Kali's blog Beyond Meds. I publish it here too, as Gianna's blog has no comment function for now. So, feel free to tear me to pieces. Still, it would be nice if you considered this blog's comment politics...
The end of suffering- genes and schizophrenia
"Det är synd om människorna," is an often quoted line from August Strindberg's A Dream Play. Translated into English, the line becomes: "Human beings are to be pitied," which is a correct literal translation. Nevertheless, it fails to capture the very essence of the Swedish original, and often leads to the misunderstanding that Strindberg intended to say, human beings were to be pitied because of the suffering that is - being human. No, human beings are not to be pitied because their suffering in the world is without comparison, inevitable, and sometimes even endless. They're not to be pitied because of the suffering that is both humanity's greatest challenge and its greatest gift at the same time. There's nothing in nature, human or other, that doesn't serve a purpose. And there's only one purpose: life.
Human beings are to be pitied because they fail to recognize and acknowledge this. Because they have made suffering their worst enemy, whom they fight with all their power and strength. Because they have waged war on nature, not least on their own nature, on themselves, on life.
That is what Strindberg's line and A Dream Play, which Strindberg himself said was "the child of my greatest pain", as a whole is all about.
The Danish newspaper B.T., a tabloid, ran an article on Tuesday, September 1st, 2009, under the headline "Skizofrene fostre kan sorteres fra" - "Schizophrenic embryos can be screened out".
According to another article at the website of University of Copenhagen, "Genetic Causes of Schizophrenia", a group of European researchers has found chromosomal changes in individuals labelled with "schizophrenia", that they interpret to be the main cause of the "illness". Their research is now granted a fund of additionally 30 million Danish crowns, in part paid by Lundbeck, a Danish pharmaceutical company, specializing in drugs for the "treatment" of "mental illnesses", Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease. Cipralex/Lexapro is a Lundbeck-product, as is Serdolect, a lesser known "atypical antipsychotic", in part by the Danish National Advanced Technology Foundation, and the Danish Medical Research Council.
The additional funding is granted in order for the researchers to develop diagnostic tools, a new generation of drugs, targeting the mutated, "defect" chromosomes, and tools to screen embryos for the chromosome changes in question, so that parents to be can choose an abortion if the embryo shows these chromosome changes.
The few critical voices that are heard here and there in the media don't go beyond questioning if it is "ethical" to screen out and dispose of embryos, that may or may not actually develop "schizophrenia" later in life, since the researchers admit, that it takes more than the identified mutated chromosomes for the "illness" to manifest. They also have found the specific chromosome changes in individuals who are not labelled, and do not display signs of the "illness", just as they found labelled individuals without the changes. So, basically, the results are not significantly different from what we have seen this kind of research conjure up so many times in the past.
Which obviously is significantly different, increased, once more, is our culture's belief in Social-Darwinism, and eugenic weapons in its war against our existential suffering, against our own nature. Because what the researchers really have found is not the cause of any biological brain disease, but the formal, biological effects of the challenges, humanity faces: social injustice, violence, abuse, exploitation, alienation...
At least since Paul Hammersley and John Read's meta study, we all know, that most people who are labelled with "schizophrenia", are survivors of abuse. And while Hammersley and Read concentrated on physical and sexual abuse, abuse has many faces. Most of what our culture values as "normal" in fact is unnatural, actually alienating us from (our) nature. It is a "toxic mimicry" of nature, to use Derrick Jensen's terminology. To expect our nature to submit to this toxic mimicry without resistance, and deny itself, is a kind of abuse. We're all traumatized by this abuse. It's what the Fall Of Man refers to. No one is innocent.
What we also know by now is that childhood trauma can change both neuronal pathways in the brain and genes. Like all form in this world, also genes react and adapt to the environment they're surrounded and influenced by. The form, our body and also our genes, is always a symbol, a sign, a "symptom", reflecting on a formal level whatever formal, existential, spiritual, psychological, social, etc. challenges we face by reacting to these challenges. A nonreactive entity, if it is a human being, a person, or a single gene, is not fit to survive in this world as it is defenceless exposed to it's destructive abusiveness.
Mutated chromosomes are not the cause of anything. Neither of "schizophrenia". They are a symptom - of the challenges, the social injustice, the abuse, the alienation, the violence and destructiveness we face in this world.
We can try to eliminate our suffering, our reaction to the challenges that surround us, and to gene-manipulate respectively abort humanity into a state of nonreactivity. It will be exactly this, the abortion of humanity. As nonreactive to our environment we will no longer be able to survive. Nonreactivity to the challenges we face will allow this world's destructiveness to unrestrained destroy not only the basis for our biological survival, but, and even worse, since our biological survival depends on it, the basis for our spiritual survival, for the survival of what makes us human: our souls, our suffering souls. We can try. While the researchers, and everybody else, are positive to have found the cause of "schizophrenia", as long as there's one single alive human being left on this earth, they will react to the world. To eliminate existential suffering, we will have to eliminate humanity. Although the Nazis were extremely efficient, murdering people who suffered in the way that is labelled "schizophrenia", although they sterilized everybody whom they did not murder, preventing them from having children, the percentage of people who met the criteria for "schizophrenia" did not decrease in Nazi-Germany. The percentage of Jews did. Remarkably. What does this tell us about the "genetic causes of schizophrenia"?
In the meantime, it nevertheless looks like humanity won't rest until it has not overcome but eliminated suffering by perfectionizing its cultural nightmare's alienation and deadness. It looks like we will eliminate nature, both our own and that around us - and end up perfectly inhumane. The latest research on the "genetic causes of schizophrenia", and the consequences it inevitably will have, is another huge battle won in our war against ourselves, on our way toward a perfectly inhumane world.
