Maps, Directions, and Place Reviews
Possibly Helpful Observation
To get a highly relevant example of schizophrenia, watch the movie Donnie Darko. Donnie was diagnosed as an extreme case of schizophrenia. Also, another example of schizophrenia, watch the movie The Exorcism of Emily Rose. The scene where Emily is in her college at three in the morning, she has her friend come by and spend the night at her college. After the boy falls asleep, Emily goes into a strange, scary, and distorted position, and stays there, motionless.
I've read that apparently, the prevalence of smoking amongst schizophrenics is much higher than that of the general population (at least, in the United States.) The article mentions that the average lifespan of a schizophrenic tends to be about 10 - 12 years shorter than that of the general population, and talks about the higher suicide rate playing a role in that tendency. I would also consider the possibility that a higher rate of tobacco use might also be partly responsible for the discrepancy in lifespans. I suppose that one might also want to point out that the lifespan gap might be different in developing nations, where there isn't very much schizophrenia research going on. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.235.22 (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Not sure where to put my comment, but this seems like a good place. I just wanted to point out that the antagonist in Psycho probably suffered from schizophrenia. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.250.160 (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- RE:"Psycho probably suffered from schizophrenia" you do know Psycho is a fiction? No one suffered from anything.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
In The New Harvard Guide to Psychiatry, published in 1988, Seymour S. Kety, M.D., Professor Emeritus of Neuroscience in Psychiatry, and Steven Matthysse, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Psychobiology, both of Harvard Medical School, say "an impartial reading of the recent literature does not provide the hoped-for clarification of the catecholamine hypotheses, nor does compelling evidence emerge for other biological differences that may characterize the brains of patients with mental disease" (Harvard University Press, p. 148).
Belief in biological causes of so-called mental illness, including schizophrenia, comes not from science but from wishful thinking or from desire to avoid coming to terms with the experiential/environmental causes of people's misbehavior or distress. The repeated failure of efforts to find biological causes of theoretical schizophrenia suggests "schizophrenia" belongs only in the category of socially/culturally unacceptable thinking or behavior rather than in the category of biology or "disease" where many people place it.
In his book Schizophrenia Revealed - From Neurons to Social Interaction (W.W.Norton, New York, 2001), Michael Foster Green, Ph.D., a professor in the UCLA Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, and chief of the treatment unit of the Department of Veterans Affairs Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center, does his best to promote the idea that so-called schizophrenia is biological. He nevertheless makes the following admissions: "...we do not yet have an adequate understanding of schizophrenia... a specific brain abnormality in schizophrenia has remained elusive. ...schizophrenia cannot be diagnosed by a brain scan" (pages 4, 6, and 95).
URLs vs PMIDs
Some of the references are being linked to their article's webpage. The reason this is avoided is because these URLs are not fixed and can become quickly outdated, whereas the PMID is fixed, it will not change. Links to the journal article's URL can be updated centrally on PubMed but they would need to be individually checked and updated on each wikipedia page. I think a useful exception is where the full text is available online where we've been using the hyperlinked text 'full text' at the end of the reference. - Vaughan 12:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Academic review of this page in Social Science and Medicine
Hi everyone,
Just noticed that the latest edition of the journal Social Science and Medicine has an article entitled 'Schizophrenia, drug companies and the internet' (PMID 17826878; full text here) that reviews the top 50 internet websites about schizophrenia and examines to what extent they espouse a bio-genetic or psycho-social viewpoint. It then examines how much drug company funding influences the viewpoint (interestingly "Drug company funded websites were significantly more likely to espouse bio-genetic rather than psycho-social causal explanations, to emphasise medication rather than psycho-social treatments, to portray 'schizophrenia' as a debilitating, devastating and long-term illness, and to link violence to coming off medication.")
Notably, our page is included in the review.
Two things emerge. The Wikipedia schizophrenia page was second in the search engine rankings overall at the time the paper was written (3rd on Google, 2nd on Yahoo). It now ranks top on Google and second on yahoo.com, so congratulations to all involved.
Secondly, the paper uses a self-created scale to score websites on how 'bio-genetic' or 'psycho-social' they are. Our Wikipedia page scores 6.7, which suggests a well-balanced view of the subject. It only gives the page a mark, and doesn't discuss it in detail (although specific sites are typically only discussed where they represent an extreme of the scoring), but something else to be proud of I think. - Vaughan (talk) 13:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
This paper was written by a person who believes the best treatment for schizophrenia is not medication but psycho social. Very dangerous belief there! While it is good to watch the influence of any corporation on our health care there is no big pharma conspiracy that information on these websites is mainly influenced by the drug companies. Thank goodness for empirical evidence because it will at least prevent guys like this from going too far with his "beliefs" so less damage will be done. --Usuallysilent (talk) 06:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- RE: "Very dangerous belief" you mean dangerous to a 20 billion dollars a year$20.7 billion in antipsychotic drug profits . Actions are potentially dangerous. Thoughts and ideas can not be. --Mark v1.0 (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- and damage to who and what? the seriously mentally ill die 25 years sooner than the average population Life_expectancy#Lower_life_expectancy_in_people_with_serious_mental_illness--Mark v1.0 (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
My two cents worth (this is my first time ever reading about schizophrenia, inspired by my symptoms of it).... Quality of life on medication is, in my experience, NOT worth the trade in longevity. Drugs have reduced some symptoms while creating a life not worthy of living. The withdrawal symptoms coming off the drugs was excruciating. My 'basic' symptoms would be so much easier to deal with if my friends and family were simply more accepting, but they push me to take medication. Drambuie 62 (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Older overdiagnosis of schizophrenia by US and Russia - question from Hood Rap
Hi. I'm a newbie, so I apologize in advance if I'm posting in an incorrect manner. Feedback is welcome. Anyways, I read the section on Diagnostic Issues and Controversies, and I think it's missing some info. It seems that American psychiatrists have also been accused of diagnosing this disorder too freely. Failing to mention that fact makes this article politically biased. The book The Oxford Companion To The Mind, edited by Richard L. Gregory, Oxford University Press, 1987, states on page 698 that in the 1960s American and Russian psychiatrists used the term schizophrenia much more freely and loosely that their counterparts elsewhere. It goes on to say that, Russian and American psychiatrists were accused of labeling as schizophrenic people who were perfectly sane, but who were a nuisance to their families or the state. Hood rap (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Bifurcation
This article unfortunately discusses less common medical approaches in two sections "other", which is about medical approaches, and "alternative approaches", which largely describes other philosophies. I move that we combine "other therapies" and also combine "alternative understandings" At it is presently, the article can be somewhat confusing.--Alterrabe (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Speak clearly
I find that this article largely talks in very advanced lingo that alot of people reading up on Schizophrenia would not understand. There needs to be more proper phrasing of terms and overall language so that more people can comprehend it.
