Jani's at the mercy of her mind

[justdrew]

Does he even feel shame when he hits her?

as far as I know, there was only one instance of parent on child hitting self-reported. It doesn't SEEM like it's an on-going thing he does. Remember he says he's BEEN investigated for potential child-abuse already. Now he's talking about a physical abnormality present in the brain.. Odd that that wasn't mentioned in the LA Dog-Trainer's lengthy report... but so it goes. It does also sound like they are ramping her off the drugs. Since, as dad says, none "work" anyway, except at doses that the docs will not and can not continue prescribing.

There may be some good developments coming their way, and things are likely to improve. If this brain issue is at the root, it's possible in a few years her growing brain will have been able to compensate. She is apparently also sleeping more these days.

That said, I still find it possible to read everything he reports as symptoms of her "mental illness" as being behavior within the realm of normal. She's going to have to learn to stop hitting others, but it's entirely possible that will come about within the next couple years also.

I'm glad this got out there and we've certainly aired this matter out extensively (much more so than I ever expected), but I'm wondering if there's anything to be gained from continuing on? If any good will come from our discussions here, it's most likely already been set in motion, so... I don't know. There are millions of kids out there right now with shitty parents having a rough go, this one is doing better than many.

Everyone's had good insights and perspectives, I'm not putting anyone down, great points from all quarters. The Dad needs to know that there are critical voices out there as well as supportive ones, and even if he thoughtlessly rejects, or justifiably rejects them, it's still more info rattling around in his brain and it could well give him new ideas to make things better at any time.

[MacCruiskeen]

To call murder murder is not to demonise anyone.

And to hit a TINY CHILD as hard as you can, to hit her repeatedly, to pester her with your "love" (sic) incessantly, to browbeat her, to wheedle at her, to torment her, to starve her, to stuff her with junk food, to rob her of her toys, to SELL those toys, to wilfully misunderstand her, to ignore her most basic needs and most obvious wishes, to order her around, to wrestle her to the ground, to drag her by the feet into her room (repeatedly), to put your foot on her chest, to leave her alone there, to obsess over her, to be terrified of her imagination, to infuriate her (for she is brave) with senseles and arbitrary rules, to claim that you love her, to hear her say (entirely justifiably) she hates you and then to blame all that on 400 the fucking Cat (jesus christ almighty) ... In short, to make her a life a non-stop fucking misery, and then to hand her over (once for 133 days at a time) to strangers who studiously ignore the obvious while pocketing the dough and pumping her full of mind-altering drugs (including drugs you say "cause AIDS (sic)), very very frequently against her will, and to describe to her in morbid detail how sharks break, kill and eat humans, just as she awakens -- bloodstained and groggy -- from a brutally-enforced drug stupor, all the while informing the world through your execrable self-pitying self-glorifying blog that you fully expect her to DIE -

Yeah, I call that murder. Murder most foul.

So sue me, agitprop. For being judgmental. (THAT's a crime, in your book.)

[justdrew]

To call murder murder is not to demonise anyone.

And to hit a TINY CHILD as hard as you can, to hit her repeatedly, to pester her with your "love" incessantly, to browbeat her, to wheedle at her, to torment her, to starve her, to stuff her with junk food, to rob her of her toys, to SELL those toys, to wilfully misunderstand her, to wrestle her to the ground, to drag her by the feet into her room (repeatedly), to put your foot on her chest, to leave her alone there, to obsess over her, to claim that you love her, to hear her say she hates you (justifiably) and then to blame all that on 400 the fucking Cat (jesus christ almighty) ... In short, to make her a life a non-stop fucking misery, and then to hand her over (once for 133 days at a time) to strangers who studiously ignore the obvious while pumping her full of mind-altering drugs (including drugs you say "cause AIDS (sic)), very very frequently against her will, and to describe to her in morbid detail how sharks kill and eat humans, just as she awakens -- bloodstained and groggy -- from a brutally-enforced drug stupor, all the while informing the world through your execrable self-pitying self-glorifying blog that you fully expect her to DIE -

Yeah, I call that murder. Murder most foul.

So sue me, agitprop. For being judgmental. (THAT's a crime, in your book.)

yeah, well, even though I can write all the above post, I still _mostly_ agree with Mac's interpretation, I don't trust the dad and it remains possible he could be causing every bit of this. and that should be tested for, but there's apparently no way that's going to happen.