So I ask: Is it "ethical" to eliminate life's greatest gift to humanity - humanity itself?
I know, that this is a controversial viewpoint. 'You want people to suffer?!' I hear you, with disbelief. Yes. I want people to suffer. So that they can become aware and conscious. So that they can wake up in the dream, wake up from our cultural nightmare's emotional alienation and deadness. So that they can overcome suffering, realizing that what they thought was their worst enemy in truth is their best friend. So that they can become alive, in the true meaning of the word.
You may accuse me of romanticizing suffering, of being detached from reality, having my head in the clouds. You wouldn't be the first to do so. I'll answer you, that I've suffered myself. Indescribably. And I still do suffer. From being an alive human being. I wouldn't want to trade that for anything in the whole wide world. Suffering isn't a - romantic - accessory to life. It is the incentive necessary to bring about change, to have us keep walking on the road of constant change. And only as long as we keep walking that road are we truly alive. Suffering is not a superfluous accessory to life. There's nothing superfluous, dispensable, in nature. And suffering is natural. It is life.
The end of suffering- genes and schizophrenia
"Det är synd om människorna," is an often quoted line from August Strindberg's A Dream Play. Translated into English, the line becomes: "Human beings are to be pitied," which is a correct literal translation. Nevertheless, it fails to capture the very essence of the Swedish original, and often leads to the misunderstanding that Strindberg intended to say, human beings were to be pitied because of the suffering that is - being human. No, human beings are not to be pitied because their suffering in the world is without comparison, inevitable, and sometimes even endless. They're not to be pitied because of the suffering that is both humanity's greatest challenge and its greatest gift at the same time. There's nothing in nature, human or other, that doesn't serve a purpose. And there's only one purpose: life.
Human beings are to be pitied because they fail to recognize and acknowledge this. Because they have made suffering their worst enemy, whom they fight with all their power and strength. Because they have waged war on nature, not least on their own nature, on themselves, on life.
That is what Strindberg's line and A Dream Play, which Strindberg himself said was "the child of my greatest pain", as a whole is all about.
The Danish newspaper B.T., a tabloid, ran an article on Tuesday, September 1st, 2009, under the headline "Skizofrene fostre kan sorteres fra" - "Schizophrenic embryos can be screened out".
According to another article at the website of University of Copenhagen, "Genetic Causes of Schizophrenia", a group of European researchers has found chromosomal changes in individuals labelled with "schizophrenia", that they interpret to be the main cause of the "illness". Their research is now granted a fund of additionally 30 million Danish crowns, in part paid by Lundbeck, a Danish pharmaceutical company, specializing in drugs for the "treatment" of "mental illnesses", Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease. Cipralex/Lexapro is a Lundbeck-product, as is Serdolect, a lesser known "atypical antipsychotic", in part by the Danish National Advanced Technology Foundation, and the Danish Medical Research Council.
The additional funding is granted in order for the researchers to develop diagnostic tools, a new generation of drugs, targeting the mutated, "defect" chromosomes, and tools to screen embryos for the chromosome changes in question, so that parents to be can choose an abortion if the embryo shows these chromosome changes.
The few critical voices that are heard here and there in the media don't go beyond questioning if it is "ethical" to screen out and dispose of embryos, that may or may not actually develop "schizophrenia" later in life, since the researchers admit, that it takes more than the identified mutated chromosomes for the "illness" to manifest. They also have found the specific chromosome changes in individuals who are not labelled, and do not display signs of the "illness", just as they found labelled individuals without the changes. So, basically, the results are not significantly different from what we have seen this kind of research conjure up so many times in the past.
Which obviously is significantly different, increased, once more, is our culture's belief in Social-Darwinism, and eugenic weapons in its war against our existential suffering, against our own nature. Because what the researchers really have found is not the cause of any biological brain disease, but the formal, biological effects of the challenges, humanity faces: social injustice, violence, abuse, exploitation, alienation...
At least since Paul Hammersley and John Read's meta study, we all know, that most people who are labelled with "schizophrenia", are survivors of abuse. And while Hammersley and Read concentrated on physical and sexual abuse, abuse has many faces. Most of what our culture values as "normal" in fact is unnatural, actually alienating us from (our) nature. It is a "toxic mimicry" of nature, to use Derrick Jensen's terminology. To expect our nature to submit to this toxic mimicry without resistance, and deny itself, is a kind of abuse. We're all traumatized by this abuse. It's what the Fall Of Man refers to. No one is innocent.
What we also know by now is that childhood trauma can change both neuronal pathways in the brain and genes. Like all form in this world, also genes react and adapt to the environment they're surrounded and influenced by. The form, our body and also our genes, is always a symbol, a sign, a "symptom", reflecting on a formal level whatever formal, existential, spiritual, psychological, social, etc. challenges we face by reacting to these challenges. A nonreactive entity, if it is a human being, a person, or a single gene, is not fit to survive in this world as it is defenceless exposed to it's destructive abusiveness.
Mutated chromosomes are not the cause of anything. Neither of "schizophrenia". They are a symptom - of the challenges, the social injustice, the abuse, the alienation, the violence and destructiveness we face in this world.
