Silk Road forums

Discussion => Philosophy, Economics and Justice => Topic started by: joywind on July 09, 2013, 08:35 am

Title: schizophrenics
Post by: joywind on July 09, 2013, 08:35 am
I have experienced amphetamine/LSD psychosis and it's not a fun place to be. I feel sorry for schizophrenics...for them it doesn't go away once the effect of the drug wears off...they are stuck in a state of mind that can only be described as hell.

Lots of homeless people are schizophrenics.

Have compassion for these unfortunate souls.
Title: Re: schizophrenics
Post by: Jack N Hoff on July 09, 2013, 08:41 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vvU-Ajwbok
Title: Re: schizophrenics
Post by: thedopestjunkie on July 10, 2013, 05:56 pm
schizophrenia is largely misunderstood as split personality disorder. The two are actually different. Schizophrenia is a breakdown in thought processes, and does not necessarily mean multiple personalities like many people think. Ive been struggling with it since my early twenties. Youre right joywind, its no fun. Sometimes I wonder if schizophrenics ever get better. If there are any out there who have progressed please share your experience. Too many fucking drugs now my mind's a mess all the time.
Title: Re: schizophrenics
Post by: CannabisConsumer on July 20, 2013, 02:49 am
schizophrenia is largely misunderstood as split personality disorder. The two are actually different. Schizophrenia is a breakdown in thought processes, and does not necessarily mean multiple personalities like many people think. Ive been struggling with it since my early twenties. Youre right joywind, its no fun. Sometimes I wonder if schizophrenics ever get better. If there are any out there who have progressed please share your experience. Too many fucking drugs now my mind's a mess all the time.
Sorry to tell you this but schizophrenia is a progressive illness as all mental illnesses are.

I'm sure there are the "Magic Johnson" schizophrenics but they're probably extremely rare.

I'd love to hear something contadictory though.
Title: Re: schizophrenics
Post by: hielonite on July 20, 2013, 05:27 am
Ya, I'd agree that it is a progressive degree as well... slowly creeping up on you day after day.
Title: Re: schizophrenics
Post by: kmfkewm on July 20, 2013, 07:04 am
I don't think schizophrenia qualifies as a progressive disease, and I am positive that not all mental illnesses are progressive.
Title: Re: schizophrenics
Post by: Aussie bob on July 20, 2013, 07:31 am

   Schizophrenia definitely qualifies as a progressive, neurodegenerative disease. Over the past couple of decades that qualification has been challenged by psychiatrists who believe it is linked to developmental processes and remains latent until onset, but their theories remain without solid evidence.
   Modern imaging techniques have demonstrated statistically significant loss of brain tissue in schizophrenics that could only have occurred after the cranium had finished growing.
Title: Re: schizophrenics
Post by: sleeptight on July 20, 2013, 07:31 am
I think a LSD trip or more a comedown is the closest you can get to experience the effects of schizophrenia. I've read in the early days it was consumed by psychologists to have an insight in schizophrenia patients.
Interesting topic.
Title: Re: schizophrenics
Post by: kmfkewm on July 20, 2013, 07:43 am
I think a LSD trip or more a comedown is the closest you can get to experience the effects of schizophrenia. I've read in the early days it was consumed by psychologists to have an insight in schizophrenia patients.
Interesting topic.

I definitely without any doubt think that NMDA antagonists such as ketamine do a far superior job of mimicking the effects of schizophrenia. On ketamine binges I have heard voices in my head, had delusional thoughts, the works. LSD has never induced an effect in me that seems at all comparable to schizophrenia.

Quote
Schizophrenia definitely qualifies as a progressive, neurodegenerative disease. Over the past couple of decades that qualification has been challenged by psychiatrists who believe it is linked to developmental processes and remains latent until onset, but their theories remain without solid evidence.
   Modern imaging techniques have demonstrated statistically significant loss of brain tissue in schizophrenics that could only have occurred after the cranium had finished growing.