[lightningBugout]

I'm with u drew and am grateful for this thread in general. As c2w pointed out, ri could use better talk of mental illness and this was a very good contribution to that.
[/list]

[Project Willow]

I always link to this research when the topic of schizophrenia comes up.

Child Abuse Can Cause Schizophrenia

Mr Hammersley, Programme Director for the COPE (Collaboration of Psychosocial Education) Initiative at the School of Nursing Midwifery and Social Work, said: "We are not returning to the 1960s and making the mistake of blaming families, but professionals have to realize that child abuse was a reality for large numbers of adult sufferers of psychosis."

He added: "We work very closely in collaboration with the Hearing Voices Network, that is with the people who hear voices in their head. The experience of hearing voices is consistently associated with childhood trauma regardless of diagnosis or genetic pedigree."

...

Hammersley and Read argue that two-thirds of people diagnosed as schizophrenic have suffered physical or sexual abuse and thus it is shown to be a major, if not the major, cause of the illness. With a proven connection between the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and schizophrenia, they say, many schizophrenic symptoms are actually caused by trauma.

Their evidence includes 40 studies, which revealed childhood or adulthood sexual or physical abuse in the history of the majority of psychiatric patients and a review of 13 studies of schizophrenics found abuse rates from a low of 51% to a high of 97%. Psychiatric patients who report abuse are much more likely to experience hallucinations – flashbacks which have become part of the schizophrenic experience and hallucinations or voices that bully them as their abuser did thus causing paranoia and a mistrust of people close to them.

They admit not all schizophrenics suffered trauma and not all abused people develop the illness, but believe less traumatic childhood maltreatment, rather than actual abuse, may be an important difference. In their review of the 33,648 studies conducted into the causes of schizophrenia between 1961 and 2000, they found that less than 1% was spent on examining the impact of parental care. Still, they say, there have been enough studies to suggest negative or confusing early care may be an important addition to abuse as a cause.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060614120625.htm

http://apt.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/13/2/101

Bullied Kids May Develop Psychoses
May 07, 2009 06:00 PM
by Rachel Balik
A new study suggests that children who are bullied are twice as likely to report psychotic symptoms in preadolescence.

http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/health/2009/may/Bullied-Kids-May-Develop-Psychoses-.html

[Project Willow]

A New Approach

Hearing voices has been regarded by psychiatry as 'auditory hallucinations', and in many cases a symptom of schizophrenia. However not everyone who hears voices has a diagnosis of schizophrenia. There are conflicting theories from psychiatrists, psychologists and voice hearers about why people do hear voices . We believe that they are similar to dreams, symbols of our unconscious minds. Although the Network is open to many diverse opinions we accept the explanation of each individual voice hearer.

Traditionally, the usual treatment for voice hearing has been major tranquillisers, administered to reduce the delusions and hallucinations. However not everyone responds to this treatment. There are some psychiatrists and psychologists who now work with people who hear voices using talking therapies and exploring the meaning of the voices.

Although this is not yet 'the norm', this practice is increasing. As the improvement in individuals who are encouraged to talk about their voices becomes more apparent and increasing number of health professionals are beginning to understand that the key to understanding voices lies in the 'content' of the voices.

http://www.hearing-voices.org/information.html

[chiggerbit]

I'm not surprised to see that, Willow. This little nugget is also worth exploring:

It was found that if there was a high genetic risk and it was combined with mystifying care during upbringing, the likelihood of developing schizophrenia was greater - genes alone did not cause the illness.[/b]

Not sure if that phrase means what I think it does, but one of the things I've listened to professionals speculate about (years ago) is whether a disconnect in logic in parenting practices can also contribute to the development of schizophrenia, which is what I'm wondering that "mystifying care" could be a reference to. For instance, with regards to this family, would be the father's insistance that Janni is schizophrenic, and yet he is the one who talks about battling 400 the Cat, as if it is a real entity. His blog would seem to be full of these "illogics", and he speaks of them to Janni, in front of Janni.

[chiggerbit]

And he's constantly interpreting what she's thinking, even though there seems to be no evidence that that is what she says she is thinking.

[Project Willow]

I read recently that a single gene was never isolated in connection with the disorder, but some researcher found a group of genes were linked in a quasi-theoretical kind of interplay. I should look that up.

I think more than likely the source of the illogic is the father's attempts at absolute control. It doesn't match with Janni's internal sense of justice which she must have in order to perceive when she is in danger. I think others have nailed it here in this thread, the diagnosis rather now serves as cover for dad's guilt and relief of real self examination, regardless of how a diagnosis of some sort or at least help was required.

This is purely speculation...

I'm forming a theory as to the source of the voice hearing, similarly to dissociation, it arises in connection to a frustrated fight or flight response, especially to trauma affecting a key relationship (odd parenting). The mind creates a voice to protect against recurrence of the trauma. For example, it is less painful to put oneself down first before someone else does it. Although in Janni's case the mind has created voices that also help her maintain contact with her sense of justice as it relates to protecting herself (albeit in a very primitive way.) If she loses the voices, then daddy has complete control and her very self is subsumed.

[justdrew]

the recent genetic study info:

Hoopla, and Disappointment, in Schizophrenia Research
July 1, 2009, 5:10 pm
By Nicholas Wade

The journal Nature held a big press conference in London Wednesday, at the World Conference of Science Journalists, to unveil three large studies of the genetics of schizophrenia. Press releases from five American and European institutions celebrated the findings, one using epithets like “landmark,” “major step forward,” and “real scientific breakthrough.” It was the kind of hoopla you’d expect for an actual scientific advance.

It seems to me the reports represent more of a historic defeat, a Pearl Harbor of schizophrenia research.

The defeat points solely to the daunting nature of the adversary, not to any failing on the part of the researchers, who were using the most advanced tools available. Still, who is helped by dressing up a severely disappointing setback as a “major step forward”?

The principal news from the three studies is that schizophrenia is caused by a very large number of errant genes, not a manageable and meaningful handful.

The rationale behind the long search for schizophrenia genes was entirely justifiable. Since schizophrenia is highly heritable, it must have a strong genetic component. And it has long seemed possible that the responsible genetic variants underlying most common diseases would also be common. Natural selection gives us strong protection against diseases that strike before the age of reproduction. But its power to eliminate harmful genes is thought to wane sharply thereafter. So bad versions of genes that are bad only late in life could build up in the population, explaining why the common diseases that strike later in life are so common.

And if researchers could identify the few major variants assumed to underlie each of these common diseases, from schizophrenia to heart disease to cancer, they could devise drugs to offset the genes’ effects.

But nature is often a lot more complex than assumed. It now seems that the arm of natural selection is far longer than thought. It has reached way beyond our reproductive years and zapped most harmful genetic variants before they could get to be common in the population. That leaves relatively uncommon variants, lots and lots of them in each case, as the genetic cause of each common disease.

In the last few years gene hunters in one common disease after another have turned up a few causative variant genes, after vast effort, but the variants generally account for a small percentage of the overall burden of illness. With most common diseases, it turns out, the disease is caused not by ten very common variant genes but by 10,000 relatively rare ones.

Today it’s the turn of schizophrenia researchers to make the same discovery, though one perhaps more to be expected since schizophrenia is not good for reproduction.

Schizophrenia too seems to be not a single disease, but the end point of 10,000 different disruptions to the delicate architecture of the human brain.

Yes, that discovery is a landmark. The kind that says you have 10,000 miles yet to go.

The march of science is not direct but two steps forward, one step back. This was the step back. But it was a completely necessary one. So the press release writers could have cast it as a noble defeat, were words like defeat a part of their vocabulary, or frankness their masters’ priority.

note the text above in bold... the fall back position seems to be that it's "caused by a very large number of errant genes" - really, I bet in actuality the variety of genes seen in the small sample tested is the same variety seen in a general population. So there is probably ZERO detectable (by this method) genetic basis. More likely any genetic link comes from methelation patterns which the social/bio environment has been shown to effect.

another thing here could be something that could be called insurance fraud potentially. At some point dad's insurer may want to get a second or third diagnosis. Doesn't he say at one point, words to the effect, "it has to be schizophrenia or they wont pay" - that's another player in this who's not gotten much attention is the private for-profit insurer involved.

[lightningBugout]

The entire vision of healthy as primarily genetically determinant is the equivalent of 1950's visions of flying cars and teleportation.