We can try to eliminate our suffering, our reaction to the challenges that surround us, and to gene-manipulate respectively abort humanity into a state of nonreactivity. It will be exactly this, the abortion of humanity. As nonreactive to our environment we will no longer be able to survive. Nonreactivity to the challenges we face will allow this world's destructiveness to unrestrained destroy not only the basis for our biological survival, but, and even worse, since our biological survival depends on it, the basis for our spiritual survival, for the survival of what makes us human: our souls, our suffering souls. We can try. While the researchers, and everybody else, are positive to have found the cause of "schizophrenia", as long as there's one single alive human being left on this earth, they will react to the world. To eliminate existential suffering, we will have to eliminate humanity. Although the Nazis were extremely efficient, murdering people who suffered in the way that is labelled "schizophrenia", although they sterilized everybody whom they did not murder, preventing them from having children, the percentage of people who met the criteria for "schizophrenia" did not decrease in Nazi-Germany. The percentage of Jews did. Remarkably. What does this tell us about the "genetic causes of schizophrenia"?
In the meantime, it nevertheless looks like humanity won't rest until it has not overcome but eliminated suffering by perfectionizing its cultural nightmare's alienation and deadness. It looks like we will eliminate nature, both our own and that around us - and end up perfectly inhumane. The latest research on the "genetic causes of schizophrenia", and the consequences it inevitably will have, is another huge battle won in our war against ourselves, on our way toward a perfectly inhumane world.
So I ask: Is it "ethical" to eliminate life's greatest gift to humanity - humanity itself?
I know, that this is a controversial viewpoint. 'You want people to suffer?!' I hear you, with disbelief. Yes. I want people to suffer. So that they can become aware and conscious. So that they can wake up in the dream, wake up from our cultural nightmare's emotional alienation and deadness. So that they can overcome suffering, realizing that what they thought was their worst enemy in truth is their best friend. So that they can become alive, in the true meaning of the word.
You may accuse me of romanticizing suffering, of being detached from reality, having my head in the clouds. You wouldn't be the first to do so. I'll answer you, that I've suffered myself. Indescribably. And I still do suffer. From being an alive human being. I wouldn't want to trade that for anything in the whole wide world. Suffering isn't a - romantic - accessory to life. It is the incentive necessary to bring about change, to have us keep walking on the road of constant change. And only as long as we keep walking that road are we truly alive. Suffering is not a superfluous accessory to life. There's nothing superfluous, dispensable, in nature. And suffering is natural. It is life.
Tuesday, 6 January 2009
Misconceptions
I just stopped by one of the blogs, I only visit once in a while - only once in a while, because it's quite bio-oriented, and whenever I need the bio-bs, I prefer to go to "professional" sites, where I can get the real McCoy. Nevertheless, this blog is "alternatively bio-oriented", so, I stop by, once in a while.
And today, on one of my occasional visits, I read the - sad - news, that a family member of the blogger - It's hereditary, right? Yep. Non-genetic, familial inheritance. - got incarcerated and put on a neuroleptic. The blogger reports the family member to be "getting better".
That means, a week or maybe two or so more on the neuroleptic, and the family member should be able to do without it, improved as s/he then would be, thanks to the "medication", right? Nope.
People do not "get better" on these drugs. Generally speaking, there are two kinds of drugs: the ones that help a diseased/injured organism to heal itself by strengthening the organism's own immune system, and the ones that simply mask symptoms, unfortunately often with the result, that the organism is prevented from healing itself, since symptoms usually are the incentive for a healing process to occur.
Psychotropic drugs belong to the latter category. Although some of them, LSD in particular, once were - and by some people still are - believed to belong to the former. I don't think so.
Psychotropic drugs mask and suppress symptoms. It looks as if the drugged individual is getting better. Both to the environment, and often also to the drugged individual him-/herself. While the drugs see to, that the underlying problem, that gave rise to a healing reaction, i.e. to symptoms, thrives and flourishes. Undisturbed. The individual isn't getting better, s/he is actually often getting worse. Underneath the lid, or: behind the mask.
Give someone who's confused, scared, angry, agitated, etc., a neuroleptic, i.e. a major tranquillizer, and, yes, sure, since the major tranquillizer, as the term suggests, reduces their overall vitality, they won't be able to react to their underlying problem with the same amount of confusion, anxiety, anger, agitation, etc, as before. Probably they won't even have the energy left to realize the fact, that the problem still is there, unresolved. This then is called "improvement". How about giving someone who has broken a leg some strong pain killers, that enable them to get on and move about, and call it "improvement"?
"You give someone a tablet, and it shuts them up. It makes them dumb and stupid. People then have the ignorance to think, the medication is making someone better. You're not making someone better. You're making them stupid." -Rufus May in The Doctor Who Hears Voices.
Nothing is more essential to someone going through an existential crisis, and trying to resolve it, and truly "get better", than their ability to work it all out, intellectually, emotionally, spiritually, etc. Someone who broke a leg, and did nothing but pop strong pain killers, while they kept on moving about as if nothing ever happened, would eventually drop dead, from gangrene (make that an intellectual, emotional, spiritual, etc., death in regard to crisis). Or from the pain killers' side effects.
And today, on one of my occasional visits, I read the - sad - news, that a family member of the blogger - It's hereditary, right? Yep. Non-genetic, familial inheritance. - got incarcerated and put on a neuroleptic. The blogger reports the family member to be "getting better".
That means, a week or maybe two or so more on the neuroleptic, and the family member should be able to do without it, improved as s/he then would be, thanks to the "medication", right? Nope.
People do not "get better" on these drugs. Generally speaking, there are two kinds of drugs: the ones that help a diseased/injured organism to heal itself by strengthening the organism's own immune system, and the ones that simply mask symptoms, unfortunately often with the result, that the organism is prevented from healing itself, since symptoms usually are the incentive for a healing process to occur.
Psychotropic drugs belong to the latter category. Although some of them, LSD in particular, once were - and by some people still are - believed to belong to the former. I don't think so.