I believe that loss of brain tissue does not mean that it is a progressive disease unless the amount of tissue continues to lessen over time. I think in at least a quarter of cases schizophrenics only experience a single episode in their life and have no further disturbances related to the disease. I can find several dozen citations in support of either arguement though, so who knows.


http://earlypsychosis.medicine.dal.ca/index.php/2012/12/schizophrenia-is-not-a-progressive-brain-disease/

Quote
Young people who experience a first episode of psychosis often receive a diagnosis of schizophrenia.

Historically there has been the view that schizophrenia is a progressive, deteriorating condition and many clinicians were taught that point of view in their training.

When the field of Early Psychosis began to develop in the 1990s, a major theme was to discard the pessimistic attitude that clinicians held toward the possibility of significant recovery in psychotic disorders and replace it with a more balanced positive approach. The specialized Early Psychosis services that are now widely available are based on this attitude of realistic optimism.

As well, people with lived experience of psychosis, and their families, have increasingly insisted and demonstrated that recovery in schizophrenia is a realistic and attainable goal.

Yet studies of brain structure and function continue to produce data suggesting that there may be progressive changes associated with a diagnosis of schizophrenia.

In an article published in the Schizophrenia Bulletin journal in November 2012, Dr. Robert Zipursky, a leader in psychosis reseach in Canada, along with eminent colleagues in the UK, reviews the current evidence related to the question of whether or not a diagnosis of Schizophrenia indicates the person has a progress brain disease.

The article reviews all the recent evidence from brain scans, as well as other sources of data, and concludes that “schizophrenia is not a malignant disease that inevitably deteriorates over time, but one from which most people can achieve a significant degree of recovery”.

The authors strongly urge clinicians to provide young people and their families with this up-to-date information so that the old myths regarding negative outcomes for people receiving a diagnosis of schizophrenia can be laid to rest.

This study seems to conclude that decreased brain tissue in schizophrenics is correlative but not causative.

http://www.madinamerica.com/2012/11/22141/

Quote
Researchers from Canada and the U.K. review, in Schizophrenia Bulletin, the evidence of clinical outcomes, brain volume, and cognitive functioning from longitudinal studies and find that although 25% of people with schizophrenia diagnoses have poor long-term outcome, few show the characteristics of neurodegenerative illness. Rather, decreases in brain tissue volumes are attributable to antipsychotic medication, substance abuse, and other secondary factors. The authors conclude that the majority of people with schizophrenia diagnoses have the potential to achieve long-term recovery.
Title: Re: schizophrenics
Post by: kmfkewm on July 20, 2013, 07:50 am
I found a statistic that 25% of schizophrenics recover entirely after a single episode, 25% have chronic schizophrenia with no remission, and 50% have schizophrenic episodes mixed with periods of remission. I think schizophrenia is best described as an episodic or chronic disorder, depending on the particular case, but it definitely does not appear to be a progressive illness, other than perhaps from the onset to the peak of an individual episode, or from onset to symptomatic in chronic schizophrenics (but not progressive through the course of life of those afflicted by it).
Title: Re: schizophrenics
Post by: Aussie bob on July 20, 2013, 07:54 am
    :)

    Yes, no one knows what schizophrenia is, what causes schizophrenia, or if what is diagnosed as schizophrenia is one or many diseases.

