MyPTSD, you've posted this without any comments from yourself. Not sure why. Here are mine anyway:
"In a double-blind, placebo-controlled study and based on the results of the genetic analysis, the scientists examined a compound that interacts with one of the previously identified gene products... A single dose of the drug led to significant reduction of memory recall of previously seen aversive pictures; however, it did not affect memory of neutral or positive pictures. These findings could have implications for the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder."
Firstly, isn't this a bit tenous? My problem wasn't aversive pictures. I don't think looking at pictures is relevant to experiencing trauma because looking at a picture has nothing to do with the limbic system.
Secondly, what does "based on the results of genetic analysis" mean? Then again, why bother to provide a robust explanation for something that sounds so impressively scientific? Unless you want to have credibility.
"the scientists found a drug-induced reduction of aversive memory"
So if you don't remember, there's no effect? (a) there are plenty of drugs already that result in a reduction of aversive memory - not all of them legal. It's obvious how they help in the short term but is that generally see as a good thing? Why would something peddled by a pharmaceutical company be any better? (b) Nice idea that no recall is an answer, beg to differ.
"the genetic basis of emotionally aversive memory -- a trait central to anxiety disorders such as posttraumatic stress disorder"
I think what's central to PTSD is the trauma, actually. And I think emotionally aversive memories come from emotionally aversive events rather than genetic memory abilities.
Maybe a bit of healthy cynicism towards the pharmaceutical industry looking for a new marketing angle would be appropriate here?
