4 ms·

I'm glad someone knowledgable on the topic has written about this. When I saw the report, and then saw people I respect heralding it as a huge breakthrough, it

I'm glad someone knowledgable on the topic has written about this. When I saw the report, and then saw people I respect heralding it as a huge breakthrough, it seemed over-the-top. But I'm no scientist or medical expert, and I'm bored of emotion-driven debates about medical science between myself and other scientific laypeople, so I kept my thoughts - and the results of my own hunt for further details - to myself. But as the report says, evidence and details of genetic mechanisms in schizophrenia (and other mental and neurological disorders) are not new. Sure this discovery may add some substance to the understanding of the topic, but it's not revolutionary. The real revolution will be when science figures out exactly why and how some people with a given genetic predisposition for an illness will develop that illness, whilst others do not. As discussed in this article about the 2003 book The Gene Illusion [1], the 50% rate of identitical twin concordance for schizophrenia is widely cited as evidence that it is a genetically deterministic condition. But whether or not the figure is really 50% or something lower, that still leaves at least 50% room for non-genetic factors. We'll only start making real progress in curing these kinds of illnesses when we form a deep understanding of whatever is going on in that very large component that we already know is not purely genetic. http://human-nature.com/nibbs/03/joseph.html http://human-nature.com/nibbs/03/joseph.html

visualsearchsv 11y ago
""" We'll only start making real progress in curing these kinds of illnesses when we form a deep understanding of whatever is going on in that very large component that we already know is not purely genetic. """ You have zero clue regarding what you are talking about. Your comment is just meaningless combination of platitudes. Even if we find a target and develop a drug that treats 20% of the cases, it still counts as a real progress if not a revolution. Look at the other comment in this thread by Chris Patil. As you say in your "But I'm no scientist or medical expert", yes that's the reason why you find an obviously flawed blogpost appealing. Since the post was written/designed to make you feel better about your pessimism/skepticism. This trend of "Contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism" is a sophisticated version of click-baiting where bloggers/commenters displaying classic case of dunning kruger spread FUD about any new discovery/result. Commenters on Reddit/HN quickly lap up these articles/comments since it resonates with their sense of technological pessimism, often disguised as skepticism. As a result its now fashionable to criticize every new discovery/progress and get guaranteed pageviews/upvotes. It helps if its in form of a scary slideshow or contains assertions or scenarios that are not under question.
- tomhoward 11y ago
  As I said, I'm bored of emotion-driven debates about medical science, but it's an important topic that I care deeply about so I'll engage. Whilst I have no medical qualifications, my skin in the game is that I've experienced debilitating depression, anxiety and an apparent auto-immune fatigue illness for at least 15 years (but with evidence of the early stages of these conditions tracing well back into childhood), and I've witnessed people close to me succumb to other mental illnesses including schizophrenia and bipolar. I desperately want all these illnesses cured. In the absence of the medical profession's capacity to identify and treat my conditions, I've had to become "my own physician" and have spent much of the past 10 years researching the topic very deeply. As a result, I've been able to find a system that seems to be succeeding in reversing these conditions. I've also been doing whatever I can (within a very limited budget and access to diagnostic facilities) to gather data that might demonstrate physiological changes - e.g, inflammation markers, antibodies for known chronic infections linked to auto-immunity, hormone levels. My research and self-experimentation has given weight to the notion (which I derived from a number of medical researchers who have solid credentials but whom I suspect you'd find contemptible) that having a genetic predisposition for a chronic illness (which I seem to, given that other members of my family exhibit similar symptoms) doesn't necessarily condemn you to experiencing that illness, and that you can reverse or avoid the condition by altering your environment or your perception of your environment (I.e., epigenetics). This is why I find it relevant to point out the data (<= 50% identical twin concordance) that indicates that the genetic predisposition is just that - a predisposition, not a sentence. So when you say it would be major progress if this discovery led to the development of a drug that helped 20% of sufferers, I say sure, but wouldn't it be more revolutionary if we could understand precicely why these genetic predispositions express in some people and not in others, then use this knowledge to develop techniques to resolve or prevent the illness in 100% of people? I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts on that. For what it's worth I think I'm the bigger optimist here. I think we are in a position to be able to cure many of society's most burdensome illnesses by understanding and addressing their environmental triggers. I believe that because I'm doing it myself with good success, and I believe the same kind of technique would be beneficial for other auto-immune illnesses, of which - according to this very research - schizophrenia is one. Yes it needs a lot more validation and research, which is what I'm hoping to see, and am indeed doing what little I can to facilitate. As a side note, your comment is quite personally abusive, which is against the HN guidelines. The guidelines seek to promote civility and substantiveness above all else. This is a topic that is personally important to me and important to the world and is one I'm pleased to discuss at any opportunity with others who are knowledgeable and well-intentioned about advancing their understanding of it, and that can only happen when people are civil and respectful.
visualsearchsv 11y ago
""" We'll only start making real progress in curing these kinds of illnesses when we form a deep understanding of whatever is going on in that very large component that we already know is not purely genetic. """ You have zero clue regarding what you are talking about. Your comment is just meaningless combination of platitudes. Even if we find a target and develop a drug that treats 20% of the cases, it still counts as a real progress if not a revolution. Look at the other comment in this thread by Chris Patil. As you say in your "But I'm no scientist or medical expert", yes that's the reason why you find an obviously flawed blogpost appealing. Since the post was written/designed to make you feel better about your pessimism/skepticism. This trend of "Contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism" is a sophisticated version of click-baiting where bloggers/commenters displaying classic case of dunning kruger spread FUD about any new discovery/result. Commenters on Reddit/HN quickly lap up these articles/comments since it resonates with their sense of technological pessimism, often disguised as skepticism. As a result its now fashionable to criticize every new discovery/progress and get guaranteed pageviews/upvotes. It helps if its in form of a scary slideshow or contains assertions or scenarios that are not under question.

