Comments by tusu

Showing 30 of 30 comments.

  • This article follows the old saying, ‘When you’re going to lie, and you want people to believe you, make the lie a great big lie”. The author has done a great job of that.

    I don’t even have the endurance to catalogue all the lies in this article. But lie #1 is that there has never been a valid twin study done(or one that shows schizophrenia isn’t genetic). It’s a bold lie, but it’s still a lie.

    Sad, very sad that people still believe such tripe as well as still swallowing the ‘kitchen sink’ causal theory of schizophrenia. That same lie exists in autism crowds, but it does just as much damage there. Authors of this tripe don’t care who they hurt. It’s all about money, and getting ‘disciples’.

    But it confirms another old saying, “If you repeat something often enough, people will eventually believe you”.
    Forget proof. If you just say it over and over, you’ll eventually develop an army of blind disciples. Who cares about the people with schizophrenia and their families, who are harmed by it? Other people clean up that mess, and they are invisible, voiceless.

  • Psychotherapy would be a really cool alternative to medicines for psychosis, if it actually worked. The problem is it doesn’t work, except as an adjunct to medication, with major adaptations (that most psychotherapists have absolutely no knowledge of and make a right mess of) to accommodate the cognitive issues of psychotic disorders.

    Been to too many funerals of people who took the psychotherapy option. Everybody and his brother wants to get on that particular scam as it appears to be so lucrative. It’s great – except for the psychotic person. As usual, the psychotic person suffers for the sake of other peoples’ bizarre agendas.

    As for NMDA research, and why don’t we use NMDA medicines, it’s because the basic research has been incredibly disappointing. The author of the article doesn’t read the NMDA research with a balanced, disciplined approach so she has come completely to the wrong conclusion.

    ‘Anti-dopamine’ (sic, that’s a really severe error in conception of what these drugs do), medications need not be blockers. Partial agonists are far, far better as far as side effect profile. And even dopamine blockers in low doses are a useful option. Most side effects are dose related, but most doctors are already prescribing at a fraction of the doses used years ago.

    One of the things that happens in psychotic disorders is that a ‘branch’ grows between the excitatory and inhibitory nerve pathways to individual cells. Nerve cells have two ‘lines’ – excitatory and inhibitory. This is due to the illness itself, not medication.

    What happens due to the disease is that a branch forms between the two lines to the cell. When the cell is to be inhibited (rested) it is still also being excited. When it is being excited, it is also being inhibited.

    One of the most useful things that the ‘mean ole’ antipsychotic dopamine based action does, is cause those abnormal connections between excitatory and inhibitory lines, to go back to their original state – in other words, those abnormal connections fade out. This is one of the main things that helps to improve symptoms.

    Study, read, educate yourself, author. And stop promulgating such an incredibly one-sided and dangerous ‘treatment’.

    No, I am not a doctor. I am a nobody, but I have dealt with the homeless mentally ill for many decades, and I can read. A lot. I pay attention; you do not. I do feel sorry for you, but not enough sorry to ignore the harm you do to people i love.

  • You’re lacking some information, that’s all.

    89% or so of people with schizophrenia have no relative that they know of, who had schizophrenia. Yes, some people have schizophrenia that appears to ‘run in the family’.

    That type of schizophrenia accounts for a ‘high rate’ of schizophrenia in a few small populations – usually in small communities – one in S. Carolina, one in Ireland.

    That is because much of the genetics of schizophrenia is not inherited. But is still genetic. I know that’s hard to understand, but please bear with me.

    In other words, most people’s schizophrenia is from genetic mutations that occur in them, but not in their parents.

    Genes have an actual ‘code’ for how to make chemicals the body needs. These chemicals are mostly enzymes or proteins. They affect how the brain develops in the earliest moments of life. Some of them are more directly related to schizophrenia – they affect how neurotransmitters work and how nerve cells connect to each other.

    Some of the mutations are more basic, though, they affect how nerve cells migrate to their position in the brain in early moments of life, how they grow more basically.

    In general, all people have the same genes.

    It’s the code within the gene, that gets altered. In other words, we all have the same ‘words’ (genes) but in some, the ‘spelling’ is out of order. For example, instead of spelling out, ‘Make This Enzyme with two carbon atoms’ the gene says ‘Make this enzyme with XXo carbon atoms’ and the enzyme does not get made correctly. Our genes actually ALSO have lots of ways to CORRECT these errors. But some get through and wind up affecting how the brain, or body, develops.

    ALL people have mutations. They are part of the diversity of life. They are natural. Most of the time, the mutations do – absolutely nothing. But occasionally, they make a difference, in how the brain grows.