Thanks, Alan 24.184.184.177 (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you think a person really wants to have to go and read every related article just to partially understand what the author is saying? If they did that, they'd never reach the end of the article! This is user-friendly Wikipedia, not a psychiatric convention. If he/she wants to use complex terminology, explain it here on this article without dumbing it down so that we, the reader don't have to go browsing all over the place to comprehend what it's saying.
Alan 24.184.184.177 (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not one specific word or section, but largely the advanced diagnostic vocabulary used in the article. Those who are well-versed in the field of Psychiatric Medicine would have no problem following the myriad of terms and descriptions, and I can follow some, but the average reader who might be turning to Wikipedia for a better understanding of the disorder will be completely lost in no time at all. It might be as simple as revising the links to the various related article so that they still link to those articles, but the text of this article is more user-friendly. Otherwise, it is a very nice article, but with all the advanced terms and conditions and the like, alot of people would have a very difficult time reading this article. The same way not every person who reads a Wikipedia article on say, SPDR is somehow directly involved with Wall Street, not every person who reads this article is certified Psychiatrist or studying to become one.
-Alan 24.184.184.177 (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
just to put in some input.. i think that Alan is correct with what he is saying. i am simply doing an anatomy project on schizophrenia and the article seemed to have alot of information;; although alot of it i could not understand. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.105.235 (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Laboratory Tests for Schizophrenia, etc.
First, greetings are in order. I'm a new user, and I'm already a great admirer of the work that's gone into compiling this trove of schizophrenia-specific information. But, in an attempt to keep the article as up-to-date as possible, and to also spur a commitment to inclusion of current research, I'd like to recommend an addition, which can be found at PMID: 17904833. This article, I believe, might serve as a jumping-off-point with regard to our leaps in testing progress relative to schizophrenia. Of course, there's still the issue of heritability, as mentioned in Smesny's research. Also, the prenatal viral implications as a precursor to developing schizophrenia are more significant than the article lets on. The wealth of research concerning this aspect of schizophrenia acts as a sharp contrast to the article's demonstration of, sadly, only two citations. I'm in the process of submitting a research paper as part of my physiological psychology class here at Portland State University, and while I'm not a practicing psychiatrist, my research leads me to conclude that while the article you've all presupposed might edge toward lengthy, fullness is still an admirable pursuit. Jason M. White (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Alternative Views
The alternative views section is the lengthiest section of this article on schizophrenia. This gives the impression that this is the most important or valued information in the article. These are historical views and not held by the majority today and some have been unfounded. The further reading section is also very biased toward the alternative views. When I read the bipolar or depression articles this is not the case. Even in the HIV article that includes the anti-HIV existence views, it is just a simple stated paragragh. I feel that the causes of schizophrenia should be included in the article and not a separate one and that the antipsychiatry views belong in it's own category. I cannot edit this article...why is that? Thank you --Usuallysilent (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
clinical studies info could benefit this article
Countless studies have been done on families of people with schizophrenia. Parents and siblings who are not accepting members within the family with schizophrenia have shown to have a greater negative effect on the illness than the person going off medications entirely have.--Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkweitzel (talk o contribs) 17:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to voice my support for a medical professional to find some sort of clinical study or perform some sort of clinical study which examines the above statement. Myself, I would like a medical professional to examine the possible connection between caffeine consumption in childhood (particularly in the form of coffee and tea) and an imbalance in dopamine levels related to Schizophrenia. I'm speaking from my own experiences with excess coffee consumption as a child and my experiences with Schizophrenia.
Incorrect redirection from "split personality"
According to the article: "Despite its etymology, schizophrenia is not synonymous with dissociative identity disorder, previously known as multiple personality disorder or split personality; in popular culture the two are often confused." Therefore, "split personality" (which is what I was looking for) should redirect to "dissociative identity disorder", not here. Myrvin (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Alternative approaches and alternative treatments
I don't think that it is sound to lump people who denied the existence of schizophrenia with those who believe its biochemical basis have been elucidated. Parts of the "alternative approaches" pertain to philosophies, parts pertain to treatments. At the very least, I believe a subsection should be inserted.--Alterrabe (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Question neutrality
I would question the neutrality of this article simply on the point that it is highly unlikely that there is any specific condition, illness, or disease, whether biological, psychological or of any kind called "schizophrenia". On present terms there is no way of disproving the existence of "schizophrenia" hence it is not a scientific concept, as according to Karl Popper. I recognise that it is acknowledged in the present article that some parties question the existence of "schizophrenia", however I don't think that is going far enough. I don't understand why some entries - e.g. the entry on Irish Republicanism - have special prominent notices at the start advertising that the neutrality of the article is questioned whereas that is not the case for this article and other articles pertaining to so-called "mental illnesses".It should surely be so with this article, given what is said in the entry itself - namely that some parties question the very existence of schizophrenia. Until the fundamental point is engaged with - we question whether this "illness" exists in any way - then progress is hard. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickyfann (talk o Nickyfann (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)contribs) 20:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that the section that you want is already here Schizophrenia#Diagnostic_issues_and_controversies. As for why there is a tag on some articles, but not others, any editor can add such a tag to an article, but must back up that tag with reasoned explanations of why they believe the article is not neutral. In this case, given that the majority of mental health professionals accept schizophrenia as a useful diagnosis, even if they believe that more work needs to be done, the current article reflects the view of the relevant experts. Remember, here on wikipedia, we only present the facts and opinions of the relevant experts; we don't make new decisions about these facts and opinions ourselves, and we do not comment on those, except as to report when other people have done so. Edhubbard (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Thanks very much for your comments. I still think the contention that there is an illness called schizophrenia is highly controversial, since, unlike with most (physical) illnesses its existence is disputed by many people, experts and non-experts. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.241.145 (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The old story of The King with the Golden Cape
--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Maybe
This is a well written article, but it would be nice if someone added the disease that follow schizophrenia. Such as schizoaffective disorder in which schizophrenic symptoms are mixed with severe mania or depression. Schizophreniform disorder in which a person experiences schizophrenic symptoms for more than one month but fewer than six months. Schizotypal personality disorder a person engages in odd thinking, speech, and behavior, but usually does not lose contact with reality
This is just a thought, but they do fall under the category. 71.142.214.138 (talk) 04:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven
Well you know when you have that box that says: See also. You need one of those. Personally those should be accessed through this page since they fall under the category.71.142.214.138 (talk) 06:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven
Well lets say I'm a person who doesn't know about those mental disorders.I can't use the search box for it because I don't know about those three diseases. Isn't the point to give people the most information you can. Well why don't you give them the most abundant source of information. I'm talking on the behalf of those people who want to learn about these things. I may know what they are and I can search for them in a search box. But what about the others.71.142.214.138 (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Cardinal Raven
Alternative treatments sections
Hi there,
I keep removed the 'medical' qualifier from the 'alternative treatments' header because it is unnecessary. Saying something is a 'medical treatment' as opposed to a 'treatment' means nothing. If you are taking it to mean 'is accepted by mainstream medicine' (surely the most sensible definition) then none of the things in the section qualify. If you mean that it is delivered by physicians, then Soteria certainly doesn't, because the whole point is that it is staffed largely by lay people. However, simply having a physician deliver the treatment doesn't make it 'medical', as there are plenty of 'medical treatments' delivered by non-physicians, and many cases of complete quackery delivered by qualified doctors. Both option seem to suggest removing the description. Actually, I think this whole section heading is a bit OTT for such a minor part.