visualsearchsv 11y ago

""" We'll only start making real progress in curing these kinds of illnesses when we form a deep understanding of whatever is going on in that very large component that we already know is not purely genetic. """ You have zero clue regarding what you are talking about. Your comment is just meaningless combination of platitudes. Even if we find a target and develop a drug that treats 20% of the cases, it still counts as a real progress if not a revolution. Look at the other comment in this thread by Chris Patil. As you say in your "But I'm no scientist or medical expert", yes that's the reason why you find an obviously flawed blogpost appealing. Since the post was written/designed to make you feel better about your pessimism/skepticism. This trend of "Contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism" is a sophisticated version of click-baiting where bloggers/commenters displaying classic case of dunning kruger spread FUD about any new discovery/result. Commenters on Reddit/HN quickly lap up these articles/comments since it resonates with their sense of technological pessimism, often disguised as skepticism. As a result its now fashionable to criticize every new discovery/progress and get guaranteed pageviews/upvotes. It helps if its in form of a scary slideshow or contains assertions or scenarios that are not under question.

tomhoward 11y ago
As I said, I'm bored of emotion-driven debates about medical science, but it's an important topic that I care deeply about so I'll engage. Whilst I have no medical qualifications, my skin in the game is that I've experienced debilitating depression, anxiety and an apparent auto-immune fatigue illness for at least 15 years (but with evidence of the early stages of these conditions tracing well back into childhood), and I've witnessed people close to me succumb to other mental illnesses including schizophrenia and bipolar. I desperately want all these illnesses cured. In the absence of the medical profession's capacity to identify and treat my conditions, I've had to become "my own physician" and have spent much of the past 10 years researching the topic very deeply. As a result, I've been able to find a system that seems to be succeeding in reversing these conditions. I've also been doing whatever I can (within a very limited budget and access to diagnostic facilities) to gather data that might demonstrate physiological changes - e.g, inflammation markers, antibodies for known chronic infections linked to auto-immunity, hormone levels. My research and self-experimentation has given weight to the notion (which I derived from a number of medical researchers who have solid credentials but whom I suspect you'd find contemptible) that having a genetic predisposition for a chronic illness (which I seem to, given that other members of my family exhibit similar symptoms) doesn't necessarily condemn you to experiencing that illness, and that you can reverse or avoid the condition by altering your environment or your perception of your environment (I.e., epigenetics). This is why I find it relevant to point out the data (<= 50% identical twin concordance) that indicates that the genetic predisposition is just that - a predisposition, not a sentence. So when you say it would be major progress if this discovery led to the development of a drug that helped 20% of sufferers, I say sure, but wouldn't it be more revolutionary if we could understand precicely why these genetic predispositions express in some people and not in others, then use this knowledge to develop techniques to resolve or prevent the illness in 100% of people? I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts on that. For what it's worth I think I'm the bigger optimist here. I think we are in a position to be able to cure many of society's most burdensome illnesses by understanding and addressing their environmental triggers. I believe that because I'm doing it myself with good success, and I believe the same kind of technique would be beneficial for other auto-immune illnesses, of which - according to this very research - schizophrenia is one. Yes it needs a lot more validation and research, which is what I'm hoping to see, and am indeed doing what little I can to facilitate. As a side note, your comment is quite personally abusive, which is against the HN guidelines. The guidelines seek to promote civility and substantiveness above all else. This is a topic that is personally important to me and important to the world and is one I'm pleased to discuss at any opportunity with others who are knowledgeable and well-intentioned about advancing their understanding of it, and that can only happen when people are civil and respectful.

visualsearchsv 11y ago