| Comments: |
I am going to change my moniker from T.bias to T.gondii
From: ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) babynutcase
Sun, 29-Jan-2006 1:41 PM (UTC)
Why does it look so much | (Link)
|
like you're flipping the bird on your lap?
Maybe I'm reading that wrong, but are they suggesting that T. gondii produces the chemical LSD in the brain? What about the more obvious answer, that a schizophrenic had taken LSD at one point in their life, and that--perhaps in conjunction with the T. gondii--triggered it? Or are those just urban legends? (i.e. that LSD stays in the system permanently and that schizophrenia can be brought about by taking LSD)
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/78674788/922107) | From: leolo
Sat, 28-Jan-2006 2:59 AM (UTC)
| (Link)
|
"can be brought about" is pretty vague.
Latent schizophrenia can be exacerbated by LSD, this I've witnessed. Created by LSD, I doubt is possible.
I don't know the details, it was just something I'd heard-- hence the vagueness. :) But yeah, that's about what I meant, that latent schizophrenia can be exacerbated by LSD. What if "latent schizophrenia" is really "mom got toxoplasmosis when I was in the womb"? Hmm. What I was really getting at, though, was that I didn't understand why the scientists are assuming that LSD in the brain of schizophrenics when there's also T. gondii antibodies means that the T. gondii is creating the LSD. It seems like the more likely answer is that the people took LSD and that's why it's in their system-- especially since it's apparently been shown that LSD can "exacerbate latent schizophrenia".
| From: leolo
Sat, 28-Jan-2006 3:52 AM (UTC)
| (Link)
|
A guess : LSD has an estimated half-life of 175 minutes (~3 hours). So unless all those schizos are regularly taking LSD (doubtful) there has to be another source.
It's not that implausible -- lsd is a tryptamine, same as serotonin, melatonin, and a bunch of other neurotransmitters, and a bunch more psychoactive compounds, many of which are closer to the natural forms than is LSD. Your brain is working with similar chemical machinery for the production and receptivity of all of them, and there is some evidence that the brain produces some psychedelics at varying times for yet unknown purposes (I theorize that your brain trips balls on its own schedule).
There was a great presentation on a LSD rat study at the Basel conference week before last. Come over tomorrow afternoon to watch the DVD!
DMT is produced in the brain during sleep, its probably related to dreaming. If there is a drug, there is usually an endogenous system that goes with it. For example, schizophrenics have a low level of anandamide, which is the body's natural ligand for the THC receptor.
Do you have a link to that research? I've read some stuff on endogenous DMT, but haven't seen any research yet that conclusively proves its production.
Wish I did. I've read papers that it exists naturally in the brain, but cant dig them up right now. The rest is pure speculation.
"Dont give crazy people LSD" is a good rule of thumb.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/55230480/1063762) | From: ethernight
Tue, 31-Jan-2006 1:53 AM (UTC)
LSD and schizophrenia | (Link)
|
"Latent schizophrenia can be exacerbated by LSD, this I've witnessed."
What do you mean when you say you've witnessed this? Do you mean that you've done scientific research on the matter, or known someone who has taken LSD and at some point later their latent schizophrenia surfaced, or became more pronounced?
If you mean the former, I would be very interested in this research. Last I heard, while it's tough to gather research on the subject, that statistical analysis did not show a coorelation between rise in use of LSD and rise of schizophrenics, as would be expected if the theory correct.
If you mean the latter - well, I can see how that would make quite an impact. However I don't tend to put a lot of stock in anecdotal evidence, personally.
| From: leolo
Tue, 31-Jan-2006 1:58 AM (UTC)
Re: LSD and schizophrenia | (Link)
|
Unfortunately, closer to the latter. Friend took LSD. Was checked into a psych ward later that day. 10 years on, he's still there.
| From: ethernight
Tue, 31-Jan-2006 2:03 AM (UTC)
Re: LSD and schizophrenia | (Link)
|
"Unfortunately, closer to the latter. Friend took LSD. Was checked into a psych ward later that day. 10 years on, he's still there."
That is indeed unfortunate. I'm sorry to hear that.
LSD isnt very stable, its out of your body in 30 minutes or so actually. It just leaves a wake of destruction in your brain for several hours after.
LSD causes insanity in those who haven't taken it. :)
Oh, huh. Obviously I need to read a little more about this. :)
if by "read a little more" you mean "take acid" then ok. :)
let just do our own test and use me as a test subject. i have schizophrenia in my family from at least one parent (don't know about the other). i could take LSD and see if it brings it out.
smirk
Hahaha, well that too, I suppose.