Also, we could do with replacing many of the scrappy Soteria refs with the recent systematic review published in Schizophrenia Bulletin (PMID 17573357).
- Vaughan (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Nutriton section
Gnif global, if you want to discuss the scientific evidence do so here rather than posting messages like the one below on my personal talk page:
If you want to make major changes to the article, discuss them here so we can reach a consensus. Just because something has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, it does not mean it automatically deserve equal space to everything else. There are over 78,000 articles on schizophrenia, many of which will have cited over 100 studies. A review article is an opinion piece drawing on published evidence, and the one you cited isn't even a systematic review. - Vaughan (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
For accuracy sake, here is what has been said about that journal (copying from Gwernol's talk page):
From the Nutrition Journal website: Nutrition Journal is an open access, peer-reviewed, online journal that considers manuscripts within the field of human nutrition. Gnif global (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The fact that something is in PubMed doesn't mean it must be included here, and not everything in PubMed is of the same quality. See WP:UNDUE, WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS. I'm also concerned about the WP:COI and have made that clear to GNIF on his talk page. The particular article's byline is GNIF, so there's a COI issue here with GNIF adding it all over Wiki. If that content is to be included, it should be based on the best secondary reliable source reviews. Unless reliable secondary source reviews mention it, it's probably WP:UNDUE. And the "self-published" is your blog, which you were also adding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Citation needed in the lead
I really stopped by to ask when that cite tag in the lead is going to be dealt with; it's been there for several months. Can that text be deleted or cited? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Antipsychotics additions and removal
Hi Miclick, I've removed your addition on antipsychotics (as I note has Casliber) as this concerns antipsychotics in general (which can be used in a wide range of conditions), not the treatment of schizophrenia specifically. One study is on monkeys (who certainly don't have schizophrenia) and the other is on a group of patients of which not a single one was diagnosed with schizophrenia, and, in fact, all of whom were diagnosed with other disorders (Alzheimer's disease and other neurological syndromes). Furthermore, we already have a reference to a human study that shows antipsychotic treatment is linked to changes in brain structure specifically in people with schizophrenia (see PMID 15062627). - Vaughan (talk) 09:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Just noticed recent editing issues here; re-watchlisting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The word "schizophrenia" is improperly capitalized in this sentence in the section called "Positive and negative symptoms": "Despite the appearance of blunted affect, recent studies indicate that there is often a normal or even heightened level of emotionality in Schizophrenia especially in response to stressful or negative events." I would have fixed it myself but the page is locked on a claim that it's vandalized too much. A quick review of the history page showed it hasn't been vandalized more than other pages, and the claim that the page is too long to monitor is nonsense. If you go to the history page and click on the "diff" link next to the most recent revision, it shows you in red type what the change was. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.60.120 (talk) 03:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
link to parkinson symptoms..
when the "dopamine antagonists" are given, i understand they could cause parkinsonian symptoms due to decrease dopamine...
I also believe the link between cannabis and schitzophrrenia should be mentioned more as well. cannabis causes a 6 fold increase in getting the disease, again linked to the increased levels of dopamine... --Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.76.163 (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
It was from a lecture on mental illness, i will try and find the references that she used --Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.92.101.55 (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Substance use as alleviation of medication side-effects
Hi Djayjp, the cited Gregg et al. paper (PMID 17240501) does indeed support the statement that one reason patients use drugs is to overcome medication side-effects. See section 5.2.1 of the review on self-report studies, and Table 1 for the prevalence for this motivation found in previous studies. To quote the conclusion of the paper "The self report studies do show that some people with schizophrenia report using substances in an attempt to alleviate specific psychopathological symptoms or medication side effects but there has been little research to show whether substances are selected differentially." - Vaughan (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Additional Cultural References
I think it might be nice if the cultural references section included more examples of references to schizophrenia. In particular, I'm thinking of the book The Center Cannot Hold by Elyn Saks, a law and psychiatry professor with numerous other academic credentials. The book describes in detail her struggle with paranoid schizophrenia, and I think it's a very useful way of getting some insight into what it's like to have schizophrenia.
This paragraph is incomplete without a reference to the beautiful Hindi film '15 Park Avenue' featuring the talented actress Konkana Sen. The film gives a true understanding of Schizophrenia
Vakulgupta (talk) 05:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Additions with references
Hi Jv821, just a note to say that if you add bits to the article, can you reference them with the original research, not secondary sources. It just means someone's got to verify the information and track down the original research. Thanks! - Vaughan (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Prognosis
Hello. Has anyone _read_ the article on 1/3 rate for full recovery? Afaik, "full recovery" er doesn't mean 'full recovery' as in return to premorbid functioning. Am i wrong?? --Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.28.193 (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
hi again. "one-half to two-thirds of people with schizophrenia significantly improve or recover, some completely". yes of course 'recovery' should be defined. i came across an article just recently that put the rate of cognitive deficits at 99%: that's nothing like 1/3. but i was unable to read the article and can't easily find it now. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.75.253 (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Cleanup
Since this article is featured, please try to keep citation formatting consistent, to conform to 2c of WP:WIAFA. Diberri's PMID template filler can be used to generate a cite journal template from a PMID. Further information about using PubMed is at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches. Last accessdates are not required for PMIDs; if there is no URL, a last access date isn't needed. Please see WP:DASH: emdashes are not spaced. There's a lot of new text here, which I haven't reviewed yet, but I'm surprised at the number of new PMIDs. Is this selective use of primary sources, or does the new text rely on high-quality secondary reviews? (See Dispatch link above.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Free full text DSM-IV on Schizophrenia and Other Psychotic Disorders
What is Schizophrenia.