Psychotropic drugs mask and suppress symptoms. It looks as if the drugged individual is getting better. Both to the environment, and often also to the drugged individual him-/herself. While the drugs see to, that the underlying problem, that gave rise to a healing reaction, i.e. to symptoms, thrives and flourishes. Undisturbed. The individual isn't getting better, s/he is actually often getting worse. Underneath the lid, or: behind the mask.
Give someone who's confused, scared, angry, agitated, etc., a neuroleptic, i.e. a major tranquillizer, and, yes, sure, since the major tranquillizer, as the term suggests, reduces their overall vitality, they won't be able to react to their underlying problem with the same amount of confusion, anxiety, anger, agitation, etc, as before. Probably they won't even have the energy left to realize the fact, that the problem still is there, unresolved. This then is called "improvement". How about giving someone who has broken a leg some strong pain killers, that enable them to get on and move about, and call it "improvement"?
"You give someone a tablet, and it shuts them up. It makes them dumb and stupid. People then have the ignorance to think, the medication is making someone better. You're not making someone better. You're making them stupid." -Rufus May in The Doctor Who Hears Voices.
Nothing is more essential to someone going through an existential crisis, and trying to resolve it, and truly "get better", than their ability to work it all out, intellectually, emotionally, spiritually, etc. Someone who broke a leg, and did nothing but pop strong pain killers, while they kept on moving about as if nothing ever happened, would eventually drop dead, from gangrene (make that an intellectual, emotional, spiritual, etc., death in regard to crisis). Or from the pain killers' side effects.
Wednesday, 8 October 2008
Friday, 12 September 2008
T4
Now they really shout it from the roof tops: "Schizophrenia's riddle solved - with Danish help". As a matter of fact. It's all about the same research I wrote about here (and here).
"Just like in the case of Downs syndrome it [the research results] opens up for considerations about embryo checks in regard to abortion", the spokeswoman for SIND, a Danish user organization, says according to the article.
Fasten seat belts, folks! We're heading straight towards a refined version of what went on in the Third Reich. And even user organizations applaud enthusiastically...
Make sure to have a look at this before you go down with major depression, thinking you'd really be genetically defective.
"Just like in the case of Downs syndrome it [the research results] opens up for considerations about embryo checks in regard to abortion", the spokeswoman for SIND, a Danish user organization, says according to the article.
Fasten seat belts, folks! We're heading straight towards a refined version of what went on in the Third Reich. And even user organizations applaud enthusiastically...
Make sure to have a look at this before you go down with major depression, thinking you'd really be genetically defective.
Thursday, 21 August 2008
Here's to my therapist II - Why "mental illness" is neither genetically caused nor genetically predisposed
I've got some really, really bad news for psychiatrists, parents, and "patients" who believe they can blame (their) genes for (their) "mental illness", in one way or the other. Actually, it's really bad news for everybody, who believes, they can blame anything on (their) genes.
I found the video below yesterday on Gianna's blog, when I had a look at the archives. It's the first of seven parts of a talk by cell-biologist Bruce Lipton.
What Bruce Lipton is explaining in the video-series actually is a scientific, biological proof for the trauma-model to be true, and the bio-medical, genetic model to be, well yeah, rubbish.
While today's genetics take a starting point in a model, that says genes produce proteins, that then activate behaviour, Bruce Lipton had wondered how it, under these circumstances, could be possible for living organisms to continuously show behaviour, even after their genes were removed.
He found out, that modern genetics had thrown away the decisive part of the whole, behaviour-creating process: genes do not produce proteins, but transmitters, signals do activate genes as a blueprint for new proteins. While these signals are sent by an effector, that in its turn is activated by a receptor, who, in the first place, had been activated by another, initial signal. And where did this initial signal come from? Well - and now it's definitely time for everyone, who doesn't want to know about the trauma-model to stop reading, and pretend nothing ever happened! The three monkeys, you know - it comes from the living organism's environment.
All behaviour, all life, that finds expression in behaviour, is always, and no matter if we talk a single cell, or a highly complicated organism such as man, a reaction to this life's environment.
What then about findings, that show for instance "schizophrenics" to, sometimes, deviate genetically from "normal" people? The thing is, when a secondary signal doesn't find a protein inside the organism, that matches the situation, i.e. that would create behaviour appropriate in the given situation (or: behaviour, that would be an appropriate and functioning response to the initial, primary signal), and if now the situation is so complicated (as for example a double bind is), that the signal doesn't find an appropriate blueprint in the genes, either, that could provide the basis for the production of an appropriate protein, the blueprint, the genes, can be varied. Mutations are possible. But in contrast to today's common belief, mutations aren't random, they are adaptive. And they're not inborn, other than when they're a response to signals from the environment, the living organism found itself in before birth.
Thus the environment shapes the genes of the in it living organism. It is not the genes, that, because of some random mutation, produce, seen in relation to the environment, irrational, inappropriate, dysfunctional behaviour. And, of course, the varied blueprint, the mutated gene, can be varied "back to normal" whenever the environment changes and renders the variation superfluous.
Sorry, Mom and Dad, but we're back at "the schizophrenogenic mother" & Co., yes. Actually, we're at a point, where no kind of "inappropriate", "sick", dysfunctional behaviour can be blamed on anyone's genes, that is on anyone's individually inborn charcteristics, anymore. On a biological level, life is proteins, not genes. Genes are nothing but a plan. The house is built by signals and of proteins, and which house is built depends on the ground, the environment. Not on predetermined plans. Every organism carries the plans for all imaginable houses inside itself, the possibility to change plans included. Thus, everything is possible. Which in the end becomes manifested is a question of what signals the environment sends - and of how the individual perceives its environment. Which is dependent on the environment that to start with has formed the individual's perception of its environment.