   Lots of studies

   http://www.nature.com/tp/journal/v2/n11/full/tp2012116a.html
Title: Re: schizophrenics
Post by: kmfkewm on July 20, 2013, 08:02 am
I think the study you linked to confused correlation with causation, as the more recent study I linked to claimed that the reduced volume of brain tissue was caused by secondary factors, such as the use of anti psychotic drugs, and was not directly caused by schizophrenia.
Title: Re: schizophrenics
Post by: kmfkewm on July 20, 2013, 08:06 am
Actually it looks like both of those studies came out very closely to each other, so the one I linked to must have been referencing another set of studies. I suppose the only conclusion we can come to is that the evidence to determine in either way is inconclusive, with some researchers arguing that schizophrenia progressively leads to brain deterioration and others saying that it very rarely does and that studies showing otherwise are not taking into account secondary causes such as exposure to anti psychotics.
Title: Re: schizophrenics
Post by: Aussie bob on July 20, 2013, 08:21 am

   I agree it is undecided. The article I cited includes a meta analysis of first episode schizophrenics with statistically significant neurodegeneration. Anti-psychs would be an unlikely culprit in these patients I believe.
Title: Re: schizophrenics
Post by: BlackIris on July 20, 2013, 12:25 pm
I have experienced amphetamine/LSD psychosis and it's not a fun place to be. I feel sorry for schizophrenics...for them it doesn't go away once the effect of the drug wears off...they are stuck in a state of mind that can only be described as hell.

There's a difference however. You were able to tell that you were in what you call "hell" or psychosis. Real psychotic behavior, however, is not understood by the one having it, if not, in fact, in the remission lapses. When you are in a real psychosis you cannot understand that you are behaving psychotically atm. If you can understand it when you are having the psychotic episode, then it's not real psychosis. As an example it happens to a lot of people to have an anxiety attack in where you think you are going insane. If you can think that you are going insane, you aren't really going insane, it is just the anxiety that makes you behave like you think so.

Schizophrenic people are not suffering at the moment of psychosis (or better: they naturally can suffer depending on what they are feeling/experiencing, but the suffering is not caused by the comparison between "reality" and "psychosis" and the difference in the two as in your case) because they feel they are perfectly "normal" and what they experience as perfectly real and the true state of things. In your described experiences you could feel sorry when you were in that state because you could understand it as unnatural in comparison to what you can consider a "normal" state of mind. For schizophrenics (and real psychotic episodes) this doesn't happen, so how can they feel "bad" for what's happening?

Apart this, then, psychosis is a very ample subject, probably too ample to be able to approach it correctly in a forum. I personally think that the only real "bad" thing of schizophrenia and psychosis is that you cannot make order in the chaos and work practically within that new framework (as you can do in the "normal" one that all people experience); if you could, then that state would not be absolutely "bad", it would be just a different framework, and it would just depend on the framework itself if it is bad to be there or not (as in, for example, having voices telling you to harm yourself then it obviously is not so good to experience this as real, but in the case you instead will hear a voice that would instead help you then it would not be absolutely a bad thing, just the contrary; btw, Socrates heard "voices" too, he called the voice his Augoeides or "Genius").

I have a very close friend with schizophrenia and when she had the psychotic moments amidst the chaos there were many many times where she actually had a vision of things that were, IMO, much better than the "normal" approach to things of "normal" people. It is only that she could not work practically with that vision, she was just a slave of it. If she could learn to make order in the chaos and work practically in that framework, she would not have been in a worse position than "normal", actually the contrary. Btw many of the things and states that psychotic pass true are passed upon practicing Magick or Mysticism (or even shamanism or sorcery); it is only that in this last case, as I said before, you are a master there and you can make order in the chaos instead of being a slave of what's happening, but many of the "effects" are not so different (case in point: hearing "voices" or similar things).
Title: Re: schizophrenics
Post by: hielonite on July 20, 2013, 02:39 pm
I always enjoy reading your posts BlackIris  ;D
Title: Re: schizophrenics
Post by: BlackIris on July 20, 2013, 02:57 pm
Thx ;)
Title: Re: schizophrenics
Post by: thedopestjunkie on July 21, 2013, 12:43 am
some great info all thank you... especially kmfkewm. Giving me some hope over here.
Title: Re: schizophrenics
Post by: kmfkewm on July 21, 2013, 01:47 am

   I agree it is undecided. The article I cited includes a meta analysis of first episode schizophrenics with statistically significant neurodegeneration. Anti-psychs would be an unlikely culprit in these patients I believe.