I've been studying Schizophrenia for many years and am dismayed at how often the validity of the concept is misrepresented either: as "there is no such thing as Schizophrenia, etc" or distorted by some MH proesionals as an illness as well defined and understood as allergies. Now allergies are themselves not well understood (which is exactly why I chose that example) but are to Schizophrenia, what a broken leg is to allergies.
But I can not fault this article in its fair and accurate presentation of what is known, what is not known, and more importantly the ambiguities of the word and its uses. Never the less I think the introduction should make the ambiguity and limitation of the concept more clear. But I will not hazard editing a featured article. If my point seems fair and coherent to you, you can take it on board. A well written paper about just this issue by Al Siebert, Ph.D. can be found at:
http://www.successfulschizophrenia.org/articles/ehss.html
You can also use the paper as a source in this article.Esmehwa (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree the paper is POV, and I re-iterate that the article is fair and accurate, I just added the link as an addition to the discussion, something to consider. I guess I was being a bit perfectionist, I don't think I could edit the article to make it more balanced. I just wanted the authur of the article "mr. wiki" who seems to write so articulately on so many topics to further note this POV that is all. ;) Esmehwa (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Mental illness
Just noting my change of "a psychiatric diagnosis that describes a mental illness" to "a mental disorder" in the intro sentence, because: 1) My version is both accurate and succinct. 2) It is awkward to call it "psychiatric" but not "psychological." Both psychology and psychiatry have contributed significantly to our understanding of the condition, and both psychologists and psychiatrists will treat those who have it. 3) "Illness" is a medical-model WP:POV, whereas "disorder" is rarely (not always, but rarely enough) contested. And 4) Most to the point, perhaps, mental illness redirects to mental disorder, and it is odd to prefer a redirect over a direct link unless the direct link would pose a grammatical issue. And, yes, I realize that an older version of the article passed WP:FAC, but I still see no consensus anywhere that the rambling "psychiatric-diagnosis-that-describes-a-mental-illness" wording is ideal. Besides, WP:FAC isn't a cue to stop editing (it's an indication that the article "has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so"--emphasis mine), nor is it consensus that every detail in the article is perfect (if that were the requirement, then nominations would last a lifetime). Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
...Nevertheless, we feel that we should acknowledge one important perspective.Wewill be using the term"disease" when referring to schizophrenia. This approach differs fromthat taken by theAmerican PsychiatricAssociation's (2000) most recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV-TR) and the World Health Organization's (1992) International Classification of Disease (ICD-10), where schizophrenia is described as a "disorder." In contrast to the vagueness of the termdisorder ("something iswrong"), disease implies a discrete entitywith a specific etiology (even if unknown) and a discernible pathology (even if incompletely delineated) (Evans, 1976; Becker, 2005; Berganza et al., 2005; Steurer et al., 2006). We believe that there is sufficient evidence to call schizo- phrenia a disease related to brain abnormalities that are the final "common pathway" caused by an assortment of specific genetic and/or environmental factors.
Regarding the lead changes, I personally appreciated the "diagnosis describing" - a bit of distance from the concept - but it could be confusing up front. I do agree with using the term mental disorder. While the authors of "Just the Facts" say that the term disease has more clarity and heuristic value, the ICD-10 states: "the term "disorder" is used so as to avoid the even greater problems inherent in the use of terms such as "disease" and "illness"." It's hard to evalute the authors' brief assertion of the evidential appropriateness of "disease" because they don't address the specific points made in their summary. Without getting into the neuropsych/neuro vs psych debate, these actually included: "The nosological boundaries between schizophrenia and other psychiatric disorders are indistinct"; "Is schizophrenia on a continuum with bipolar disorder?"; "Exactly how is "nature carved at its joints"?"; "How is the entity "schizophrenia" best defined and operationalized to enable more meaningful study?"; "How does one categorize "the many schizophrenias"? Is there anything that meaningfully binds this construct?"
Also in their intro they say: "its etiology and pathophysiology remain relatively obscure" which "cannot principally be ascribed to a paucity of findings." (the same, funnily enough, as the 1988 review: "The relatively obscure etiology and pathophysiology of schizophrenia cannot be completely ascribed to a paucity of "findings".) It seems from that like they might have addressed why it shouldn't be called a "syndrome"...but they seem to see the term "disorder" as meaning the same thing (though just after they say they're going to use the term disease, they're ok referring to it as an "enigmatic brain disorder"). Incidentally, the prior reviews in the series didn't express a preference on the term, and while clearly excellent we don't know that this one selected the roughly 300 sources "scrupulously" or neutrally - they just say they did a literature search (doesn't say on what) using two main terms and unspecified narrower ones, and then "screened" and "culled". I notice that when it comes to "course" they say and cite very little, not including any of the major longitudinal reviews but including Kraepelin & Bleuler form the early 1900s, the ICD and DSM, and a few apparently tangentially related papers.
As a sidenote since the status of the authors has been brought up - and only as extra context on their point of view, not to invalidate their work or impugn their characters at all (there are of course going to be links given the overlap) - brief searches quickly showed that both Tandon[3] and Nasrallah[4] appear to have been quite extensively tied to pharmaceutical companies financially and professionally. The disclosure statement in this 2006 article on an antipsychotic in schizophrenia published in the same journal says that Dr. Tandon has previously been a consultant for, and on the speakers' bureaus of, five different pharmaceutical companies. He is the first author on that paper followed by 9 employees of 3 different pharmaceutical companies, and they were "assisted in developing the initial manuscript outline" by "Apothecom", a subcontracted company that apparently "develops strategically driven communications plans to ensure that key messages are consistently communicated across all tactical projects. Establishing the product's scientific profile in the medical literature is critical to its successful positioning and provides citations to support other programs.[5] EverSince (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Getting pretty weasly in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
For the above: NIMH dictionary - "Schizophrenia is a chronic, severe, and disabling brain disorder" (my emphasis added). I'm sure we all know the notability and strength behind the NIMH and its choice of language. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, as you've both noted there is a disagreement over whether schizophrenia is a unitary disorder or a syndrome. This is exactly why the original wording was chosen (which I've now replaced) because it accurately describes what it is. "Schizophrenia is a psychiatric diagnosis" - no disagreement there I hope; "that describes a mental disorder" - i.e. the diagnostic manuals describe it as this, as noted in the DSM and ICD; "characterised by..." which goes on to describe the core features of the diagnosis in every system. This is the most accurate and NPOV description we've come up with so far, and it has been there through several FA revisions, so please do not change it. Debates the nature of schizophrenia itself are covered more widely in the article itself - Vaughan (talk) 07:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Whose definition of reality?
