So, dear readers, last time I wrote a bit on the skepticism that is so necessary in evaluating scientific results. In fact, this is one of the essential differences between science and other human endeavours, such as voodoo.
In OCD, basically three options are still open:
- certain dysfunctions in the brain (observable as abnormalities in patients, such as over- or underactivity in metabolism of glucose, alterations in typical blood oxygenation levels, and/or changes in volume and/or morphology of structures) are the cause of OCD;
- OCD is the cause of the alterations cited above; I already hinted at that possibility. After prolonged changes in thinking and behaviour, characteristic of OCD, certain brain structures begin to show the abnormalities;
- a third, and as yet unknown variable is the causative factor for both structural and/or functional alterations in the brain, and the symptoms of OCD.
This is what we may conclude from the results of scientific research. I will readily admit that perhaps the first option is the most credible to most of us; but that is an idea based on our experiences in everyday life rather than on the isolated data that we found in rigid investigations.