    The bottom line is this. The difference between the person with schizophrenia, and anyone else, is very, very small. The person with schizophrenia is not ‘deficient’ or ‘defective’. We’re talking about tiny differences, here.

    People with schizophrenia aren’t ‘bad’, they aren’t ‘mean’ and they aren’t ‘lazy’. They aren’t weak, they aren’t dumb, and they aren’t ‘wrong’ when they report to others what they see or hear. To be quite frank, there really isn’t anything wrong with the ‘inner being’ of the person with schizophrenia at all. They are not ‘flawed people’.

    I have never met a person with schizophrenia who lacked in character or personality or value, for example.

    The illness affects the brain, and so, perception – senses – what one hears, sees and feels.

    That’s it. That’s the bottom line. Treatment is not for the benefit of others – it’s to make it easier to deal with the changes to perception.

    If you have been diagnosed with schizophrenia or a related disorder, don’t think of your diagnosis as a disaster or anything to be ashamed of or get defensive about. It doesn’t mean you are ‘inferior’ or ‘defective’ – just ignore anyone who suggests otherwise. Treatment works. Success is a matter of finding the right treatment, the right doctor, and educating those around you.

  • Native Americans, tribal people, people in the third world – all recognize the concept of psychosis and severe mental illness as separate from any cultural aspect.

    Evidently the author did not hear the story of the psychiatrist who went to a tribal village in a very isolated part of Africa and was told there was a mentally ill woman there.

    He jokingly said, ‘How do you know she is mentally ill, when you yourselves all hear voices?’

    The head man of the village looked at him with pity, and explained in as simple words as he could, ‘She hears voices at the wrong times’.

    And in fact the woman was severely psychotic.

    ‘Visionariness’ in traditional cultures is NOTHING like it is painted in the West by so many authors, or by your article. It is a cultural, educated experience that is highly proscribed and is taught meticulously over many years, just like any other skill from arrow making to tanning hides, and is absolutely nothing like the psychotic experience of the severely mentally ill.

    Psychosis is recognized and is a matter of concern in all traditional, third world and tribal cultures.

    Your article is just one more silly addition to the misconceptions so many people promulgate in the West, about traditional cultures and mental illness.

  • The agenda is very clear: to prevent people with schizophrenia from getting the help they need; to make SURE they do not get any effective help. In other words, to exterminate them. AND to convince them this disease is due to some trauma or inner flaw of theirs, which is absurd.

    You weren’t there when my friend went over to his father’s house to kill him, after reading claptrap that you publish against treatment. You’re not there when it comes to cleaning up the mess or mourning the dead. You’re conveniently busy at that time, the whole lot of you.

  • What does it mean to have schizophrenia? I don’t understand the question. A person can have some symptoms of schizophrenia, but not enough to qualify for diagnosis. The diagnosis requires not only several core symptoms be present, but also, some negative symptoms. Not negative in the sense of bad, but in the sense of things taken away or subtracted – so the person has lethargy, lack of goal behavior…sometimes this is so severe people don’t eat or move. I have seen several people who nearly starved to death, because they simply did not eat. That is severe negative symptoms. They are considered the most disabling, and at times the most deadly symptoms of schizophrenia.

  • That’s a really irrational response, one that sounds clever, but means nothing.

    Schizophrenia has a very restrictive diagnostic criteria, that much is very clear. It is ‘difficult’ to get diagnosed with it, in the sense that some people are always going to just barely miss falling within the criteria. With many people, they got diagnosed with Psychosis NOS (not otherwise specified), chiefly because they had most of the symptoms of schizophrenia, but not all. This is inevitable with a disorder that is caused by many genes. Some people have only a few symptoms of schizophrenia, some have more

  • They do nothing to evaluate the information to see if it is legitimate or makes sense before they post it. If it supports their agenda, they print it, without a single thought as to whether it makes any sense or not or has any backing.

    THAT is wrong.

    They ALSO publish everything they publish, without ANY effort to represent other opinions on the subject.

    THAT is also wrong.

    There is absolutely zero critical thinking involved. It’s all based on emotion and appealing to peoples’ impulses.

  • In fact that is the case. However, a poor upbringing and trauma affect individuals with schizophrenia just as they affect everyone else. However such things have not been proven to cause schizophrenia, which is present from birth. Most of the people I have cared for with schizophrenia, had prodrome(mild symptoms) or very obvious symptoms from birth or very early on in life, including hallucinations, decades before obvious symptoms or diagnosis.

  • And in fact, I just found a Finnish study from 2007, that states they found that visual impairment(near or far vision), is actually rather common among people diagnosed with schizophrenia. So visual issues are hardly spared, and as I stated before, I took care of several individuals who were blind from birth who had schizophrenia – very clearly and obviously. No grey area. Further, since the schizophrenia diagnosis requires numerous symptoms to be present and is a fairly narrow diagnostic category, many individuals fall just outside criteria, and in past, were diagnosed with ‘Psychosis NOS’, when for all practical purposes they had schizophrenia – usually the difference being in the lack of ‘negative’ symptoms (not negative in the usual sense, but rather, lethargy, indifference).