Well? 199.117.69.8 (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
History
We now have a source (thanks to Vaughan) on the "Book of Heart"[6] The relevant statements from this 1999 review of Egyptian historical perspectives on mental health by an Egyptian psychiatrist are:
"Depression, dementia, psychomotor retardation, negativism and subacute delirious states, and thought disorders similar to schizophrenia were described in details in the Book of Heart in Eber's papyrus.". And, referring to several papyri at once, "...we find disturbances of thinking, emotions, intellect, and behavior similar to formal thought disorder, poverty of thinking, retardation and excitement, forgetfulness, etc., which can be labeled in our time as schizophrenia, catatonia, or dementia." There are no details, doubts or diagnostic issues considered (understandably given the remit of the article).
The first paragraph of the history section is a series of individual findings/views, somewhat conflicting, and it would seem it needs to be made into an overview that incorporates general reviews of the balance of findings/interpretations ((which don't actually seem to even mention the egyptian papyri).
This 2001 article concludes (once I could get past the intro half-jokingly equating people with schizophrenia to a saying about "fools"): '"If schizophrenia is an old disease then why are there so few early reports? There are at least four possible explanations..."
This 2003 article seems to be trying hard to give a neutral summary of the findings and opinions on this and says:
"The accounts of Haslam (1809/1976) and Pinel (1809) are often regarded as the earliest cases of schizophrenia in the medical and psychiatric literature (see Gottesman, 1991, pp. 5-6; Shorter, 1997, p. 61). Prior to these seminal contributions, descriptions of "madness" occurred, but it is hard to discern a distinct and unmistakable schizophrenia-like illness." ...
"Madness - in the general sense of irrational, unintelligible, or uncontrolled behavior - can be found in the Bible, in Mesopotamian, classical Greek, and Latin literature, and in the writing of many non-Western cultures (Haldipur, 1984; Hershkowitz, 1998; Jeste et al., 1985; Padel, 1995). However, controversy exists about the historical presence of the kinds of symptoms seen in modern schizophrenia and about the existence of the disease state itself" ...
"Differing conclusions from retrospective diagnosis and the disputed discovery of cases of early schizophrenia illustrate the different standards of evidence applied to the same material by proponents of recency and permanence viewpoints."...
"Therefore, the frequency and adequacy of both medical and nonmedical descriptions of insanity and schizophrenia prior to 1800 have been disputed and supported by advocates of each position."...
"On balance, it seems probable that reports of a schizophrenia-like syndrome will continue to be rare in the historical record prior to 1800. The scarcity may reflect the scarcity of the syndrome itself, or simply the relative absence of its personal and biographical artifacts." ...
"This evidential situation means that it will be hard to resolve the recency-permanence debate concerning the illness."
EverSince (talk) 10:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the ebers papyrus, the same Egyptian psychiatrist, Okasha, goes into slightly more detail in Notes on mental disorders in Pharaonic Egypt. This was published a year later but looks like it may have been drawn from an earlier 1978 version (PMID 400639), although it doesn't cite it and I couldn't see access (looks to be a few pages shorter). The new article has subsections on Hysteria, Sadness/Depression and Suicide, but doesn't even mention the word schizophrenia. It does list some statements from the ebers papyrus and some brief interpretations (my italics):
'As to faintness (the ib is faint): the heart does not speak or the vessels are dumb, there being no perception of the fingers; it arises through the air which fills them.'. These symptoms may suggest what we may now call negativism.
'As to the feeling of sickness (the ib is sick): it is debility of the heart through heat from the anus.'
'As to the mind kneeling (breaking down): this means that the mind is constricted and the heart becomes small. It is that the heart is hot and weary and eats little and is fastidious' (i.e., psychomotor retardation, probably of a depressive nature).
'As to drying up of the mind, it is that probably the blood coagulates in the heart.' This drying up is equivalent to our present thought blocking, or poverty of thinking.
'As to him wheeling and falling on his heart: this means that he becomes faint, and that his mind becomes powerless. It is the overfilling of his heart with blood, which does it, that arises through drinking of water and eating hot fish.' This can be interpreted as stuporous or catatonic conditions.
'As to the mind kneeling in the interior of his belly, the purulency falling on his heart,' probably suggests degradation of thinking.
'As to his mind passing away, it is that the vessels of the heart carry faeces.' This is equivalent to our present delirium or subacute delirious states.
'To expel 'a a a' poison from the heart, expel fleeting forgetfulness and injury of the mind.' This is what we now call dementia.
'As to his mind being dark (i.e., melancholic and depressed) and his tasting his heart, this means that his mind is contracted, there being darkness in his belly and he makes the deep to consume his mind' (i.e., he repents or he has fits of helplessness).
It seems these brief comments are the basis for the statements in the author's other article. Apparently "drying up of the mind" is enough to conclude thought disorder indicative of schiziophrenia. Incidentally the ebers papyrus doesn't seem to include much more (translation) and the "book of heart" seems to be only a few dozen sentences under the heading "Anatomical-physiological-section". Not exactly "details" as Okasha says in his other article.
I found another article, Psychiatry in Ancient Egypt, written in 1987 apparently by an Egyptian psychiatrist working in the UK. This does not offer the psychiatric interpretations of the Okasha articles. Again there are headings on hysteria and sadness/depression, and alcoholism - but again no mention of schizophrenia. "As for faintness ... the (ib) mind, faint" is interpreted as hysteria-related fainting, not "negativism" as above. A number of the other ebus papyrus statements above are described simply as states of consciousness, "which seem to be rather comparable to the way the patient's concentration and attention is assessed and described in today's clinical examinations." Nothing seems to be suggested about any of this being any more specific to thought disorder or schizophrenia than to any other possible psychological or general medical condition.
Finally, both the above articles cite "Ghalioungui, P. (1963), Magic and Medical Science in Ancient Egypt (Hodder & Stoughton)." as a general source, as well as the papyri themselves. Ghalioungui seems to be a general physician. The varying psychiatric interpretations seem to be from the authors of the articles.
Not sure what all that means for how the history section should briefly relay this whole issue in a reliable NPOV way. EverSince (talk) 10:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
For the good of humanity . . .
