From the Stump

I had hoped I wouldn't have to get too political on here - at least until the elections were over.

Unfortunately, the illustrious Republican VP nominee has forced me to invalidate that policy.

I give thee what may be the most ignorant rubbish that she has yet inflicted upon the news-watching American public:


The unfortunate irony here is that Palin doesn't seem to understand that fruit fly research has played and continues to play a vital role in our understanding of genetics, and has helped us in our understanding of many aspects of human health - including mental illness.

Then again, Palin doesn't believe in evolution, either, so I doubt she knows what a gene even does. "Ya know, I just don't see how those scientists in their white lab coats can tell us that those tiny little strings that only they can see in their little micrasohp thingamajiggers can tell us that those little things control what we DO, ya know? It don't affect Joe Six Pack, I can tell ya that!"

I hope against hope that she's continually called out on this to the point that neither she nor the public can deny her error. Then again, this is America, where the media are pussies and the public are drooling to lap it all up.

Diagnosing Mental Illnesses

I briefly mentioned the perils of diagnosing mental illnesses and conditions in my previous post, so I thought I would spend a little time with it today.

The first thing that I should probably explain is that psychiatry (the purely medical branch of psychology), and indeed all medicine, is an applied science. It is based on research and the scientific method, to be sure, but, since it deals mainly with solving cases on an individual basis, the methods it must employ are different. Psychiatry especially is a very young field, and was virtually non-existent before the 1960s. The brain is still a mysterious entity. While we know the effects of some medications, we do not necessarily know why these medications work, or if they will work at all or even have a negative effect on an individual.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc is, in logic and in general science, a fallacious argument (basically stating that "the effect points to the cause"). But in medicine, and especially in psychiatry, it can prove very useful, because the brain is so little understood and we do not even know for sure why psychiatric medications work the way they do.

I'll give an example - depression. It's probably the most-advertised and best-known mental illness, and certainly the most widespread. A person can walk into a doctor's office complaining of decreased energy, difficulty sleeping, and feeling "down", and, with some follow-up questions, a physician or psychiatrist may determine that the patient is, indeed, suffering from clinical depression.

Most of you have probably heard of "selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors" - or at least a couple of brands of them, such as Prozac or Zoloft. They work essentially by blocking certain receptors of neurotransmitters in the brain, and, after a few weeks, can help alleviate the symptoms - in some people.

The "some people" part is where the trouble is. There is no objective, clinical test that can determine the actual cause of depression in an individual. Sometimes it may be a completely different chemical. If the depression does not go away, or gets worse, the doctor may prescribe a different kind of medication, such as bupropion. (Neurologists aren't actually even sure what bupropion does, but it is the second most-prescribed antidepressant after the SSRI's. It's also popular among students as a stimulant, but that's another story.)

Even then, the medication may not work. Maybe the patient is resistant to medication. Or maybe he or she doesn't even have depression - maybe it's bipolar disorder, or seizures, or trauma, or something altogether different. This is where post hoc ergo propter hoc proves useful in psychiatry. Anti-psychotics, or anti-seizure medications, or intensive therapy, may prove most helpful; and sometimes it's only with the treatment that the psychiatrist can get a somewhat clearer view of the cause. But even then, it's not always clear.

To sum it up: Psychiatry ain't easy. To make a diagnosis, there may be a lot of trial and error involved. The field has made great strides in the past twenty, even ten years; and, while more and more treatment options are becoming available, sometimes the causes of mental illness remain shrouded in mystery.

New study offers quantitative measure of autism

The Yale Child Study Center released a study (abstract) on a number of autistic, developmentally delayed but otherwise normal, and developmentally normal 2-year-old children that utilized eye-tracking software to follow where their gazes fell on people speaking to them. What they found was that, while the normal and developmentally delayed nonautistic children focused on the eyes, the autistic children tended to watch their mouths; and what was more, the amount of attention spent away from the eyes tended to be a good predictor for the degree of social disability.

Steven Novella has suggested that this study could point the way towards a more reliable, objective means of predicting and diagnosing autism in young children. Means of detecting the social disorder are improving all the time, thanks in large part to increased awareness, but much of it still relies on the attentiveness of a parent, and, of course, the resources he or she has access to. The question of psychological diagnosis is historically fraught with peril, and disorders are often incredibly difficult to identify quantitatively - much relies on the judgement of the psychiatrist or therapist performing the diagnosis. The more objective ways we have of determining the neurological causes of behavior, the better our chances of correctly identifying it, and therefore handling it appropriately.

An Introduction to Skepticism (courtesy of Penn & Teller)

I'm presenting this 10-minute clip not because I'm trying to debunk the 9/11 conspiracy theories (though I definitely have something to say to those dungbrains), but because I want to introduce the kind of thought and analysis process that I'll be using in the next few days to (hopefully) discuss the current public interest in the supposed correlation between toddler vaccinations and autism. Pay particular attention to the first minute and a half or so, when Penn gives an excellent definition of what it is to be a "skeptic". We are not curmudgeons who do not want to believe in anything; rather, we are simply inquiring minds who actually like to have our perceptions changed about something - provided we are presented with the necessary evidence for it.

This video might warrant a small caveat that it contains some strong language, so you might want to cover the little ones' ears if you're worried about that sort of thing.


Since embedding has been disabled for the video, here's the link.

Welcome!

This blog is born out of one of those brain waves that comes to you at odd times - lying in bed at night, chopping vegetables for your dinner stew, what-have-you. This time, I had slipped outside for a cigarette, and was looking at the night sky thinking that I needed something with which I could steer my writing into a specific, meaningful outlet. Considering all the misconceptions that circle around about mental illness, the way it is portrayed on television shows and in the media, and especially the recent public outcry about the alleged vaccination/autism link, it seemed only natural that I, an avid skeptic and survivor of mental illness, could offer my views and (hopefully) some facts on these issues. It is my hope that this blog will be both informative and maybe somewhat entertaining, and I hope to be able to update it with relevant news and opinions at least twice a week. So please, come back soon, comment with your views and questions, and, if you have a feed reader, subscribe!

Schwarzenegger said, "I'll be back" - and so do I.