Talk:Schizophrenia

not sure what this means or how to integrate it: "Nowadays medical treatment is the mainstay of antipsychotic treament. Although drugs that are in use are better tolarated sometimes patients show signs of extrapyramidal side-effects." --KQ

Well I found a description of various EPSE but wasn't sure whether to paraphrase the material or link to it, so I linked to it.

Another article or a subpage with info for more scientifically minded ?
--Kpjas

I don't understand your question. Sorry. Is that a request for one or the other? Do you think the article is too general? Personally I have to admit I like it how it is, so that the average reader can understand it, but I see nothing at all wrong with adding more information. If you'd like to add more, by all means go ahead; I've just reached the limit of what I can do without having to research. I don't think it should be replaced entirely though. --KQ

---

Very nice entry. Thanks!

---

Added Julian Jaynes because I think people reading The Origin of Consciousness will be looking for more info on schizophrenia.

I think your qualification is quite mild. Indeed, historians of early periods do more than not support it - they scoff at his use of sources. His psychology may or may not be useful, but his understanding of early civilization is not, particularly. I think there's room for him in the entry, but only with a stronger sentence of qualification. --MichaelTinkler

I was shooting for very NPOV there. If you think Jaynes info should be different, please edit at will! Thanks.

---

Added mention of types of schizophrenia in West and sluggishly progressing schizophrenia in the Soviet Union.

Daniel C. Boyer

---

Added some clarfication on antipsychiatry.

Daniel C. Boyer

---

Removed duplicated material from Emil Kraepelin article, which seems to be about Kraepelin, not schizophrenia:

According to the eminent psychologist H. J. Eysenck, Kraepelin not only deserves credit for the discovery of schizophrenia and manic-depression--he is also the founder of modern scientific psychiatry, psychopharmacology and psychiatric genetics. Kraepelin postulated that psychiatric diseases are principally caused by biological and genetic disorders and in this respect are no different from Alzheimers disease or the then very common general paresis of the insane, or cerebral syphilis. Kraepelin's psychiatric and diagnostic methods completely dominated the field of psychiatry worldwide at the begining of the twentieth century. He vigorously opposed the approach of Freud who regarded and treated psychiatric disorders as caused by mysterious psychological forces. Though Kraepelin's contribution was largely ignored through most of the twentieth century due to an uncritical adoption of Freudian speculations, Kraepelin's basic approach now once again dominates psychiatric research on the psychoses and academic psychiatry, and today the published literature in the field of psychiatry is overwhelmingly biological and genetic in its orientation. Largely for political reasons, Kraepelin's great contribution in discovering schizophrenia and manic-depression remains relatively unknown to the general public and his work is little read, despite the recent widespread adoption of his fundamental theories on the etiology and diagnosis of psychiatric disorders which form the basis of all major diagnostic systems in use today, especially the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-IV and the World Health Organization's ICD system.

For a complete bibliography of English translations of Kraepelin's works see: http://www.kraepelin.org/_wsn/page3.html

For a complete bibliography of works by and about Kraepelin's including those in the original German: http://www.med.uni-muenchen.de/psywifo/Kraepelin.htm

For detailed information on Emil Kraepelin who first discovered schizophrenia, manic depression and co-discovered Alzheimers disease including biographical, bibliographical and historical information, as well as contact information for answers to specific questions about the disease and its history, visit the International Kraepelin Society at: http://www.kraepelin.org/

---

Added mention of Lawrence Stevens and link to his article.

Daniel C. Boyer

---

If a religious believer sees a vision or hears voices, are they by definition psychotic? Or does psychiatry make provision for genuine revelation? Think Joan of Arc. --Ed Poor

---

No. According to DSM-IV, in order for there to be a diagnosis of psychosis, the visions must not be cultural sanctioned. I.e. if seeing visions is within a person's cultural background, seeing them is not considered psychosis.

---

If this does not make everyone see that DSM-IV is a book about social control rather than medicine, I can't help you. Tell me about another disease that would be defined this way -- this severely undermines currently fashionable claims that schizophrenia is a biological disease like any other! Would one not diagnose diabetes because it was within one's cultural background to have a blood sugar of 170?

Daniel C. Boyer

---

Damned if you do. Damned if you don't. If DSM-IV listed objective characteristics of delusions, people would also claim that it was a tool of social control. Note that there is nothing that says the culture has to be mainstream.

This is interesting. Is your point that if the "cultural background" is a subculture this would pass muster? I am concerned how this justification of delusions would work vis a vis involuntary commitment.

Daniel C. Boyer

The way psychiatrists use "cultural background" is that anything which makes sense from the point of view of the patients cultural background is not considered delusional (even if it is a subculture). This is an important point in that most people who see devils and angels are as alarmed by it I would be if Satan popped out of the computer screen right now. If it were part of a patients belief system that is it "normal" to see Satan pop out of a computer screen, then it's not considered a delusion.