Add this to the defninition of Schizophrenia:
"At its core, Schizophrenia occurs when a person's full potential cannot be realized. Often, the Schizophrenic person is fully aware of what his or her full potential is, but feels that he or she cannot reach that full potential because the patient believes that the people within the surroundings do not have faith in the patient to achieve that potential. Schizophrenia, like the common cold or the ear ache, can be completely cured by a combination of drugs and psychotherapy." --Preceding unsigned comment added by Engleel (talk o contribs) 19:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Acute Schizophrenia? What does it mean?
This article says very little about the difference between acute and chronic schizophrenia, only that "acute vs. insidious" affects prognosis. Here is a list of 5 review abstracts from PubMed which specifically mention acute schizophrenia in their titles. Orthomolecular psychiatry has made a distinction between the two since the 1960s, and it would be interesting to see what surrounds that distinction. The orthomolecular crowd alleges that their distinction (which was made using something called the Hoffer-Osmond test) was ignored, and that is why their clinical trials failed. Currently a clinical trial for the orthomolecular approach to acute schizophrenia is due to be complete in 2009.[7] II | (t - c) 13:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Self-created Schiztos
Do you think it is possibly for someone who is lonely to create voices within their minds, then allow the voices to take the shape of 'little people' within their minds? Is it possible that these little people can manage seperate divisions of emotion, and have discussions with each other on how to react to situations? Or is this just over-rationalization and common paranoia of reality? I don't know where to go for answers, and everyone in my head just keeps arguing and I can't always get them to shut up. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.86.21 (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Schizophrenia and German Researches
German researchers know the real cause of schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is caused by the bacterium Borrelia burgdoferi in connection with environmental stress and external influences. The people of this bacterium in them react to stress overly frustrated, sad or otherwise. I hope that this information could help the people! Further information can be found in the German Wikipedia and under http://www.lymenet.de/lymchckd.htm # checklist --Preceding unsigned comment added by Germanresearch (talk o contribs) 19:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
A translator's question
(I've decided to translate this article into Russian)
In the phrase
The United States of America and Australia are two countries with laws allowing the forced administration of this type of medication on those who refuse but are otherwise stable and living in the community.
- what does "the community" stand for? Some special community of patients or the general community, like the usual neighbourhood? CopperKettle (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
White matter abnormalities
A good number of recent studies using Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI) have pointed to abnormalities in connections between brain regions as a potential reason behind some of the symptoms seen in schizophrenia. It would be nice to see a part in the article about this (see http://www.spl.harvard.edu/extensions/PubDB/publications/download_bitstream.php?bitstreamid=223 for a review of some of these studies). Emelon8 (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Missing causes.
I have seen in other related links, references to PPA a pharmaceutical drug component that can cause schizophrenic like symptoms, as well as B 12 deficiencies.
Possible areas of expansion ?
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 15:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Since some people are labelled 'Schizophrenic' are later found to have 'causes', so therefor some other 'schizophrenics' could be so because 'the cause' has not been identified and treated.
Case in point:
Schizophrenic Society
Tumors, infections, etc.etc.etc..
I hope you can understand the need to add a section for 'causes' that include identified causes.
It is based on the assertion that some, (perhaps many) schizophrenics are in fact 'untreated' ill people, because the source of their problem has not been correctly found.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 15:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Schizophrenia Diagnosis and the DSM IV text revision
This article needs to state the difference between negative symptoms and major depression. Can anyone address this? --Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.29.127 (talk) 02:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Look at the last sentence of the first paragraph under DIAGNOSIS. The goal would be to list diagnosis that are psychotic but not schizophrenia (such as the sub classes). Using thew Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV TR (which is referenced elsewhere), three disorders need to be deleted: bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, drug intoxication. Others in the psychotic diagnosis include
Delusional Disorder Brief Psychotic Disorder Shared Psychotic Disorder Psychotic Disorder due to a General Medical Condition Substance-Induced Psychotic Disorder Psychotic Disorder Not Otherwise Specified
If the intent is to list other diagnosis with "hallucinations" (as if that alone constituted the criterion) one has another undesirable situation to be modified. This discussion is going too far in the medical pathogen version of mental illness. Sarah72Jane (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
PS If this is discussed elsewhere, I apologize for not threading this comment. I am visually impaired and regret that I cannot throw all four pairs of glasses at the doctor. (You do it by following his voice.)
IT should be noted the the DSM-IV-TR states clearly that those other D/Os (bipolar d/o w/ psychotic features, substance induced psychotic d/o, and so on)should be ruled out prior to dx of schizophrenia. It should also be noted that there is a high prevalence of substance abuse/dependence among clients w/schizophrenia and other serious mental health disorders. The DSM-IV-TR is clear (as mud anyway) concerning differential diagnosis concerning these disorders. To the authors of the article "good job." --Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.190.155.2 (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Prescription Drugs as a possible cause is missing
Prescription Drugs
In some cases prescription drugs or their components like dextromethorphan/guaifenesin/Phenylpropanolamine have been known to create symptoms that resemble and or lead to the label of schizophrenia.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 21:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
There appears to be some who would rather censor this information from the site.
It has been documented that errors of 'labelling' have occured and will occur. Failure to identify 'prescription drugs' as the cause, will result in the label of a schizophrenic.
We need a review by editors here.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 15:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
My research suggests that 'delirium' can be mistaken, and a person labelled as schizophrenic, depending on how the evaluation is. People should know. We cannot assume that all decisions are correct. How rare is rare ? We don't have accurate info, because of the reluctance to divulge and to study. Look at PPA, the first studies were in the 60's and the drug was taken off the US market only, in 2000.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 22:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
If you read between the lines 'confusion' or (wrong conclusion) can lead to the label of schizophrenia. Now if you tell me that some over the counter drugs can cause schizophrenic like conditions, then this should be part of the site. There may be some, a few, many, or most cases attributed to some unknown drug, be it over the counter, or prescription.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 05:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Episodes and treatment.
This article does not include a section about the duration of episodes, and the chances of a reoccurence.
It also does not reflect the opinion by some that long term treatment of the first episode is always necessary, which may reflect the reality that the episode may be organic in nature.
No evidence that early episodes of schizophrenia without medication result in long-term harm
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 20:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
...except for the catastrophic impact on vocational and social development. This is a very complicated area and there are issues in equating research with clinical practice. It is hard to elaborate on practice here actually I come to realise. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Higher incidence in women.
It appears one study examined the higher incidence of schizophrenia and women, compared to men, and found a possible link to schizophrenic like conditions and diet pills.
All Psychosis is Not Schizophrenia, Especially Not in Women
The conclusion of the research was that more "screening" was required.