Brought to the level of human behaviour, it is perception (of our environment) that controls behaviour, not biology. While the way, we perceive our environment ("belief" in Bruce Lipton's words), in itself is acquired, is a reaction to environmental signals. Here treatment options like therapy, meditation, etc. enter the picture. A belief can be changed. Everything becomes possible. Provided that the individual becomes aware of its beliefs.
Bruce Lipton's findings correspond perfectly with what many of us, who haven't bought into the biological model - and both those who've had the experience of extreme states of mind themselves, and professionals as Laing and Mosher - have experienced: change the environment (for example by changing diet and exercise habits, or by moving faaar away from home*...), and you'll change the behaviour. And they correspond just as perfectly with the findings of neuroscience in the field of neuroplasticity.
Nevertheless, this also has a political dimension (discrimination, eugenics), and I fear, no matter how hard the scientific evidence, everything will be done to suppress findings like Bruce Lipton's. Bruce Lipton has written a book about his findings, The Biology of Belief, which I suppose to be a somewhat more rewarding and interesting read than, just as an example, Jill Bolte Taylor's My Stroke of Insight, or Kay Redfield Jamison's An Unquiet Mind (find the hurrays yourself, it's not an impossible task). The Biology of Belief was published in 2005, the videos at YouTube were posted in November 2007, and this is the first time, I've ever heard of it (which certainly isn't due to me not following what's going on).
Thank you, Gianna, for posting this!!!
BTW: NAMI recently reacted to the new findings about mutated chromosomes in relation to so-called "schizophrenia", I wrote about here and here. NAMI's report is, astonishingly though rightly, not half as enthusiastic as Thomas Werge's statements in the Danish media.
To all the Jill Bolte Taylors out there: you're definitely looking in the wrong place, folks. To all you therapists out there, advocating the biological, genetical version of the Stress-Vulnerability-Model: stop disempowering and patronizing people with fairy stories about genes, that are nothing but junk-science! And to everyone, who's out there, leaning comfortably back on disability, and in front of your TV, all day long, blaming your genes for your allegedly unchangeable and uncontrollable suffering (I know, now I'm controversial again): Belief controls behaviour, not biology. Take responsibility! If not for yourself, so at least for others. By stopping to diffuse junk-science's untruths about genes and biology, and by stopping to try to silence biopsychiatry's (junk-science's) critics.
_______________
* Now, no one should think, it's enough just to pull up stakes and move to Timbuktu. That's something I've tried numerous times, without any lasting success. The problem remains the same. Only to pull up outside-stakes is never enough. It's also always the inner ones, the "belief", that has to be pulled up. - Although, it helps to move to Timbuktu. Unless that's where your "loved ones" actually do live...
I found the video below yesterday on Gianna's blog, when I had a look at the archives. It's the first of seven parts of a talk by cell-biologist Bruce Lipton.
What Bruce Lipton is explaining in the video-series actually is a scientific, biological proof for the trauma-model to be true, and the bio-medical, genetic model to be, well yeah, rubbish.
While today's genetics take a starting point in a model, that says genes produce proteins, that then activate behaviour, Bruce Lipton had wondered how it, under these circumstances, could be possible for living organisms to continuously show behaviour, even after their genes were removed.
He found out, that modern genetics had thrown away the decisive part of the whole, behaviour-creating process: genes do not produce proteins, but transmitters, signals do activate genes as a blueprint for new proteins. While these signals are sent by an effector, that in its turn is activated by a receptor, who, in the first place, had been activated by another, initial signal. And where did this initial signal come from? Well - and now it's definitely time for everyone, who doesn't want to know about the trauma-model to stop reading, and pretend nothing ever happened! The three monkeys, you know - it comes from the living organism's environment.
All behaviour, all life, that finds expression in behaviour, is always, and no matter if we talk a single cell, or a highly complicated organism such as man, a reaction to this life's environment.
What then about findings, that show for instance "schizophrenics" to, sometimes, deviate genetically from "normal" people? The thing is, when a secondary signal doesn't find a protein inside the organism, that matches the situation, i.e. that would create behaviour appropriate in the given situation (or: behaviour, that would be an appropriate and functioning response to the initial, primary signal), and if now the situation is so complicated (as for example a double bind is), that the signal doesn't find an appropriate blueprint in the genes, either, that could provide the basis for the production of an appropriate protein, the blueprint, the genes, can be varied. Mutations are possible. But in contrast to today's common belief, mutations aren't random, they are adaptive. And they're not inborn, other than when they're a response to signals from the environment, the living organism found itself in before birth.
Thus the environment shapes the genes of the in it living organism. It is not the genes, that, because of some random mutation, produce, seen in relation to the environment, irrational, inappropriate, dysfunctional behaviour. And, of course, the varied blueprint, the mutated gene, can be varied "back to normal" whenever the environment changes and renders the variation superfluous.
Sorry, Mom and Dad, but we're back at "the schizophrenogenic mother" & Co., yes. Actually, we're at a point, where no kind of "inappropriate", "sick", dysfunctional behaviour can be blamed on anyone's genes, that is on anyone's individually inborn charcteristics, anymore. On a biological level, life is proteins, not genes. Genes are nothing but a plan. The house is built by signals and of proteins, and which house is built depends on the ground, the environment. Not on predetermined plans. Every organism carries the plans for all imaginable houses inside itself, the possibility to change plans included. Thus, everything is possible. Which in the end becomes manifested is a question of what signals the environment sends - and of how the individual perceives its environment. Which is dependent on the environment that to start with has formed the individual's perception of its environment.
