Skip to main content

mental health mondays :: schizopanacea?

last week, while i was stuffing my face with pierogi [monday night has seemingly become pierogi night at our house] and watching electoral returns, i had not one but several people call my attention to one of the 'trending' pieces of news on facebook: major new research had been published that pointed to a new theory as to the cause of schizophrenia.

clearly, that's pretty exciting, because schizophrenia is like the shit cadillac of mental disorders. it's the one most likely to land you in a hospital or in prison. it's the one most likely to wreak havoc with your life. and it's the one that's hardest to treat, because all we've learned about it over decades of studying is that we know nothing about it. in fact, it wasn't so long ago that we posted a piece here on mental health mondays that looked at numerous possible explanations for what schizophrenia is and how it develops. what emerged in the last ten days is just one more of those theories, which is not to deride it, but to state the truth: being new might be exciting, but that doesn't guarantee that it's a breakthrough. determining that takes time.

you can read the research for yourself right here, in the magazine in which it was originally published. since it's in a scientific journal, much of the writing is technical, but it boils down to the fact that our own brains may be unwittingly responsible for making us schizophrenic. one of the many, many hobbies that your brain has is gardening. it prunes itself of synapses that it isn't using so that everything stays nice and orderly. as we pass from adolescence into adulthood, it engages in quite a substantial trim and the research that was just released indicates that it may end up eradicating certain synapses that it needs to protect itself from malfunctioning. afterwards, things get unbalanced and signalling starts to go awry, which we experience as the positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia.

in its favour, this new theory has a number of positives:


  • it's scientific. that may sound ridiculously obvious, but you'd be surprised how many theories about disease we continue to entertain with no scientific background.
  • it's huge. there were 64,000 people from 22 countries involved in this study, half of whom were schizophrenic. the chances of the findings being anomalous are minimal. 
  • part of it is well-established. we've known for years that schizophrenics have a reduced number of synapses in the brain, but the link between this observation and the condition was unclear. 
  • the "pruning" of synapses does roughly coordinate with the most common age for the onset of schizophrenia, implying a possible causal link [but not proving it]
  • the pruning function appears to be unique to humans, which might explain why we're the only animals who develop schizophrenia


the bad news is that now we have to do more research. and most of that research won't be in order to build on what's just been released, but to repeat it. that's because the single thing that separates good from bad science is that, when you use the same conditions, you can produce the same results. so even if this science is golden, it will probably be many years before we find a drug that will address the concern. until that time, we're likely stuck with more or less what we have now: drugs that address the symptoms but not the disease. [which means technically that we treat schizophrenia in the exact same manner that we treat a head cold.]

i feel like i'm the bearer of bad tidings here, but i'd prefer to be thought of as the great manager of expectations. this research is a big deal, but it's principally important to the work of other researchers, at least for the time being. if we want to see results that stem from this work, we need to make sure that governments and private corporations are funding further research along these lines. that's the tricky bit. 

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …