Comments on: Child abuse permanently modifies stress genes in brains of suicide victims

By: Sunset Mission

Sunset Mission — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 02:08:23 +0000

Hello to you,
It’s not easy to read and understand everything for me, but your article is very very interesting for me. I write to you but it’s like a bottle in the sea for me.
I was abused and I need to do a test for my NR3C1 for 2 things : first because I need to know, second it’s for justice.
It’s hard to find in France a place where I can ask to do the test and I don’t know where, or who exactly could do it here.
I asked to my doctor. No idea. I asked in Paris hospitals in genetic department : nobody knows…
If you can tell me where, how, who, exact informations, or just an idea, you will be very very nice.
You know, I don’t want to modify my genes, because I learned to live with my traumas with a therapy. But I need to know if I lost 40% of the capacity of my NR3C1 and if I can know it, I will give the test to the judge in a few month (the monster will be judged).
Cheers and thanks to be interested by “our” problem.
We are survivors…

By: James Bannon

James Bannon — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:44:57 +0000

I echo pariah’s comments. In addition, there is something not quite right about the description. Are we into Lamarkism perchance? Supposing that abuse did, indeed, alter the structure of NRC31, what does this mean in terms of heritability? Not much, unless there is plain evidence that the altered structure is indeed heritable. I don’t see anything here to suppose that this is the case. I wish people would use the label “genetic” much more carefully!

By: pariah

pariah — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 01:02:51 +0000

I would draw no conclusion from this tiny retrospective study. On the scale of evidence it is terrible. We’re talking about 24 subjects. If you want to obsess over this data and accept it as valuable and meaningful, you are wasting your time in my opinion. These conclusions are terribly premature and the publication has been popularized by the media for its sensational value.

By: Liz

Liz — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:06:04 +0000

Terrific post, many thanks. I’d be interested to read more on the link between abuse and auto-immune disease. I have rheumatoid arthritis that started at age 20 and I firmly believe was a result of the very genetic changes you refer to here. Too much stress in childhood, continual flight or fight response, and eventual immune breakdown. When i first hit on this theory my medical specialists thought I was nuts. 25 years on, this abuse theory seems to be gaining more credence.

By: Fishwit

Fishwit — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 06:59:23 +0000

This is very encouraging, Grace. This might explain why some people are able to be helped by therapy but others are not at all or only very slowly. The external environment may be crucial to the effectiveness of meditation or Baars/Terruwe or whatever other therapy is attempted, and, as you say, where that environment is favourable may facilitate the decrease in levels of methylation without the need for some super pill or other. Your phrase “safe and nurturing” is almost a synonym for “loving.”

By: Grace

Grace — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 04:10:00 +0000

I actually read an article that fully discussed the original rat study that initiated this human study. According to the rat study, the methylation WAS reversible. The study noted that rat pups who were returned to a nurturing environment began to have lower cortisol levels. When the gene was analyzed, there was a significant decrease in the levels of methylation at the receptor sites.
So, assuming the human outcome would parallel the rat study, there is a lot of hope out there for us “abused”.
I actually believe that people who have been abused have a great deal of “healing” when they surround themselves in an environment where it is safe and nurturing. This healing isn’t just metaphorical or spiritual–I actually believe there is a biological component to it.

By: MTran

MTran — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 08:29:09 +0000

What an interesting study. Does anyone know how this information might correlate with the presence or absence of so-called “resilience” genes (5HTTP?) which might mitigate the long term effects of early abuse? I hope that some good therapies and remedies grow out of this research.

By: cam

cam — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 05:07:54 +0000

This was a very helpful post, so I truly thank you. We recently completed a case study in my psychology class about a young boy who was experiencing severe stress when it came to test taking and we were told to evaluate the causes, symptoms, and effects of his condition. This post provided information that I was able to learn from.
Thanks!

By: Ed Yong

Ed Yong — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:13:01 +0000

Nathan – not sure about the stem cells question, but you’re right about the methyls.
As a general note, let’s be careful about oversimplifying here – epigenetic changes are not A Bad Thing. For the most part, they’re a normal and necessary part of the workings of our cells.

By: notoverthehill

notoverthehill — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:59:00 +0000

I have no intent to change the subject of this discussion, however I decided to respond to the subject of 9/11. In my experience with some 9/11 truth types, I find they are in two sets. Those who want to see in 9/11 the evidence of a hidden super-government planning and controlling our reality are one set. The second set are those who think the video of the destruction of the WTC fails the reality test. Based on such disbelief, they took the effort to collect evidence and learn the physics of how such an event could possibly occur. There is a difference between a religious zealotry on one hand, and on the other hand a sense of certainty based on science and physical evidence.
In keeping the discussion theme about early abuse, consider a defensive strategy by some who in the past have been severely disappointed by authority. We all need to maintain a some trust in authority to live in society. For some abuse survivors, a firm decision was made to detach reality testing from the need to have trust in authority. If dependency for reality is shifted from authority trust to the scientific method, a valid and objective judgment can result.
One can perform an arm-chair psychological analysis of 9/11 “conspiracy de-bunkers” as well. For example, de-bunkers who claim that anyone who disagrees with the government version of events are people who “disrespect the families of the victims” are demonstrating a classic denial defense of shaming the messenger. Such a denial pattern results from having forbidden knowledge. This suggests that these people also believe in what the “truthers” believe, subconsciously.
For example, consider the spouse who has evidence based subconscious knowledge that her husband is cheating on her. The defense activates when an acquaintance quietly suggests evidence of infidelity, and for reasons which focus on preserving the family and by extension the authority structure inherent in the family, the in-denial spouse will violently reject and may even counter attack the person who suggested her husband is cheating.
By pathologizing everyone with a distrust in the government’s version of events on 9/11, a disservice is done to many competent engineers, scientists and architects who are motivated by a moral obligation to preserve and protect our country.