Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

raddacle t1_jdq8r1z wrote

Breakthrough is quite the exaggeration.

Saying that we should focus more on dopamine signaling regulation than dopamine signaling, can be analogized to the importance of analyzing how traffic is controlled instead of the traffic itself.

Another statement they make can be summed up to say that they know effective treatments are effective:

"Substance use disorders and mental disorders often co-occur, and we know that the most effective treatments help people address both issues at the same time."

This study found exactly what others have before it, and they also identified additional genetic markers. There is no breakthrough in treatment, the findings only identify potential areas for more research to happen to hopefully find other treatments. The results are significant, so it's frustrating that the article is click baiting and exaggerated.

50

Shad0wDreamer t1_jdqnk7r wrote

They don’t have the context of knowledge of other studies would be my assumption.

1

CoconutDust t1_jds3z78 wrote

The title is inherently misleading and false, since analyzing genetic data is not a "breakthrough" in "treatment." And if there is a true, accurate, way of stating whatever the breakthrough is (if any, which is dubious), then the title should be stated differently.

Because of the nature of this sub we often get Uplifting Distortions, and Rushing To Misunderstandings because the misunderstanding is pleasant for the person doing the misunderstanding. And then we have the automoderator warning saying the place is supposed to be free from negativity. Negativity exists by definition in opposition to false misguided distorted positivity, in other words, negativity is the correct response to oblivious viral lies. A bit like a debate sub saying they don't welcome counterpoints. I'd say we're due for a discussion on the difference between "feeling negative because you don't LIKE the truth" and "negative comment in the face of lies", and also the difference between negativity and toxicity. Excessive positivity is much more dangerous.

Seems like big data branding: Step 1) collect data (in this case genetic) that doesn't practically accomplish anything 2) claim it's a breakthrough 3) Profit.

7

chemicalrefugee t1_jdvjpzf wrote

>Because of the nature of this sub we often get Uplifting Distortions, and Rushing To Misunderstandings because the misunderstanding is pleasant for the person doing the misunderstanding.
....
negativity is the correct response to oblivious viral lies

Thank you. Far too often things get listed on the subreddit because they cater to confirmation bias of wishful thinking.

And while I am open to the idea of genetic (and most definitly genomic) contributions to addiction, the vast majority of the emphasis on addiction research is on the wrong research.

Addiction is the result of undealt with trauma, not the result of mystical substances that chase people down the street. No matter how much a given source of research funding might benefit from a different set of facts (phamiceutical solutions to addiction are desired by big corporations) here in reality addiction is the result of undealt with trauma & we already have a medication that can resulve the vast majority ot PTSD issues in 1 to 3 sessions.... one that people rarely have legal access to. That medication bypasses the action of the hippocampus so that trama memories can be examined without a heaping serving of PTSD.

2

AutoModerator t1_jdpb2he wrote

Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.

All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1