Seriously.

Just read the China Study by T. Campbell 2006. It is the result of a 30 year nutrition study that shows cancer, heart disease and diabetes may as well have nothing to do with genes, at all, if you factor in diet.

Why should schizophrenia prove any different? Though perhaps the relevant other variables extend past just diet.

[monster]

Though perhaps the relevant other variables extend past just diet.

Bruce Lipton claims our thoughts affect gene expression... Although he can be overly enthusiastic and I've never actually read any of his books, I do like the idea, it's empowering and makes sense intuitively.

Why should schizophrenia prove any different?

It is, though, the most heritable mental disorder of them all (slightly higher than bipolar, IIRC). So there's some kind of genetic predisposition, though I do wonder if diet could be a factor, that's interesting.

[MacCruiskeen]

Though perhaps the relevant other variables extend past just diet.

Bruce Lipton claims our thoughts affect gene expression... Although he can be overly enthusiastic and I've never actually read any of his books, I do like the idea, it's empowering and makes sense intuitively.

Why should schizophrenia prove any different?

It is, though, the most heritable mental disorder of them all (slightly higher than bipolar, IIRC). So there's some kind of genetic predisposition, though I do wonder if diet could be a factor, that's interesting.

lightningBugout and monster, I think there are some widespread, fashionable and highly influential ideas about genetics, inheritance and behaviour that urgently need to be questioned here. We are all heirs to certain prevailing scientific and medical orthodoxies, but we don't necessarily need to follow them to the bitter end, least of all blindly. Nor do our children.

No one's denying that inheritance exists. For example: From my father and his father before him I inherited:

# 1 a certain regional accent;

# 2 an interest in a certain football team;

# 3 certain ideas about reason and social justice.

(Just three examples. I hope they'll suffice.)

I also inherited:

# 4 their genes.

But #4 is clearly not the cause of #1 or #2 or #3.

The point being (and it's well worth underlining, because it's so often forgotten or studiously ignored these days): Not all inheritance is genetic. If people who behave madly tend to have children who behave madly, and they do, then I'd suggest we look elsewhere than at their genes if we're interested in finding out why. Because the plain but unmentionable fact is that people influence each other through their behaviour, often very heavily, especially when those people are a parent and a child.

Also: My father did not treat me or my siblings exactly the same way his father had treated him. My father made certain decisions about what to keep, what to pass on, and what to discard. So did I, and so do I, when raising my own child. Decisions are possible, at least some of the time, and decisions have a strong tendency to affect outcomes, especially when they are decisions about how to treat your children.

Not everything that's inherited is inherited through the genes, and not everything that's inherited necessarily has to be kept, or used. That includes a pocket-watch I inherited from my grandfather, via my father. Both my dad and I kept that watch, but neither of us ever used it. Fashions change. And besides, it can no longer be relied upon , because it's old and worn out and it no longer works. If it's valuable at all, then only to me, and the value is purely sentimental.


An heirloom; kaput, but still right twice a day.

[chiggerbit]

Oops, I see I linked only to a blog previously, not directly to the appropriate post on that blog:

http://tinyurl.com/krz3lo

Also:

http://tinyurl.com/la7xwb

[Perelandra]

I read recently that a single gene was never isolated in connection with the disorder, but some researcher found a group of genes were linked in a quasi-theoretical kind of interplay. I should look that up.

I think more than likely the source of the illogic is the father's attempts at absolute control. It doesn't match with Janni's internal sense of justice which she must have in order to perceive when she is in danger. I think others have nailed it here in this thread, the diagnosis rather now serves as cover for dad's guilt and relief of real self examination, regardless of how a diagnosis of some sort or at least help was required.

This is purely speculation...

I'm forming a theory as to the source of the voice hearing, similarly to dissociation, it arises in connection to a frustrated fight or flight response, especially to trauma affecting a key relationship (odd parenting). The mind creates a voice to protect against recurrence of the trauma. For example, it is less painful to put oneself down first before someone else does it. Although in Janni's case the mind has created voices that also help her maintain contact with her sense of justice as it relates to protecting herself (albeit in a very primitive way.) If she loses the voices, then daddy has complete control and her very self is subsumed.

Thank you, I think this is really important, as is chigger's previous post.