• Share. Be Supported. Recover.

    We are a friendly, safe community supporting each other's mental health. We are open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

So where is the scientific proof for schizophrenia?

Condottiere

Condottiere

Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
18
Very honestly, I neatly prefer this last sequence of posts.

I never said that there wasn't genetic factors present; & I agree with what you have written above. I don't agree that the materialistic, scientific reductionist paradigm is the best or only way; or should be the sole way of best understanding these things. But I agree that the orthodox, meds, the physical causes - have a place in a balanced appraisal of the full picture. But it is but one small part.
Why are we arguing then?

Apotheosis said:
Don't assume - Get the proof & then we can see. It isn't really a convincing position for you to take. If the facts & proof are there - then present it. It isn't though lack of searching - that I haven't found it in 20 years of looking!
On this very point you are right.

Apotheosis said:
I disagree with you on the best authority. Carl Jung is a favourite of mine - he was a great psychiatrist - he would have been in agreement with me.

Maybe you should look at the history of the disagreements & differences of perspective within psychiatry itself. It isn't a case of the establishment 'vs' some Hippie fringe elements. R D Laing is another psychiatrist that would have been in large agreement with my opinions on this - it isn't so black & white as you would appear to make out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-psychiatry
I clearly stated that I did not judge qualitatively, but quantitatively. So your argument does not challenge mine at all. There are probably a lot of very able psychiatrists who would say the opposite. And none of us is qualified to really determine which side is right without any doubt.

I already know the position of anti-psychiatry. I have already read that Wikipedia article. I know its followers aren't anarchist rebels. But I also know very well that they are certainly not a majority, far from it.

Apotheosis said:
I disagree that I am dogmatic, on the contrary; I think it is your position that is dogmatic adherence to common falsehoods. If you 'absolutely do not care', then I wonder why you are posting in this thread, & on this forum? & why you appear so riled by what I have posted?
I answered because what you said was a bunch of disrepectful answers without half a good argument. As I said, you are getting better.

Apotheosis said:
? I disagree - Why is it promoted by certain people & institutions as being a genetic imbalance - Brain Chemistry abnormality - & physical brain disorder?
Please do not quote incomplete sentences. I clearly said that the reason why mental illnesses are thus named is not because of chemical imbalances, but in a very large measure because it causes problems to the patient (or to his social environment is certain cases). A mental illness about which nobody complains, and that does not alter the behavior of affected individuals, does not qualify for the definition of mental illness.

Apotheosis said:
Then tell me what the real problems are? It isn't the same with any physical illness! - that's silly to say such a thing. For starters mental illnesses has never been proved as having a physical or biological basis. These assumptions are being made on a false premise.
Yes, it is the same. Exactly the same. I said that diseases are known before their causes. One can associate many cases of bubonic plague and state that it is the same basic illness, even with some differences between patients, before the bacteria that causes it can be found; one can evaluate several mental health patients, see that the general, basic situation is similar, and give it a name, before any chemical imbalance will ever be found. I don't really understand what in my post caused that answer from you, but anyway.

Apotheosis said:
Unless you are talking of specific brain injury - then there aren't any physical tests for mental illness.
You are probably right, and I think the same, but as I do not know enough to state it without any doubt. Just in case their was one very rare illness somewhere with some kind of reliable physical test. AFAIK it isn't the case, but I am an informed patient, not a mental health professional.

You make the point I am trying to make with 'Condottiere' - intelligently, succinctly, accurately & honestly. Sadly I don't think that it may make any difference whatsoever to the way most people see these things. Their minds are already made up.
WTF? The underlying point of his whole post is an invalid and useless statement about the brains complexity. It is not because no one can that understand all the interactions in the brain at this very moment that 1- we cannot understand some basic processes 2- we cannot, statistically, say that certain mental health problems are associated with chemical imbalances, and that by restoring the balance, the situation of the patient, paris paribus, should get better.

The rest is not much more solid. Physical health problems are know through signs and symptoms: why shouldn't it be the same with mental health? In any case, a diagnosis is just a way to put a big picture into a few words, to understand a large problematic in a simpler way. It is mostly a mental effort to associate different situations and find a common solution that should work most of the time. It is a necessary exercice in the context of a human cognitive effort. If we could build a computer that would have access all the information and be given an unlimited time to work for solutions, it probably wouldn't state a diagnosis, it would only find a treatment. But the actual situation is different from that of our computer (and in any case, we are not even near to be capable of building such a tool): humans cannot compute all these data and find a treatment, and much less in the actual situation health professionals are put in, because they have several cases to work on at the very same time, and not everybody concerned in the treatment at a specific moment will have time to read all of a very heavy file just to know if it is about schizophrenia, clinical depression or a broken leg.
 