Brought to the level of human behaviour, it is perception (of our environment) that controls behaviour, not biology. While the way, we perceive our environment ("belief" in Bruce Lipton's words), in itself is acquired, is a reaction to environmental signals. Here treatment options like therapy, meditation, etc. enter the picture. A belief can be changed. Everything becomes possible. Provided that the individual becomes aware of its beliefs.
Bruce Lipton's findings correspond perfectly with what many of us, who haven't bought into the biological model - and both those who've had the experience of extreme states of mind themselves, and professionals as Laing and Mosher - have experienced: change the environment (for example by changing diet and exercise habits, or by moving faaar away from home*...), and you'll change the behaviour. And they correspond just as perfectly with the findings of neuroscience in the field of neuroplasticity.
Nevertheless, this also has a political dimension (discrimination, eugenics), and I fear, no matter how hard the scientific evidence, everything will be done to suppress findings like Bruce Lipton's. Bruce Lipton has written a book about his findings, The Biology of Belief, which I suppose to be a somewhat more rewarding and interesting read than, just as an example, Jill Bolte Taylor's My Stroke of Insight, or Kay Redfield Jamison's An Unquiet Mind (find the hurrays yourself, it's not an impossible task). The Biology of Belief was published in 2005, the videos at YouTube were posted in November 2007, and this is the first time, I've ever heard of it (which certainly isn't due to me not following what's going on).
Thank you, Gianna, for posting this!!!
BTW: NAMI recently reacted to the new findings about mutated chromosomes in relation to so-called "schizophrenia", I wrote about here and here. NAMI's report is, astonishingly though rightly, not half as enthusiastic as Thomas Werge's statements in the Danish media.
To all the Jill Bolte Taylors out there: you're definitely looking in the wrong place, folks. To all you therapists out there, advocating the biological, genetical version of the Stress-Vulnerability-Model: stop disempowering and patronizing people with fairy stories about genes, that are nothing but junk-science! And to everyone, who's out there, leaning comfortably back on disability, and in front of your TV, all day long, blaming your genes for your allegedly unchangeable and uncontrollable suffering (I know, now I'm controversial again): Belief controls behaviour, not biology. Take responsibility! If not for yourself, so at least for others. By stopping to diffuse junk-science's untruths about genes and biology, and by stopping to try to silence biopsychiatry's (junk-science's) critics.
_______________
* Now, no one should think, it's enough just to pull up stakes and move to Timbuktu. That's something I've tried numerous times, without any lasting success. The problem remains the same. Only to pull up outside-stakes is never enough. It's also always the inner ones, the "belief", that has to be pulled up. - Although, it helps to move to Timbuktu. Unless that's where your "loved ones" actually do live...
Monday, 4 August 2008
Here's to my therapist - More on "schizophrenia" and the myth about a sick society
So, here it is, eventually. The translation of some maybe a bit controversial thoughts about so-called "schizophrenia" and genes - or mutated chromosomes. It took some time, because of my recent, rather unpleasant encounter with militant pro-psychiatry, and I don't guarantee for the quality of the translation. I'm tired, and don't feel up to doing any editing tonight.
Some esoteric élitist, sectarian, or just megalomanic thoughts about "schizophrenia" as a condition with a genetic predisposition.
"It can't be ruled out for genes to enter into it", my therapist said at my last session a good seven months ago. At that time I was just about to, once again, get rather angry, because I felt discriminated and, well, indeed threatened by this remark, that labelled me genetically defective. Defective. I chose to swallow my anger, then. I was, anyway, on my way out of the door, for the last time, so what.
In the meantime, I've thought a lot about a possible connection between "psychosis", genes, and politics. Here are some of my thoughts, in reference to Thomas Werge's and the Establishment's delight about maybe to have found a biological, genetic cause for "schizophrenia".
If it ever should prove correct, that for instance some certain mutated chromosomes increase the risk to develop "schizophrenia" (and I will believe it the moment I hear people like Grace Jackson or Peter Breggin approve of it, not before), it still is no proof of "schizophrenia" to be an illness, that needs to be "treated", that needs to be knocked down as effectively as possible, and be "kept in check" by all means, as the Establishment usually puts it, through suppressing the experience of "symptoms", and otherwise through silencing and zombifying "the schizophrenic" with brain damaging neurotoxins, euphemistically called "anti-psychotics". It is far from proof of that these mutations ought to be seen as a defect in the persons genes.
As one of the societies, the modern western world fancies to call "primitive", the Maori for instance regard "mental illness", that is existential crises, as a sign of something not functioning at its optimum in society (cf. "schizophrenia" being a reaction to a sick society), and that thus ought to be changed.
These "primitive" societies do not see "schizophrenia", "psychosis" in general, as an illness, but as a gift, that nevertheless needs that the gifted individual learns to handle and make constructive use of. "Treatment" thus consists of, partly, teaching the individual skills to handle and make constructive use of his gift, and partly of acknowledging the "symptoms", the reactions to society, without exception as unconditionally meaningful. Especially this second part of the "treatment" distinguishes the Maori's approach to "psychosis" from the modern western culture's approach, that only and at the most communicates so-called "coping strategies", preferably through CBT, that aren't meant to do anything but to re-adjust the individual as far as possible to an unchanged sick and destructive society. The kind of CBT, that generally is practised in a psychiatric context, is designed to change, adjust, discipline the individual in a way that lets society escape any change on its side.
In her blog entry "Speaking of Monkeys" Patricia Lefave writes about seeing the "gorilla". Instead of "gorilla", one could just as well put "society's destructive forces and behavior patterns". Like warfare, pollution and social injustice, like the witch hunt on differently thinking and thus "disturbing" people ("the mentally ill", "drug addicts", "the criminals"), but also discriminating and humiliating communication patterns in micro-societies such as families (cf. Bateson and Laing), that altogether are a result of modern western culture's egocentric (neo-liberalist) and thus insatiable hunt for more and more monetary profit, and of the profiling neurosis of the ego, its insatiable need for more and more fame and power, that formed the basis for this egocentric culture's rise and continued existence.