It is great to have more people informed of this through wikipedia. Congratulations for providing the venue.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 22:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Misdiagnoses warning.
Misdiagnoses due to not looking at over the counter drugs, issued warning.
Organic affective psychosis associated with the routine use of non-prescription cold preparations.
This case highlights the need for better training to avoid mistakes, or false labelling.
I suspect incidence of these are underreported, and suggests a section be added to this site.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 22:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The similarity, or cross over between delirium and schizophrenia is a judgement call, as in there is no test to conclude one over the other.
The inability to find a cause results in the label of schizophrenia suggesting the problem is in the testing in some cases.
The case in point highlights the need for better research on behalf of those involved.
To NOT divulge this in the listing is a grave error of misrepresentation.
I find it quite revealing that there has been no mention of this potential as of yet, but then again, 'the system' does not have a an answer.
(my speculation is the schizophrenia is indeed a result of a variety of facters, ie genetic, undetected infection, a adverse drug reactions, damages to internal organs ie liver....I will try to locate actual resources...)
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 05:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Logical analysis of the research suggests that we should look at colds of a flu same cause many different symptoms, depending of many factors. For one we are not all equal, different blood types, different diets, different genetic makeup. Why should one cause have the same effect on all people. (sounds like communism philosophy - we are all equal....not)
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 12:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Different personalities, different IQ's, different histories...
By the articles own admission if one of the factors is genetics, then we all know that genetically we are similar yet different. Some people like peanuts, the other may die from them.
Different allergies.
Remember we still don't know what cause this disorder, except to say that we know what causes this disorders symptoms, then we conclude that it is not this disorder.
Seems the disorder is actually not knowing or not finding the possible cause from a list of known causes.
Etiology may be similar to understanding abuse we know then we don't want to know, or we slant the issue.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 12:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Undue Weight
the difference between these two versions is, I feel, giving undue weight to the latter version. I tried to accommodate, but rather than continue reverting I will ask for other opinions. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
How about we reject the new version because it's factually inaccurate? It says: Some prescription medications such as dextromethorphan, (DXM or DM) an antitussive (cough suppressant), guaifenesin an expectorant, [64] , [65]phenylpropanolamine,and bromocriptine may also cause or worsen psychotic symptoms.[66][67]
Looking only at the first reference, I find these problems:
- dextromethorphan and guaifenesin and are over-the-counter meds (and PPA used to be), not prescription meds;
- the first ref is specific to the combination of DM/G/PPA, and makes no claim that any drug here is at all dangerous individually;
- the first ref says only that the combination (actually, it's probably PPA component alone) causes hallucinations;
- temporary, drug-induced, schizophrenia-like symptoms are not the same thing as schizophrenia; and
- the first ref is a really pathetic source and could be replaced with something substantially better.
I definitely support reversion to the previous, factually accurate statement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- PPA is still available in some countries.
- PPA has been isolated as a contributing factor.
- temporary schizophrenia conditions, treated and labelled without the deduction of a drug cause, may indeed lead to a schizophrenic label as in the case of the person who had several incidents.
- It is noted that these drugs, and I am sure others are possible causes.
- we still have not isolated a third contributing cause such as underlying illness, as in giardia. One must not analysis these issues, incidents, causes in a linear black and white fashion. Disease can operate in a matrix form.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 12:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you Casliber can undertake research to identify the commonalities based on your observations.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 19:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The issue is already 'cloudy' as there is no acceptable cause for schizophrenia, except for some cases that are known to mimic schizophrenia but are known to have a cause. Is it possible that some cases are undetected known causes ?
Why not give those with this label a hope, a door to possibly examine.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 15:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
For reasons having nothing to do with this article, I have searched the medical literature concerning guaifenesin; I found no connection between guaifenesin and schizophrenia. --Una Smith (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Another possible 'facet' of this label.
The complexity of this label schizophrenia, reflects what the pioneers of this disease noted, IT IS A COMPLEX WEB OF FACTORS.
Here is one possible factor, that combined with others may make sensitivity to drugs, and disease more pronouced.
Problem is that some links suggest even common infections like giardia are difficult to diagnose in the first place. This may set into motion the complexity of symptoms.
Combine this with a genetic liver problem or sensitivity to some disease, ie beaver fever, or giardia... Cirrhosis of the Liver - Toxins of the blood
The mental confusion symptom found in such situation may then again be complicated by the environmental factors that may become part of the greater puzzle.
Anyway, that is why I have suggested links to these other relevant sources, foggy brain, mental confusion, that may be further aggravated by 'sensitive conditions' such as child birth, underlying disease, or comprised organs such as liver or kidney.
The complexity of contributions and the difficult of diagnoses is the greater problem.
(oh and by the way, we have not included spiritual and religious forces that may be at play that are already suggested in some cases.
There are sites to all these half-truths already.
This label may be a matrix of conditions, and it is probably worth while showing possible links.
It is also worth mentioning the phenomena of paradoxical effect that adds another dimension to the complexity of this disease.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 14:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
To add section on medical error ignoring drug ingredients that cause schizophrenia.
- Some medications like bromocriptine, and prescription or nonprescription drugs containing the drug ingredient phenylpropanolaminemay also cause or worsen psychotic symptoms.
Some doctors are not aware or ignore that possibility that ingredients or drugs, be they over the counter or prescription can cause 'schizophrenic' like conditions.
As some historic cases show, failure to identify these drug elements as the cause of the psychosis, and its many variants, results in the label of schizophrenia.
Perhaps that is why there is no known cause. It is (in some or many cases) the result of not identifying the cause at work. Be it a side effect or bacterial cause.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 14:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 16:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Poor Stigma Strategy
If the line betweeen 'known causes' of schizophrenia conditions is unclear, human falibitlity, why are not the known causes being communicated to down grade the label of 'mental illness' ?
Can for example 'mental confusion' caused by an infection be mistaken if testing for infections is not perfect ?
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 16:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps I have not made myself clear, why are the logical, organic or biological causes for schizophrenic like conditions being used to expose the treatable causes of this disease and eliminate the stigma ? Are we dealing with political pressures similar to those we encountered with the cigarette industry. Case in point, the article failed to discuss any prescription drugs that could cause schizophrenic symptoms. (Now remember if they identify the drug, then is not schizophrenic, merely schizophrenic like, if they can't or they do not identify the drug, then it is schizophrenia.
Looking at the article in a logical way, as we did with spousal abuse to show that it was flawed.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
(I suspect that many cases of schizophrenia are in fact a combination of critical factors, ie a weakened system, caused by an undetected infection and a stress factor like a PPA drug, that is I belive some type of amphetamine...