  • NB:
    There are other studies on this matter –
    The conclusion that there are no C/E blind people with schizophrenia is based on a small number of studies that involved relatively small samples. Clearly, this argument would be strengthened by larger, population-based studies. This is because, as a simple calculation demonstrates, a case of congenital blindness and schizophrenia would be extremely rare even if there was no protective effect of blindness: if schizophrenia occurs at a rate of 0.72% in the population (McGrath et al., 2008) and congenital blindness occurs at an estimated rate of 0.03% in people born in the 1970s and 1980s (based on Robinson et al., 1987), then the joint probability of a person having both conditions, if the two are independent, would be 0.02% or 2 out of every 10,000.

  • In my opinion, the article of autism being about a ‘sensitivity’ is completely off the mark. And I also feel that your view of genetics, as leading only to harm, is wrong.

    Sorry. I don’t agree with you on either point. But, as I stated earlier, yours is the party line at MIA. No other ideas withstand the onslaught for long here.

    For me, genetics has formed a powerful bridge to understanding what is really going on in these disorders, and guided me toward more effective communication, and most of all understanding. Out of understanding comes respect, and effective help.

  • Printing only one side of basically everything about psychiatry and mental illness, the worst offending subject being about schizophrenia, and yes, that is deliberate deception.

    Basically everything printed on MIA follows the party line and it appears anyone who disagrees gets air time only to be poo poo-ed. Every single study that backs a genetic model is only mentioned in passing to say it’s ‘all wrong’. Psychiatry is just bad. Never helps anyone, is bad, bad, bad. Yadda yadda yadda. No telling how many people this harms, but MIA is amazingly absent when it comes to cleaning the blood off the ceiling and comforting the family of the deceased.

    Not giving any other information a fair airing is deception. Deception is lying.

  • The other trouble with the study, of course, is that picture, ‘Spot the Difference’ is of a big old blurry MRI, and it would never show the brain abnormalities in the milder cases of autism. I’m not at all sure if you could even see the larger abnormalities in severe autism. In other words, it’s the neurological equivalent of ‘Bigfoot lives!’, with a blurry picture of a guy in a gorilla suit.

  • I don’t think the entire 1500 people were actually evaluated, I think that was a pool or something or other. But I’m still reading the study. and the summary I can get for free, isn’t very informative.

    Suffice to say, just being on pubmed, doesn’t really mean a study is peer reviewed, or valuable. The list given by the other poster, if that is really what they were looking for in that study, it wouldn’t be of much value to know that a list of things no one ever thought were universal to autism, aren’t found in their study. That’s about 30 year old news.

  • Mistake in my 2nd to last sentence – it should read –

    This article only says a bunch of abnormalities no one ever agreed were typical of autism, are NOT typical of autism.

    Autism is genetic. There is no doubt, but there wasn’t really any real question, and hasn’t been for a very long time.

    If there really were any justice in the world, all the ‘autism kitchen sinkers’ and nostrum peddlers would have gone completely out of business, a long, long time ago. Like most of them, the authors of ‘The Myth of Autism’ are peddlers. They have something to sell.

    What works for autism is not such silly nostrums and chelations and all that stuff, but rather, slow, patient teaching, based on the knowledge of what is going on in the brain, and that means, being able to understand, the path from gene, to protein, to cellular process, to cognition, to behavior.

  • I replied quite a bit. What else do I have to reply to, in order to meet your measure?

    No, actually, I don’t think there is any real dialogue here. Unless the dialogue is between people who agree with the party line.

    Do I need to list links to the thousands of studies that have gone on for many decades, that are the sum accumulation of genetic research on autism?

    There was just a super study that came out a few weeks ago. Hundreds of genes. You do need to have some understanding of how genes work to understand the research, but only on a Freshman College level. Nothing advanced.

    Looking on pubmed, of recent interest:

    Study 25284784 is on mutations. Numerous studies reaching the same conclusion, this one being typical. These mutations occur in the individual, and are not inherited from the parent.

    They usually occur on the genetic material from the father, but again, the mutations occur in the offspring, not the father, and are not inherited.

    Several study designs revealed concerns with comparing mutations in non-autistic to autistic people. And when this was done, yes, actually, there were ‘typical’ types of mutations that occurred only in the autistic people. So while one study found 279 different de novo mutations, the mutations were STILL clustering on specific genes. Study 22495309 called this a ”highly interconnected protein network”. In other words, the mutations may be unique to one person, but they still involve specific areas of specific genes, and so, specific proteins, and specific developmental processes.