As far involuntary commitment. Bizarre beliefs are ***NOT*** grounds for commitment. The criteria used for commitment is danger to self or others. A person standing harmlessly in a street corner who is minding his own business talking to angels would *not* be subject to commitment under the laws of most states. Involuntary commitment is used only when the angels start telling that person to kill people. In practice, involuntary commitment is used only when there is violence or the threat of violence or suicide.

And the definition isn't unreasonable. How do you know what a normal blood sugar is? Answer: You test a whole bunch of people and then look at the norm.

---

in the former Soviet Union, was added a fifth, "[sluggishly progressing schizophrenia]?". Particularly in the RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic), political dissidents were diagnosed with "sluggishly progressing schizophrenia" and confined to psychiatric hospitals for the purpose of silencing them or getting them to recant their ideas. The first four, widely varying, forms of schizophrenia have led some to pose the controversial question, "Is schizophrenia one illness, or different illnesses that have been mistakenly classified under one heading?" Others (including Lawrence Stevens in his article on the World Wide Web "Schizophrenia: a nonexistent disease"; see link at end of article) have maintained that schizophrenia does not exist

This is an extraordinarily confusing paragraph. Does "sluggishly progressing schizophrenia" exist at all, or was it, as the article seems to imply, only a political invention used to repress dissidents? Could this be made clear in the article? Going on to question whether schizophrenia is one disease or a number of miscategorized conditions is interesting, but conflating that issue with political repression and Lawrence Stephens' mildly-tinfoil-hat assertions seems like a poor idea. There's already a section on anti-psychiatry lower down in the article. Perhaps this would be a better place for Mr. Stephens' doubts? I'm loath to mess with the article myself because I don't know enough about the subject. -D

---

Perhaps it could be better edited -- the point is that "sluggishly progressing schizophrenia" (of very doubtful existence, to say the least) was one of the varieties of schizophrenia recognized in the RSFSR, and this, combined with the four other extremely divergent types of schizophrenia, might lead some people to question: is schizophrenia one disease? several diseases? another type of phenomenon/a miscategorized as an illness? even anything at all? and is it entirely impossible that at least some individuals diagonsed with schizophrenia in the West are misdiagnosed as a form of political repression?

You call Stephens' article "mildly-tinfoil-hat" but have not undermined any of his points or proven in any way anything he said is untrue. I would argue that many of the generally accepted beliefs about schizophrenia are more "tinfoil-hat," have far less to support them, than what Mr. Stephens says.

Really, that's not my intent here. I'm not trying to "disprove" what Stephens is saying. In fact, I don't think you can "disprove" what he's saying because he he's not exactly offering affirmative evidence that one can disprove. All he does is cast doubt on existing evidence, and point out that we don't understand the causes of the disease. That's all true, and worth pointing out. But his conclusion, that schizophrenia isn't a brain disease at all, is just wild conjecture.

As is, I would maintain, the existence of schizophrenia as a brain disease, given that we don't know what it is.

Daniel C. Boyer

And given the lack of affirmative psychological evidence provided, and the existence of various (non-conclusive) physiological evidence (such as PET scans and drug results)

How can you maintain that schizophrenia is a brain disease because certain drugs can, perhaps most of the time, lessen the speech or behaviour identified as a disease? Would it not be possible to identify (with more or less justification) any set of behaviours as a disease, and then create a drug which will when ingested will make people exhibit that set of behaviours less? Have you heard of LSD therapy? This really doesn't prove anything.

Daniel C. Boyer

It's a disease because people who see devils flying around, don't want to see devils flying around, and antipsychotic drugs stop the devils. It's not only a matter of behavior, it's a matter of perception. It's a great misconception that people with schizophrenia are inarticulate. Many if not point people with schizophrenia can tell you exactly what they are seeing and what the world looks like when they are on or off medication.

Person sees devils and believes that people are reading their mind. 300 mg of clozapine makes the devils go away and the world looks normal and people stop reading their mind. Stop taking the medication and the devils and mind readers reappear. In addition, if you give a high enough dose of methamphetamine to you or I, we will go into psychosis and have pretty much exactly the same symptoms as someone with schizophrenia. The logical conclusion here is that there is some biochemical basis for what is going on.

from schizophrenia patients, Stephens' conclusions are even less supportable than the prevailing wisdom he's so eager to attack (not that Mr. Stephens really demonstrates a detailed knowledge of psychiatry or physiology in this article-- he seems more inclined to jump on terminology and spotlight some conflicting quotes from medical professionals.)