Having neurodegeneration doesn't mean that it is progressive though. Somebody who has a stroke will have neurodegeneration, but then if they survive their condition will become stable, so it is not progressive.
Title: Re: schizophrenics
Post by: Aussie bob on July 21, 2013, 02:02 am

   I agree it is undecided. The article I cited includes a meta analysis of first episode schizophrenics with statistically significant neurodegeneration. Anti-psychs would be an unlikely culprit in these patients I believe.

Having neurodegeneration doesn't mean that it is progressive though. Somebody who has a stroke will have neurodegeneration, but then if they survive their condition will become stable, so it is not progressive.

   An individual who has a stroke suffers neurodegeneration due to hypoxia and inflammation, a direct result of the trauma. True enough that it isn't a progressive disease, but it doesn't have anything to do with schizophrenia. What the imaging of neurodegeneration in first episode schizophrenics indicates is loss of neurons after the cranium has finished developing, but before any changes in behaviour become apparent. So first neurodegeneration then behavioural change maketh a progressive disease.
Title: Re: schizophrenics
Post by: kmfkewm on July 21, 2013, 02:36 am

   I agree it is undecided. The article I cited includes a meta analysis of first episode schizophrenics with statistically significant neurodegeneration. Anti-psychs would be an unlikely culprit in these patients I believe.

Having neurodegeneration doesn't mean that it is progressive though. Somebody who has a stroke will have neurodegeneration, but then if they survive their condition will become stable, so it is not progressive.

   An individual who has a stroke suffers neurodegeneration due to hypoxia and inflammation, a direct result of the trauma. True enough that it isn't a progressive disease, but it doesn't have anything to do with schizophrenia. What the imaging of neurodegeneration in first episode schizophrenics indicates is loss of neurons after the cranium has finished developing, but before any changes in behaviour become apparent. So first neurodegeneration then behavioural change maketh a progressive disease.

I disagree. Cancer is an example of a progressive disease. The tumor continues to grow and spread and the cancer gets progressively worse over the course of the disease, unless it is cured. Neurodegeneration leading to behavioral changes can be discrete or continuous. In the case of a stroke it is discrete, the damage is done to the brain and then no further degeneration occurs, in other words there is no progression of neurodegeneration after the stroke and related issues are dealt with. In the case of schizophrenia, having neurodegeneration after an initial episode is not enough to make it a progressive disease, just as having neurodegeneration after a stroke is not enough to make it a progressive disease. In order for it to be a progressive disease, the amount of neurodegeneration would need to increase in a continuous fashion over time. Initial degeneration prior to any secondary causes being a possibility (ie: prior to the administration of anti-psychotic drugs) does rule out secondary causes and gives strong supporting evidence that schizophrenia leads to initial neurodegeneration, but if the volume of brain tissue stabilizes after the initial decrease it doesn't make sense to me to call it a progressive disease.
Title: Re: schizophrenics
Post by: kmfkewm on July 21, 2013, 02:38 am
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=10697

Quote
Progressive: Increasing in scope or severity, advancing, or going forward. For example, a disease that is progressive is worsening.