Last edited:
R

ramboghettouk

Well-known member
Founding Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2008
Messages
17,955
Location
london
to quote the voices at my gps "epilepsy was once considered a mental illness"
 
A

Apotheosis

Guest
Apo said:
? I disagree - Why is it promoted by certain people & institutions as being a genetic imbalance - Brain Chemistry abnormality - & physical brain disorder?
Please do not quote incomplete sentences. I clearly said that the reason why mental illnesses are thus named is not because of chemical imbalances, but in a very large measure because it causes problems to the patient (or to his social environment is certain cases). A mental illness about which nobody complains, and that does not alter the behavior of affected individuals, does not qualify for the definition of mental illness.
Thank you for the considered & thoughtful reply.

Here - I don't think you quite see my point, or the premise.

What you have described is not the general paradigm of understanding. The orthodox is operating largely on the basis of the assumptions as fact of - genetic abnormality, Brain Chemistry imbalance(s), & physical brain disorder. When the actual truth of these things, & the reality is; that they may in fact be barking up the wrong tree entirely. You too assume that the main basis for these conditions is primarily biological. On what basis, & with what evidence is this being assumed?

Hence the OP, the point I am trying to make, & the point I think that Napolean sums up beautifully.

From whose perspective is 'mental illness' - mental illness; from whose paradigm are these things defined?

The most obvious example is in the shaman of other cultures. Given our society - he is Schizophrenic. Indeed - just over 200 years ago; none of the present day mental illnesses & diagnostic labels even existed. Not to say madness wasn't around before then, as it clearly was - but the paradigms were entirely different. I am not suggesting that we embrace a wholly trans personal, esoteric, & wholly spiritual way of looking at all this. Just that people honestly look at the present systems of care & understandings - & see the fact that things are very far from a done deal. In another 200 years time - how are people going to look at our present understandings & treatments of mental illness - Quite logically & probably with the same abhorrent disgust as we look back at the brain butcherer's of past centuries - & with the same incredulous shock that some of us look back today at the practises of plunging people in cold water; spinning people around in contraptions, applying hot tar to the head, & removing organs because of thinking they were at fault for sending rotten fumes to the brain.

Have we really got it right by sending electric shocks through peoples brains - administering highly debilitating, mind & mood altering & dependence forming drugs - & locking people up?

Are the general paradigms of care really so different from past centuries? They may appear slightly more humane, they may appear slightly more sophisticated. But in the grand scheme of things - we are still groping about in a dimly lit cave with this stuff. & I will not ever believe that orthodox psychiatry in it's present form is somehow effective, enlightened, or the best there is. The reality is that it is very far from any of those things. & I think it very long overdue that orthodox psychiatry, our societies, & our understandings were honestly & thoroughly amended & seriously considered; instead of this worship at the feet of, & blind adherence to the Genetic predisposition/chemical imbalance hypothesis.
 
Condottiere

Condottiere

Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
18
Shamans are not schizophrenic according to our standards. Their behaviors were socially accepted, even excepted, they were part of the social. Even though we would think it strange to be inhabited by spirits or such things, it was part of the social settings, part of the ancestral animist interpretation of the world, so it would hardly qualify as delusions or as any psychotic symptom. (Besides, there were much more shamans per capita than there are schizophreniacs per capita right now.)

In all the rest of your post there is not much proof in favor of anything. One thing is sure : if a treatment statistically warrants positive results, then it is an effective treatment. In any way, be it by simple logic, by a cost-reducing approach, or by operant conditionning applied in general to the psychiatric community, it is quite clear that if a treatment does not promise any possible/likely improvement of the situation of the patient, or if is not worth the cost (because of heavy side effects, or simply because it is very expansive), it will not be repeated in the long run.

I do not approve of unwanted treatment in any way, whether they are objectively "helpful" or not, and thus I would rate the locking of people without their approval as unethical by a large margin, and would accept a theory stating it as a form of thought control over society, but that is completely off the point.
 