    The ‘gene genes’ that actually affected really basic functions(and may even cause the other mutations), were CHD8, DYRK1A, GRIN2B, TBR1, PTEN, and TBL1XR1-may.

  • It might be important to consider that developmental delay, schizophrenia, autism and unipolar depression have a common genetic basis. So it would not be all that remarkable, nor necessarily even suggest a causal relationship, between autism and antidepressants, if a woman took antidepressants and had an autistic child.

    For antidepressants to ’cause’ autism, it’s not good enough to point to a link or association study, because there are MANY possible reasons for an association.

    It would actually be necessary to demonstrate that mechanism in action. Conjecture is pointless and a waste of energy, but it is also harmful.

  • Well, I think there is such a thing as autism. I’ve been staring it in the face for 40 years, and I’m pretty sure it exists. And I also think it has existed for a very, very long time, after reading older books and finding autism there as well, whatever the older name might have been(‘feebleminded’ or whatever). In fact, Heller described autism nearly 40 years before Kanner did, and it goes back much longer than Heller.

    The authors like Kanner did make mistakes. Kanner made like there never were any symptoms of psychosis occurring along with it and that psychosis was at a very low rate in families of autistic people. And while Kanner’s definition of autism was unnecessarily restrictive, today it’s bounced the other way – for various complex social reasons. But yes, it exists. Most assuredly. Scary as hell that anyone would be insisting otherwise – truly frightening.

    I read his original numbers, and the rate of psychosis among the families of autistic children were – rather high, actually. Yes, many people have both autism and psychosis, and that makes perfect sense looking at which genes cause each.

  • I’m reading the study. But what you list there, as the ‘list of abnormalities’ that supposedly this study was looking into, are ALL things that were never considered by anyone I ever read(and I’ve been reading autism research and caring for individuals with autism for a good 40 years) to be ‘universally present’ in all cases of autism, or even, most of them. In fact much of the time the abnormalities are far more subtle than this…decidedly odd list. So for example, widespread areas of the brain, tiny clusters of nerve cells in the wrong layer of the brain…has to occur very, very early in brain growth (before birth).

    And in fact, each individual with autism may have a unique set of abnormalities, starting from the gene mutations in very basic genes affecting how cells and DNA behave, and then(perhaps even as an outcome of the more basic mutations) in genes of brain growth and development, and ending in how it affects behavior, but all on the same 100 or so genes, all with a similar cluster of effects and behavioral outcome.

    One person has autism due to fragile X (a kind of pre-mutation state non-deleterious fragile X gene pattern exists in the parent, that mutates in the child, and the outcome is autism, dementia, other disorders). In another it comes about due to mutation of a number of different genes, but affecting the same cellular/neurological processes…similar result.

    Recent research has found one common cluster of gene mutations in high iq autistic boys, and another common cluster of gene mutations in low iq autistic girls. Possibly, those genes are due to earlier mutations in genes that control cell and DNA behavior.

    The conclusion people attempt to make is that there are NO brain abnormalities in autism, which is absolutely untrue. This article only says that a bunch of abnormalities no one ever agreed were typical of autism, are typical of autism. How it’s being conflated – another matter entirely.

  • Well, the study would be wrong, then. And Neuroskeptic would be wrong for touting it.

    And yes, in fact, I have seen MRI reports for many of those I cared for with autism over the years. There ARE anatomical differences – profound ones in severe autism, mild and small ones in mild autism. One of the people I cared for was missing the entire Corpus Calossum of the brain, which is not only a profound anatomical difference, but a structural one. And yes, in mild autism, the changes are small – tiny clusters of brain cells in the wrong layer of the brain, and in severe autism, the changes are large – up to and including major brain anatomical differences.

    Likewise, the genetic abnormalities in mild autism are few and mild, and in more severe autism, the genetic abnormalities are more, and more severe in effect. And these genes can be DIRECTLY tied to exactly the structural and anatomical differences found in the brain.

    So, yeah, you blew it. You’re spreading lies. Not the first time.

    Not the report in this study is not the first lie Mad in America has backed, but yes, this report is nothing more than a bald-faced lie.

  • Agree with most points you brought up.

    I see the anti-treatment groups as promoting a death sentence for the severely mentally ill.

    There is no ‘dialogue’ with Mad In America. None. To even SUGGEST there is any dialogue anywhere NEAR Mad in America is ridiculous. It is all about one view, and that is NO treatment. And that is a death sentence for the severely mentally ill.

    All I can say is that while Mad in America’s approach may work for the ‘worried well’, it is the worst possible approach for the severely mentally ill.