Examples of progressive neurodegenerative diseases are Alzheimers and Bovine spongiform encephalopathy. In both cases the neurodegeneration is continuous over the course of the illness. Just because schizophrenia presents with initial neurodegeneration doesn't mean that it has continuous neurogeneration, and if the neurogeneration caused directly by schizophrenia is discrete then it doesn't qualify schizophrenia as being a progressive disease.
Title: Re: schizophrenics
Post by: Aussie bob on July 21, 2013, 04:07 am
I'm not sure that neurodegeneration after a stroke could be described as discrete? It's generally a hugely traumatic event, that has long term flow on effects that results in secondary damage occurring well beyond the loci. That aside, you seem to be saying that schizophrenia causes neurodegeneration, when I thought we'd already agreed schizophrenia is an ambiguous term for a very misunderstood condition. So, on what evidence does "schizophrenia" cause neurodegeneration, rather than neurodegeneration cause schizophrenia.
   If the neurodegeneration had occurred during development of the brain, ceased and remained latent until first episode then it would not be progressive. That does not appear to be the case. After the brain has finished developing neurodegeneration occurs, after neurodegeneration occurs behavioural changes occur, this is progressive.
   Also, I raised this point in response to your point on first episode schizophrenics & your assertion that anti-psychs are a potential cause of neurodegeneration. I never indicated I thought neurodegeneration ceased after first episode. To the contrary, that article I cited is primarily a meta analysis of imaging studies performed on long term schizophrenics which demonstrated statistically significant results in favour of progressive neurodegeneration.
Title: Re: schizophrenics
Post by: kmfkewm on July 21, 2013, 07:14 am
I'm not sure that neurodegeneration after a stroke could be described as discrete? It's generally a hugely traumatic event, that has long term flow on effects that results in secondary damage occurring well beyond the loci.

I would describe it as discrete, secondary damage from swelling is possible, but after blood flow is restored to the brain I don't believe there is additional damage if swelling (and possibly necrotic tissue?) is dealt with. Essentially what I mean is that a stroke eventually stops causing neurodegeneration, whereas diseases like Alzheimers contiue to cause progressive neurodegeneration.

Quote
That aside, you seem to be saying that schizophrenia causes neurodegeneration, when I thought we'd already agreed schizophrenia is an ambiguous term for a very misunderstood condition. So, on what evidence does "schizophrenia" cause neurodegeneration, rather than neurodegeneration cause schizophrenia.

I don't think that schizophrenia is an ambiguous term for a very misunderstood condition. I think that there are several types of schizophrenia certainly, and perhaps they have differing root causes, and it certainly has vastly different outcomes in different people, but I think the clusters of symptoms and possible outcomes associated with schizophrenia are at least significantly understood, although by no means is it a fully understood disorder. As far as schizophrenia causing neurodegeneration or vice versa, I have no idea.

Quote
   If the neurodegeneration had occurred during development of the brain, ceased and remained latent until first episode then it would not be progressive. That does not appear to be the case. After the brain has finished developing neurodegeneration occurs, after neurodegeneration occurs behavioural changes occur, this is progressive.

I don't think that is an appropriate use of the word progressive. I have always thought that a progressive disorder is one that becomes increasingly worse as time passes. By your definition a heart attack is a progressive disorder, because after cardiodegeneration occurs behavioral changes occur. I would not consider a heart attack to be a progressive disorder but rather an acute disorder that can indeed progress to death. I think by your definition everything must be considered a progressive disorder if it doesn't take place in a planck unit of time.

Quote
   Also, I raised this point in response to your point on first episode schizophrenics & your assertion that anti-psychs are a potential cause of neurodegeneration. I never indicated I thought neurodegeneration ceased after first episode. To the contrary, that article I cited is primarily a meta analysis of imaging studies performed on long term schizophrenics which demonstrated statistically significant results in favour of progressive neurodegeneration.

Originally I posted a link to a study claiming that the lessening of brain tissue associated with schizophrenia is caused by secondary causes and is merely correlative with schizophrenia. You countered this by saying that after an initial episode and prior to the administration of antipsychotic drugs, there is detectable lessening of brain tissue volume. I then took the position that perhaps the onset of schizophrenia is associated with a decrease in brain tissue, but that subsequent decreases in brain tissue are caused by secondary causes such as the administration of antipscyhotics , as the research I linked to claimed. If schizophrenia causes acute neurodegeneration, but not chronic neurodegeneration over time, then it is not a progressive disease as far as my understanding of progressive diseases go.
Title: Re: schizophrenics
Post by: kmfkewm on July 21, 2013, 07:19 am
http://www.psych.med.umich.edu/events/view.asp?id=150