A

Apotheosis

Guest
Shamans are not schizophrenic according to our standards. Their behaviors were socially accepted, even excepted, they were part of the social. Even though we would think it strange to be inhabited by spirits or such things, it was part of the social settings, part of the ancestral animist interpretation of the world, so it would hardly qualify as delusions or as any psychotic symptom. (Besides, there were much more shamans per capita than there are schizophreniacs per capita right now.)
There is a very strong argument that the only difference between; shamanism, spiritual emergency/awakening, & Schizophrenia is one of social construct & perspective.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...sult&cd=1&q=schizophrenia+&+shamanism&spell=1

http://www.1stpm.org/articles/shaman.html

Condottiere said:
In all the rest of your post there is not much proof in favor of anything. One thing is sure : if a treatment statistically warrants positive results, then it is an effective treatment. In any way, be it by simple logic, by a cost-reducing approach, or by operant conditionning applied in general to the psychiatric community, it is quite clear that if a treatment does not promise any possible/likely improvement of the situation of the patient, or if is not worth the cost (because of heavy side effects, or simply because it is very expansive), it will not be repeated in the long run.
Then by that measure - the entire experiment with Orthodox psychiatry can only been seen as a monumental & total failure. & with the introduction of neuroleptic drugs - a disaster in treatment & care; that couldn't be more of a monolithic tragedy; & would be hard, if not impossible to match -

http://www.madnessradio.net/madness-radio-sane-medication-policy-robert-whitaker

Incidentally - How do you explain the establishments insistence to ignore & deny such projects as Diabasis, Soteria, & others, as well as the pioneering work of Jung, John Weir Perry & others, with the genuine & astounding work of therapeutic assistance for the mentally unwell.

http://spiritualrecoveries.blogspot.com/2006/05/dr-john-weir-perry-diabasis.html

"...85% of our clients (all diagnosed as severely schizophrenic) at the Diabasis center not only improved, with no medications, but most went on growing after leaving us."

- John Weir Perry
http://www.moshersoteria.com/

http://spiritualrecoveries.blogspot.com/2006/05/dr-jaakko-seikkula-dialogue-is-change.html

Among those who went through the OPT program, incidence of schizophrenia declined substantially, with 85% of the patients returning to active employment and 80% without any psychotic symptoms after five years. All this took place in a research project wherein only about one third of clients received neuroleptic medication.
http://spiritualrecoveries.blogspot.com/2007/02/presumed-causes-of-schizophrenia-and.html

Far far cheaper & more effective alternatives to the orthodox paradigm - with proven track record.

Condottiere said:
I do not approve of unwanted treatment in any way, whether they are objectively "helpful" or not, and thus I would rate the locking of people without their approval as unethical by a large margin, and would accept a theory stating it as a form of thought control over society, but that is completely off the point.
It is entirely the point. Psychiatry = social control for profit, at the exclusion of any genuine therapeutic care or healing; on the basis of outright lies, & the promotion of Myths, that have no scientific basis whatsoever. :p
 
Last edited:
Condottiere

Condottiere

Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
18
You have your position, but there isn't enough there to get a scientifical truth. There are also studies that show the opposite, that say that neuroleptics, 1st or 2nd generation, are effective against the symptoms of schizophrenia, even if placebo controlled. Those by pharmaceutic giants can be disqualified as biased if you want (and on that, I would agree), but a solid position still remains out of it.

Even if we said that antipsychotics are not effective (which is easily defensible), it does not attack the validity of the diagnosis, much less of psychiatry in general. There is a jump there that should not be.

Besides, I would say that lobotomy is much more of a failure than neuroleptic medication. And much more of a social control operation. Anybody can stop his medication, but retrieving a part of the brain is more difficult. And the effects were not very interesting either. As a matter of fact, it not any more seen as a serious treatment.
 
Lupus Albus

Lupus Albus

Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2009
Messages
18
Location
Wales
Scientists have no idea where the mind is located, yet we all accept that it exists. The problem with something like schizophrenia is that it is a condition of the mind, and if we have no idea of the location of the mind, how can we expect to see any physical symptoms of schizophrenia?

harad x
 
N

Napolean Today

Guest
The Mind is Emergent

The mind emerges from a interection between the environment, via the sensory inputs, and the behavioural charecteristics of the brain. There is no mind without this emergant state. This is not the behaviour of the brain but that which emerges from the behaviour of the brain. The brain is hardware, a CPU, but the mind is software. I cannot remedy a fault with a high-level software package by picking apart a cpu & altering the levels of chemicals on the exposed chip. All that will do is damage the chip & make the software run slower/not at all. Anyone who overlooks the complexity of the brain in search of simpler, more understandable & easier to treat alternatives is either a idiot or wicked in search of a fast buck.
 