Another problem with Mr. Stephens is that his not-very-well-spelled-out conclusions can be interpreted as anything from "schizophrenia is a psychiatric condition" to "people with schizophrenia aren't really sick at all, doctors just don't like they way they're acting" to "they're all faking it." Some of those conclusions are deeply offensive and disturbing to people who have first-hand experience with the conditions classified as schizophrenia. -D

I don't think the point is the feelings of those who self-identify as schizophrenics. The main purpose of Mr. Stephens writings here and elsewhere is to challenge the practice of coercive psychiatry. I don't think anywhere in his article it denies that people can suffer mentally or emotionally; it just questions, what is the origin of that suffering, and maintains that is something other than a disease, "schizophrenia." That some may take offence at any conclusion is not evidence that the conclusion is untrue.

But the fact that Mr. Stephens shows no evidence that he has first hand experience with people who have schizophrenia suggests to those of us who do that he doesn't know what he is talking about. Bashing psychiatrists is not the issue here. Most everyone who has dealt with schizophrenia has dealt with incompetent psychiatrists.

Daniel C. Boyer

Daniel C. Boyer

---

Frankly, having gone what I've been through. I find Mr. Stephen's article which denies the existence of schizophrenia as offensive and morally repulsive and downright ***disgusting*** as a Holocaust extermination camp survivor would find an article which denies the Holocaust.

Well, I find your drawing parallels between positions I hold and Holocaust denial offensive and morally repulsive and downright ***disgusting***. But neither of our feelings proves or disproves anything.

Daniel C. Boyer

We are not talking personal feeling. We are talking personal experience. The most important piece of evidence that a Holocaust survivor can give to refute a Holocaust denier is simply to say "I was there." I personally have had face to face daily contact with a schizophrenia patient, enough to say that Mr. Stephen is talking total garbage. His facts are just plain wrong. He says that my friend doesn't exist when she does. If schizophrenia doesn't exist them why is **** dead?

I haven't touched the link because quite frankly I do not have the emotional energy to get into an argument about it, just as a survivor of Auschwitz would probably rather not be in a situation where he has to defend the existence of the Holocaust, and in any event I do not have the energy to maintain anything like NPOV regarding his claims.

I would question your right to critique an article you have not read.

Daniel C. Boyer

I read the article. Emotionally I want to delete the link, but the feeling is so strong that I think it is better for someone with more emotional detachment to decide what to do.

But suffice to say, that the Andrea Yates situation is not that uncommon. These situations are usually quietly handled, but situations in which a person with schizophrenia does not take medication and kills family members, themselves or both are not that infrequent.

---

Whilst I have neither the time or expertise to do a detailed refutation of the article you quote, I would merely add that I have personally met a few schizophrenics, and know people who work with them regularly. *They*, along with virtually the entire medical profession, have absolutely no doubt that schizophrenia is a real disease.

Surely it cannot have escaped you that in the past there were things that "virtually the entire medical profession" accepted, yet were totally wrong. "Virtually the entire medical profession" initially rejected germ theory, yet most would now accept that Pasteur was right. Many conceptions of the nature of physical illness, and many more harebrained conceptions of why people think and act differently from others, or differently from how the others would like them to, have risen and fallen over the course of history. People would like to forget that before "mental illness" the same phenomena were ascribed to witchcraft, tertiary stage syphillis, hysteria, moonbathing, &c. This does not mean that mental illness and its "star witness" (schizophrenia) do not exist, but neither does it mean that they do. It is extremely possible that in the future schizophrenia will be exposed to be as completely ridiculous as the previous paradigms. Maybe it will not be, but we cannot exclude that it will. The present is not some priviledged time with a unique angle on the truth.

Daniel C. Boyer

It is found around the world in every culture in roughly the same proportion, and the symptoms are pretty much the same, and there are measurable physical effects in the brain. I have to say that this guy sounds right up there with the crackpots who claim AIDS isn't the result of HIV.

As it stands now, the article gives far too much prominence to a very small minority of people who think schizophrenia is not a real disease. --

I don't know what to do about this problem, if it is a problem. I think not, however, as I have tried in the writing I have done on this article to maintain NPOV and I also think it is important to give those who look it up the broadest possible range of information, even about challenges that are very controversial. The controversial nature of these challenges is repeatedly spelled out in the article.

Daniel C. Boyer

Robert Merkel

---

There is no denying that many people have symptoms in the list of "symptoms associated with schizophrenia". These symptoms are often so distressing as to be a real problem for them.

What is at issue is what causes these symptoms. It may, as theorized, be due to a physical cause. It may, as also theorized, be due to faulty thinking. Another possibility, much less often considerd in these materialistic days, is spiritual influences.

Regardless of what really causes the problem, the problem still exists. Calling a diseases psychosomatic doesn't make the disease unreal.

The way you guys are going on is enough to drive me crazy (grin). -- Ed Poor

h