Even if there should be biological, genetic causes for some people to react "psychotic" to dysfunctional aspects of society, it would be far from being a carte blanche for the Establishment to discriminate and fight these people, as it is done today in our modern western society - and as it has been done so many times before, also before the beginnings of psychiatry about 250 years ago. For example in shape of the Inquisition.
People who react as sensitive to society as to become "psychotic" confronted with a sufficient amount of destructiveness and dysfunction, have an enormous potential (maybe even a genetically greater potential than "normal" people...) to contribute to a positive and constructive transformation and development in society, that could make society more, well, humane to live in for everyone, both on a psychological, sociological and ecological level. Alternatives like Soteria have shown, that non-medical, non-psychiatric treatment strengthens and develops this potential, while psychiatric, medical treatment suppresses and, long term, destroys it. One of several reasons why the Establishment, and not only the psychiatric one but also the political one, don't appreciate alternatives like Soteria. One of several reasons why the Establishment prefers to pay for countless people on "medicine"-created disability, instead of giving society's dissidents a language and through that a voice in society.
Seen from this angle, only a really sick society will seek to label these people as ill (so that society itself won't seem ill), and will clamp down on these people with the devastating force the modern western society clamps down on them today, with the help of psychiatry. And with the only goal to secure the undisturbed continued existence of its own devastating way of "functioning".
A quite common "symptom" of "psychosis" is the "delusion" of being chosen to save humanity. Another one is that of being persecuted - by the proponents of a destructively functioning society, symbolized for example by the CIA, and in some cases also symbolized by the mental health system. Are these "insane" and thus worth- and meaningless "delusions"? Or does there maybe lie a fundamental truth in these ideas?
At the risk of sounding slightly esoterically élitist, sectarian, or simply megalomanic and paranoid (depending on whose eyes are looking at it), I have to admit that I more and more tend to believe in those who say, the future is ours - unless the devastating modern westernness reaches to arrange for humanity as a whole, and thus also for those of us who maybe have some mutated chromosomes that make them see "gorillas", not to have any future. For example with the help of "preventive treatment for those individuals who are at a high risk of developing the illness". That is, not only by putting those people out of action who already do protest and send alarm signals through their reactions to society, but even everybody who maybe could risk to do so in future.
Some esoteric élitist, sectarian, or just megalomanic thoughts about "schizophrenia" as a condition with a genetic predisposition.
"It can't be ruled out for genes to enter into it", my therapist said at my last session a good seven months ago. At that time I was just about to, once again, get rather angry, because I felt discriminated and, well, indeed threatened by this remark, that labelled me genetically defective. Defective. I chose to swallow my anger, then. I was, anyway, on my way out of the door, for the last time, so what.
In the meantime, I've thought a lot about a possible connection between "psychosis", genes, and politics. Here are some of my thoughts, in reference to Thomas Werge's and the Establishment's delight about maybe to have found a biological, genetic cause for "schizophrenia".
If it ever should prove correct, that for instance some certain mutated chromosomes increase the risk to develop "schizophrenia" (and I will believe it the moment I hear people like Grace Jackson or Peter Breggin approve of it, not before), it still is no proof of "schizophrenia" to be an illness, that needs to be "treated", that needs to be knocked down as effectively as possible, and be "kept in check" by all means, as the Establishment usually puts it, through suppressing the experience of "symptoms", and otherwise through silencing and zombifying "the schizophrenic" with brain damaging neurotoxins, euphemistically called "anti-psychotics". It is far from proof of that these mutations ought to be seen as a defect in the persons genes.
As one of the societies, the modern western world fancies to call "primitive", the Maori for instance regard "mental illness", that is existential crises, as a sign of something not functioning at its optimum in society (cf. "schizophrenia" being a reaction to a sick society), and that thus ought to be changed.
These "primitive" societies do not see "schizophrenia", "psychosis" in general, as an illness, but as a gift, that nevertheless needs that the gifted individual learns to handle and make constructive use of. "Treatment" thus consists of, partly, teaching the individual skills to handle and make constructive use of his gift, and partly of acknowledging the "symptoms", the reactions to society, without exception as unconditionally meaningful. Especially this second part of the "treatment" distinguishes the Maori's approach to "psychosis" from the modern western culture's approach, that only and at the most communicates so-called "coping strategies", preferably through CBT, that aren't meant to do anything but to re-adjust the individual as far as possible to an unchanged sick and destructive society. The kind of CBT, that generally is practised in a psychiatric context, is designed to change, adjust, discipline the individual in a way that lets society escape any change on its side.
In her blog entry "Speaking of Monkeys" Patricia Lefave writes about seeing the "gorilla". Instead of "gorilla", one could just as well put "society's destructive forces and behavior patterns". Like warfare, pollution and social injustice, like the witch hunt on differently thinking and thus "disturbing" people ("the mentally ill", "drug addicts", "the criminals"), but also discriminating and humiliating communication patterns in micro-societies such as families (cf. Bateson and Laing), that altogether are a result of modern western culture's egocentric (neo-liberalist) and thus insatiable hunt for more and more monetary profit, and of the profiling neurosis of the ego, its insatiable need for more and more fame and power, that formed the basis for this egocentric culture's rise and continued existence.
Even if there should be biological, genetic causes for some people to react "psychotic" to dysfunctional aspects of society, it would be far from being a carte blanche for the Establishment to discriminate and fight these people, as it is done today in our modern western society - and as it has been done so many times before, also before the beginnings of psychiatry about 250 years ago. For example in shape of the Inquisition.