Condottiere

Condottiere

Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
18
What you say is completely unprovable.
 
A

Apotheosis

Guest
What you say is completely unprovable.
Napolean can answer for himself - but isn't that ironic - That the utter tripe that orthodox psychiatry comes out with is completely unprovable as well!. At least Napolean's ideas on all this are imaginative, intelligent, & make some kind of sense.
 
Condottiere

Condottiere

Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
18
What you exposed is a metaphysical conception of the relation between mind and body. Nothing else. It is thus completely impossible to prove scientifically. You can acknowledge it as being the best possibility, or even the only truth, but it doesn't make it absolute.

Napolean can answer for himself - but isn't that ironic - That the utter tripe that orthodox psychiatry comes out with is completely unprovable as well!. At least Napolean's ideas on all this are imaginative, intelligent, & make some kind of sense.
The ideas of psychiatry (and of medicine, and of all sciences) are proven through empirical experience. It doesn't make them absolutely true, just likely within an apprehension of the human being (or of its physical environment).
 
N

Napolean Today

Guest
It doesn't make them absolutely true, just likely within an apprehension of the human being (or of its physical environment).
So your at least admitting your worldview is based on gambling with loaded dice. That at least is something. To claim such certainty on the basis of patently loaded dice makes a pact with the devil light cheese. Have you realised that or are you still at base camp on this road? (y)
 
Similar threads
Thread starter Title Forum Replies Date
T Where in the world can I go where I won’t be forced on to antipsychotics for my “schizophrenia”? Schizophrenia Forum 9
lifecangetbetter where do you think dreams come from? Schizophrenia Forum 10
lifecangetbetter now that you've been diagnosed. what's your earliest memory where you realized something isn't right? Schizophrenia Forum 2
T I'm starting to hear voices and I don't know where they are coming from. Schizophrenia Forum 8
T Where do you think the camera would be? Schizophrenia Forum 47
T How is there a camera in me and I don't know where it is or can't find it. Schizophrenia Forum 25
S Had a premonition/ a dream where my ex-lover was drowning me! Schizophrenia Forum 3
T Where could this hidden camera be? Schizophrenia Forum 13
T Where in the world is this camera? Schizophrenia Forum 5
J Where do religious beliefs end and delusions begin? Schizophrenia Forum 7
D Lost. Just had my third relapse where I become a dimensional traveller Schizophrenia Forum 3
B Where does you're voices come from??? Where are they located? Schizophrenia Forum 8
E Where the streets have no name... Schizophrenia Forum 3
MissesGange No where to turn to- Schizophrenia Forum 4
T Where you smoking weed Schizophrenia Forum 160
S where did my mum go wrong? where did i go wrong? Schizophrenia Forum 10
E have you come to paly drugs and pils to mie and my own, I am sin, sisters and brothers, carry me wher, in one, where else Schizophrenia Forum 3
P Looking where to stop Lonlyness stigma! Schizophrenia Forum 7
fazza Where did my emotions go. Schizophrenia Forum 13
porkpie GP surgery won't administer my depot. Where do you get your depot done? Schizophrenia Forum 5
shaky Where is Apotheosis? Schizophrenia Forum 14
Zanily Where do I belong? *trigger warning* Schizophrenia Forum 3
E question about where to post? Schizophrenia Forum 6
A Not sure where to post this - Retaining information in my mind Schizophrenia Forum 7
S great scientific discovery. Schizophrenia Forum 5
Mr.NiceGuy The future with scientific understanding Schizophrenia Forum 1
S Proof Of Concept / Program Imminently Engaging In Critical Death Battl Schizophrenia Forum 1
Mr.NiceGuy I have Living proof of angels! Schizophrenia Forum 62
P I've seen proof of creation. Schizophrenia Forum 3
BillFish Proof life on benefits is crazy :) Schizophrenia Forum 12
cpuusage Why is everything largely blamed on the individual/their biology? (without proof/evidence) Schizophrenia Forum 18

Similar threads

Top