Quote
Robert B. Zipursky, M.D.
Professor and Chair
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences
McMaster University

Clinicians generally think of Schizophrenia as a progressive illness, beginning early in life with psychotic episodes in adolescence and the early twenties, and resulting in a state of disability. Yet these assumptions may be incorrect. Reasons for the assumption that Schizophrenia is a progressive disease may include the ‘clinician’s illusion’, which is the attribution of the characteristic and course of those patients who are currently ill to the entire population contracting the illness. Another component that may contribute to the assumption of progression is Berkson’s fallacy, the idea that those who have other disabilities that are not causally connected to the condition being investigated are more likely to enter the formal treatment system, and that these etiologically unrelated conditions may have a negative influence on the course of the illness. A longitudinal study found that the best predictor for a long-term successful outcome is the patient’s treatment success in the first two years of the illness. Thus, there is no reason to believe that the percentage of those doing poorly increases over time. Conclusions emphasized the following: there is little evidence that there is substantial progression of the disease, most remitted patients remain well with going treatment, short-term course predicts long-term outcome, the percentage of patients with a poor outcome remains stable over time, and many patients can be symptom free and obtain employment. The reasons why patients do poorly can be due to premorbid deficits, concurrent disorders, extended period of the disability before treatment, limited access to necessary interventions, non-adherence with resulting relapses, and a downhill spiral due to stigma, poverty, homelessness, and unemployment. Clinicians must work hard to intervene in ways that are known to be effective.
Title: Re: schizophrenics
Post by: AirshipAdmiral on July 23, 2013, 09:02 am
I don't think that schizophrenia is an ambiguous term for a very misunderstood condition. I think that there are several types of schizophrenia certainly, and perhaps they have differing root causes, and it certainly has vastly different outcomes in different people, but I think the clusters of symptoms and possible outcomes associated with schizophrenia are at least significantly understood, although by no means is it a fully understood disorder. As far as schizophrenia causing neurodegeneration or vice versa, I have no idea.

Isn't schizophrenia largely congenital? My understanding was that it was ultimately predisposed by genetic mutations of the dopamine receptors. Namely, the dopaminergic circuits involving creative thinking, free association, and a few other things.

I do not believe schizophrenia is actually a disease or disorder at all. I believe that it is society itself that is diseased, and incapable of including schizophrenics in society because the society is incompetent.

Neural diversity is not a bad thing. Society is.
Title: Re: schizophrenics
Post by: p3nd8s on July 24, 2013, 06:34 pm
Schizophrenia is a made up word to encompass a very broad range of mental disorders. If you ask 10 psychiatrists what it means, you'll get 10 different answers, if any answers at all. It's not treatable through conventional western medicine, although the pharma industry would like people to believe that so they can cash in. It is also the most inhumane field in medicine where the patients have no rights and  abuse both mental and physical is rife (far worse than Gitmo).
Title: Re: schizophrenics
Post by: ejammings on July 24, 2013, 07:07 pm
I was recently diagnosed with schizophrenia.

My symptoms are very similar to schizophrenia's definition on wikipedia. I often have slurred speech or mix words in sentences. And I've always experienced auditory hallucinations(mainly whistling) and didn't tell anyone until a few months ago. I started seeing things while operating a forklift which is why I sought help.

I used to be severely depressed but I am now on Quetiapine which stops my suicidal thoughts. Hasn't been long enough to know if the hallucinations are gone though(only been two weeks.)

I always knew I was screwed up because I never laugh. And I stay as cool as a cucumber when everyone else is loosing their shit.

Oh and painkillers don't work for me. Ecstasy does not give me a body high, and I've had 7g of mushroom and not feel much while my friends are rolling on their faces on 3.5g of the same. This is while following all rules(no tolerance due to other drugs, no diary, empty stomach, take with vitamin c etc.)