Its fascinating. Many people have devoted their lives to neuroscience simply because they took LSD in the 60's and 70's and wanted to figure out how it worked.
Wow. That is interesting. Maybe that explains why in folklore, cats are viewed as evil.
I am totally skeeved out. Thinking about parasites crawling around in my brain, makes me totally skeeved.
In which case, I strongly advise you to read Grant Morrison's excellent The Filth. It will either reconcile you to your plight or blow your mind completely.
Well, definitely don't take acid while thinking about that (parasites in the brain).
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/31519664/1310846) | From: qzee
Sat, 28-Jan-2006 3:20 AM (UTC)
| (Link)
|
"No way, scoffers say: schizophrenia is so profoundly disabling that sufferers tend not to reproduce." this is an overgeneralization, quite a few schizophrenics are as able to manage day to day life as anyone else, they do have children. Their siblings have children. Now, while this does not necessarily mean that schizophrenia is genetic or inheritable,it does not remove the possibility that genetics play a role.
Also, the link you mention has not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and it has less proof supporting it than the genetic link.
See also: contributing factors.
From: rsheridan6
Sat, 28-Jan-2006 4:05 AM (UTC)
It could be a balancer mutation | (Link)
|
..meaning a mutation that is beneficial when you have it in genes from one parent, but harmful when you have it in both chromosomes. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,16518,1653778,00.html for an explanation of why schizophrenia genes may be adaptive. I would like to hear what the "scoffers" have to say about Tay-Sachs disease, which is genetic and kills its victims as toddlers.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/2460399/683033) | From: cnoocy
Sat, 28-Jan-2006 4:08 PM (UTC)
Re: It could be a balancer mutation | (Link)
|
IIRC, Tay-Sachs carriers (people with only one gene for it) have a resistance to tuberculosis, which has kept the mutation alive in the populace. Also, there is a late-onset form, which could (though in practice probably doesn't) allow victims to have children.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/30361115/52788) | From: brynndragon
Mon, 30-Jan-2006 4:32 PM (UTC)
Re: It could be a balancer mutation | (Link)
|
I thought the immunity granted by single-gene TS was against trichonosis?
| From: cnoocy
Mon, 30-Jan-2006 4:54 PM (UTC)
Re: It could be a balancer mutation | (Link)
|
That would be pretty funny, if a bit counterintuitive in terms of TS's prevalence among Jews. But apparently it's TB.
I've known a handful of people who's mothers are/were schizophrenic. So, inability to function has apparently not dissuaded many people from having children. In fact, if you think about it, crack addicts, homeless women, complete drunks, bedridden and depressed people have children ... the non-functioning aspect doesn't seem to have anything to do with whether or not people procreate.
It's the cats! They're poisoning our precious bodily fluids
That rules and I fucking love the Straight Dope,
Production of such a compound may have been favored by natural selection because an infected, hallucinating rodent would be more easily captured by a cat.
proxy evolution is bullshit. I don't buy it. A tends to have X because that makes B stronger. But that makes A weaker, which means A will die out, depriving B of X. Unless B is deliberately doing something to promote A and/or X, there's no causation. Eating A with X doesn't do that.
I think it was invented by the Discovery Institute to debunk evolution.
This comment was brought to you by the letters W, T, and F.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/5887295/515656) | From: jwz
Sat, 28-Jan-2006 9:59 PM (UTC)
| (Link)
|
I see your point, but I think what they're saying is more like "B and X are ganging up on A", that is, "cats and T. gondii are conspiring against rats." A symbiotic relationship between cats and T. gondii, even though T. gondii is physically in the rat, not the cat.
Lets imagine that there exist two strains of T.gondii, one of which causes rodents to be more susceptible to predation, and one which doesn't. Also, lets assume that cats aren't on the verge of driving rodents to extinction. Obviously this will lead to the former strain being transmitted to cats with a higher frequency, and lead to higher rates of transmission back to rodents due to a greater proability that cat faeces will contain the former strain of T.gondii.
Another example of the same variety: malaria induces behavioural changes in infected mosquitoes and also acts to make hosts more attractive to mosquitos at the point at which a blood meal would be most infective to the mosquito.
I can't see why you think this doesn't constitute a selective advantage.
| |
