"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.

Interesting comment on Jill Bolte Taylor's TED-talk

While almost everyone in the blogosphere seems to be more or less ecstatic about Jill Bolte Taylor's spell-binding eloquence, there actually are a few people out there, who don't go into raptures over it, and thus are able to do a truly interesting analysis of her TED-talk. One of them can be read here.

BTW: Spending some more time at Chauncey's blog - which I find quite fascinating reading, although, or maybe just because, it plays out on a slightly different (philosophical/existential) background than mine - I came across another noteworthy entry, developing further the rather problematic because oversimplifying procedure of "compumorphizing" human beings (or: being human), that our culture in general, and Jill Bolte Taylor not least, often uncritically, resort to employ in their attempt to explain the fundamental nature, the essence of being (human). Check it out!

"What part of No don't you understand?"

I just recently saw this phrase quoted again, this time in Judi Chamberlin's article "Confessions of a non-compliant patient" which I by the way found to be one of the most powerful and encouraging writings on the matter.

Although time spent on the investigation of the mental health system truly is some of the time when this question makes itself most extremely felt, there are other moments in life, that make one want to quote it.

Thus, the other day I received a, very politely and almost flatteringly worded (I guess, this is how it works...), request to review a website and some products in my blog. I turned down the request just as politely but firmly, since I a) "on principle and without exception don't do commercial reviews" (as I stated in my refusal) nor anything only remotely reminding, "since it would be doing the same as I accuse others of doing". I am a blogger without sponsor, and I intend to remain so, adamantly!

Well, and since I b) actually are snowed under with work as it is. While I prefer to choose the work, I become snowed under with, myself.

Now, my No wasn't taken for an answer. A follow-up mail today spammed my inbox, which, although this one, too, being very politely worded, almost made me forget my manners...

So, believe me, a No from me is a No! Anyone having a hard time getting it: look it up.