EDIT: I also get lots of pleasure from blunt force. If I get into a fight or just stub my toe I always come out with an erection. My wiring is very screwed up.
Title: Re: schizophrenics
Post by: p3nd8s on July 24, 2013, 08:09 pm
I don't think that schizophrenia is an ambiguous term for a very misunderstood condition. I think that there are several types of schizophrenia certainly, and perhaps they have differing root causes, and it certainly has vastly different outcomes in different people, but I think the clusters of symptoms and possible outcomes associated with schizophrenia are at least significantly understood, although by no means is it a fully understood disorder. As far as schizophrenia causing neurodegeneration or vice versa, I have no idea.

Isn't schizophrenia largely congenital? My understanding was that it was ultimately predisposed by genetic mutations of the dopamine receptors. Namely, the dopaminergic circuits involving creative thinking, free association, and a few other things.

I do not believe schizophrenia is actually a disease or disorder at all. I believe that it is society itself that is diseased, and incapable of including schizophrenics in society because the society is incompetent.

Neural diversity is not a bad thing. Society is.

Genius, completely agree with you +1
I appreciate schizophrenics, everyone has something to offer, even the lowest of the low and handicapped.
It's up to us to identify their positive points and strengths and magnify them.
Title: Re: schizophrenics
Post by: hielonite on July 24, 2013, 09:38 pm


EDIT: I also get lots of pleasure from blunt force. If I get into a fight or just stub my toe I always come out with an erection. My wiring is very screwed up.

Sorry, but that had me rolling....
Title: Re: schizophrenics
Post by: sharonneedles on July 24, 2013, 10:00 pm
There is a very thin line between the mentally ill and the geniuses of this world - partly why so many intelligent people can never truly feel like they are understood.
Title: Re: schizophrenics
Post by: AirshipAdmiral on July 26, 2013, 02:31 am
There is a very thin line between the mentally ill and the geniuses of this world - partly why so many intelligent people can never truly feel like they are understood.

This is done deliberately by the State.

You know too much. You ask too many questions. If you are too abnormal, hunger for knowledge, have too much ambition, or rock the boat too much, you must be mentally ill, and should be institutionalized.

Most psychiatric wards with the criminally insane are comprised of political prisoners.
Title: Re: schizophrenics
Post by: redalloverthelandguyhere on July 26, 2013, 11:09 am
My buddy is schizophrenic, but as long as he takes his meds he is cool.

When he does not take the meds, he loses the plot a little and can knock at anyones door asking strange questions.

Lucky its a small village so nobody is put out much.

I think we need to differentiate between schizophrenia and the many other forms of mental conditions.

Depression for example is the main No 1 mental issue as reported by the doctors.

Thing is no mental condition out there inhibits your ability to be intelligent.

If you have some mental condition that is a burden sometimes, think of the positive. Many intelligent people will suffer with some mental health condition/issue.

Schizophrenics should always take their medication and if young, you need to try out different meds at different doses and trust me, you WILL get better. We need to be careful that those suffering schizophrenia don't stop using meds. Its amazing how research is coming on. Its a terrible condition IF you have no support or if you do not know what is actually happening to you.

Simple fault in the brain that one day will be cured, with ease, by some simple procedure.
Title: Re: schizophrenics
Post by: ejammings on July 26, 2013, 01:26 pm
It's scary falling asleep when you don't know where you are gonna wake up
Title: Re: schizophrenics
Post by: Garrincha on August 03, 2013, 09:38 pm
To the OP, I was recently told by a medical professional that, contrary to traditional thinking, schizophrenia is not chronic but can be cured entirely.
One thing a lot of people don't understand are the so-called 'negative symptoms' (depression, lack of speech, apathy, and so on) which are often harder to treat than the 'positive symptoms' (voices, delusions). Anti-depressants are often used in conjunction with anti-psychotics for this reason.