People who react as sensitive to society as to become "psychotic" confronted with a sufficient amount of destructiveness and dysfunction, have an enormous potential (maybe even a genetically greater potential than "normal" people...) to contribute to a positive and constructive transformation and development in society, that could make society more, well, humane to live in for everyone, both on a psychological, sociological and ecological level. Alternatives like Soteria have shown, that non-medical, non-psychiatric treatment strengthens and develops this potential, while psychiatric, medical treatment suppresses and, long term, destroys it. One of several reasons why the Establishment, and not only the psychiatric one but also the political one, don't appreciate alternatives like Soteria. One of several reasons why the Establishment prefers to pay for countless people on "medicine"-created disability, instead of giving society's dissidents a language and through that a voice in society.
Seen from this angle, only a really sick society will seek to label these people as ill (so that society itself won't seem ill), and will clamp down on these people with the devastating force the modern western society clamps down on them today, with the help of psychiatry. And with the only goal to secure the undisturbed continued existence of its own devastating way of "functioning".
A quite common "symptom" of "psychosis" is the "delusion" of being chosen to save humanity. Another one is that of being persecuted - by the proponents of a destructively functioning society, symbolized for example by the CIA, and in some cases also symbolized by the mental health system. Are these "insane" and thus worth- and meaningless "delusions"? Or does there maybe lie a fundamental truth in these ideas?
At the risk of sounding slightly esoterically élitist, sectarian, or simply megalomanic and paranoid (depending on whose eyes are looking at it), I have to admit that I more and more tend to believe in those who say, the future is ours - unless the devastating modern westernness reaches to arrange for humanity as a whole, and thus also for those of us who maybe have some mutated chromosomes that make them see "gorillas", not to have any future. For example with the help of "preventive treatment for those individuals who are at a high risk of developing the illness". That is, not only by putting those people out of action who already do protest and send alarm signals through their reactions to society, but even everybody who maybe could risk to do so in future.
Thursday, 31 July 2008
"Schizophrenia" - the end of the myths about a sick society?
Groundbreaking news: Once again, science is just about to have found the cause of "schizophrenia". Yesterday, July 30th 2008, the Danish news media tv2 nyhederne could tell that a European group of scientists had found a mutation in certain chromosomes to be very likely to increase the risk for an individual with these mutations to develop "schizophrenia".
The article "Tættere på skizofreniens årsag" (Closer to the causation of schizophrenia) quotes the Danish psychiatrist and researcher Thomas Werge:
"Schizophrenia has been surrounded by many myths, for instance that it was a reaction to a sick society. For 20 - 30 years now we've known, that schizophrenia with great probability is conditioned by genes. But the myths stayed alive. Thus it is very gratifying, that we now finally have documented concrete changes in our gene-pool, that imply a very strong risk for an individual to develop schizophrenia." (my italics)
And why would this be gratifying? Of course, because there's nothing more disastrous for a society, that both regards itself to be infallible, and also wishes to be regarded from the outside as being the best of all imaginable societies, than that the infallibility becomes questioned. For instance by some of the members of this society reacting with "schizophrenia" to the alleged infallibility.
The article further states, that if the new findings prove to hold, this could create a basis for easier diagnosis, better "treatment" and even "preventive treatment for those, who are at high risk to develop the illness".
"Preventive treatment"? I have a hunch, that we're here talking about taking one more step towards a "brave new world".
Yah, we've heard and read it many times before, throughout the past 20 - 30 years, that, hurray! now science has found something. Last time it was about "schizophrenic" mice, just as an example. And, by the way, what happened to those??... Last in the article, Thomas Werge thus hurries to backtrack: "Now we know, that some concrete mutations imply an increased risk for schizophrenia, but this isn't to say, that it can explain all cases of schizophrenia, because it doesn't."
I feel like asking: Well, what of it? Has science found the cause, or hasn't it?
But there's another, quite different aspect to the matter, I will have a closer look at in my next post.
The article "Tættere på skizofreniens årsag" (Closer to the causation of schizophrenia) quotes the Danish psychiatrist and researcher Thomas Werge:
"Schizophrenia has been surrounded by many myths, for instance that it was a reaction to a sick society. For 20 - 30 years now we've known, that schizophrenia with great probability is conditioned by genes. But the myths stayed alive. Thus it is very gratifying, that we now finally have documented concrete changes in our gene-pool, that imply a very strong risk for an individual to develop schizophrenia." (my italics)
And why would this be gratifying? Of course, because there's nothing more disastrous for a society, that both regards itself to be infallible, and also wishes to be regarded from the outside as being the best of all imaginable societies, than that the infallibility becomes questioned. For instance by some of the members of this society reacting with "schizophrenia" to the alleged infallibility.
The article further states, that if the new findings prove to hold, this could create a basis for easier diagnosis, better "treatment" and even "preventive treatment for those, who are at high risk to develop the illness".
"Preventive treatment"? I have a hunch, that we're here talking about taking one more step towards a "brave new world".
Yah, we've heard and read it many times before, throughout the past 20 - 30 years, that, hurray! now science has found something. Last time it was about "schizophrenic" mice, just as an example. And, by the way, what happened to those??... Last in the article, Thomas Werge thus hurries to backtrack: "Now we know, that some concrete mutations imply an increased risk for schizophrenia, but this isn't to say, that it can explain all cases of schizophrenia, because it doesn't."
I feel like asking: Well, what of it? Has science found the cause, or hasn't it?
But there's another, quite different aspect to the matter, I will have a closer look at in my next post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