It is also important to this topic to understand the paradoxical effects of some sedative drugs..Serious complications can occur in conjunction with the use of sedatives creating the opposite effect as to that intended. Malcolm Lader at the Institute of Psychiatry in London estimates the incidence of these adverse reactions at about 5%, even in short-term use of the drugs. The paradoxical reactions may consist of depression, with or without suicidal tendencies, phobias, aggressiveness, violent behavior and symptoms sometimes misdiagnosed as psychosis.
Oh and by the way, here is a timely report on "Scientific and Educational influences" by the Pharmaceuticals, and their students, many doctors.
My conclusion is that this article is failing to include important critical information that can be verified by those who are regular posters and defenders of this site.
This article needs more balance.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 04:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
References
Error
Oh and by the way, PPA is not a drug but a drug ingredient.... Health Canada withdraws drug products containing phenylpropanolamine (PPA) from the market
I have made the correction if no one objects.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
schizophrenia is idiopathic. Scientists don't know why people are diagnosed. But they know for sure that it cannot be caused by anything before birth nor early life. The theries metioned in the article on drugs and genetics however, could be correct. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Kh1995 (talk o contribs) 06:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Cannabis causing schizophrenia?
I'd like to see a source on that in the article. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.132.87 (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Causes and Irish wave
Patrick Tracey claims [11] that having an older father is a risk factor due to sperm mutations, that famine might be a cause, and that there was a wave of schizophrenia in Irish immigrants to the U.S. Have these claims been studied or verified? -- Beland (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Dissociative disorder
Are a dissociative disorder and schizophrenia related in any way? And which one would the movie/book Fight Club go under?----Kingforaday1620 (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Cleanup list
Recent edits have introduced some breaches of WP:MOS, and have been reverted by the editor making them, so I'll leave a list here of MoS cleanup needed:
- Wikipedia:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists these edits incorrectly introduced numbering and capitalization, and do not comply with MOS: [12] [13]
- WP:PUNC, logical quotation review needed, I caught a couple
- This edit introduced WP:HYPHENs instead of endashes, will also need to be fixed. Done one anyway
- This edit, to correct a left-aligned image under a third-level heading, per WP:MOS#Images and WP:ACCESS was reverted, needs repair. Done
- The image caption in "Schneiderian classification" needs serious shortening per WP:MOS#Captions. Done
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- The numbered list is there for clarity; otherwise, nested bullet points would make it difficult to see the distinction between the "all 3 must be present" and "pick any 2". I'm not sure this strictly follows the Manual of Style recommendation, but the MOS allows for common-sense exceptions where it would improve an article. I think the numbering is an improvement; is there a better way to clearly communicate the same thing? -- Beland (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:MOS#Bulleted_and_numbered_lists conflicts with Wikipedia:Lists#List_styles. I prefer (and generally edit to conform to) the latter, which calls for capitalizing the first letter, and putting no punctuation at the end of sentence fragments. I dislike the need for having a period at the end of only one list item, which I was trying to avoid. I will bring this up on the MOS talk page to resolve the contradiction. -- Beland (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Jargon vs plain english
One of the biggest challenges is to replace jargon with plainer words without losing meaning. I try to do this whereever possible, however, as I use the jargon every day at work, I can lapse slip into using it without thinking. One criticism is that this article is too jargony. Thus, if people list offending words or segments here, we can see if we can simplify them without losing meaning. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- insidious was mentioned before. This word is a vital part of the medical vocabulary, as it has a connotation of gradual and ominous and progressive packaged nicely in the one word. I can't see a plainer adjective to use which captures its essence, and thought this word was in common usage anyway.
3 more questions copied from the review page... -- Beland (talk) 06:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- What's the difference between a delusion and a hallucination?
- What's "derailment"?
- What's a psychomotor disturbance?
I'll have a look at the wording. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I like the image but....
I have been pondering this since it was placed on the page. I love the image of the house with the messages indicative of a florid delusional system of the homeowner, but I have been agonising about BLP issues (of whoever lives in the house) and OR I suppose..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
<-Vaughan (talk · contribs) removed the image without discussing so here. I have undone the removal until consensus is determined a bit more clearly. I don't know enough about the subject to get involved so I'll stay neutral on this one. --Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 14:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Unless someone has some proof of schizophrenia, the photo is original research, and we can't have that in any article, much less a featured article. I already opined that I don't think it's encyclopedic, but violating core policies (WP:OR) is not where we want to go here. We don't have anything connecting the image to schizophrenia except a hunch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
<- Vaughan is right because the behavior can be caused by any number of causes. Can you prove with WP:RS that the inhabitants of the house are diagnosed schizophrenics? I suggest you use some quotations from "Schizophrenic Speech" by McKenna and Oh if you want to illustrate disordered thinking associated with schizophrenia. That's a lot better than having readers squint at some photo to discern the writings on the wall. VG ? 12:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
<-Why was the image removed? If a discussion is closed as "no consensus" then I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be default to it's original state, i.e. with the image. I'm not involved in this debate, just curious. --Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
DSM-IV-TR
Violence refs
I combined the five sources (unsightly) to one set of ref tags, but seriously: five citations on a simple statement send up a solid redflag that there is original research rather than reliance on a high-quailty, peer-reviewed secondary source here.[14] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
can ordinary people help people with schizophrenia?
i mean, i havea close friend who said that she had schizophrenia, and i just tought she just feels like that. but then after a while she changed totally to opposite way as she normally didnt like blue but she is a fan of it now! and then she just hated blue and now she is again a fan of blue.. do these kind of disorder things mean she haas schizophrenia? and if she has what shall i do, i mean, i know this is not a form page but this is i think what interest the people most.. i read and i think she is kinda disorganized type and catotanic type but i dont know how can i offer her a therapy to her for a physcothreapist? well i hope someone answers to this and thanks for the time you at least spent on reading.88.244.58.121 (talk) 08:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Hgurling's edits
I've reverted the whole of these changes by User:Hgurling for now, since there were multiple issues with biased language ([15] (unfairly, cruelly), [16] (flawed)) and bad sentence structure ([17]). I also think some of the edits adds unneccessary detail ([18]), making the text harder to read for non-professionals. Some of this content might be very much useful in the article. However, I am not qualified to judge this. Assuming Hgurling is Prof. Hugh Gurling, he is an expert on the field, which is very much welcomed, but there could be conflict of interest issues with quoting his own work. I hope someone more qualified can take a closer look at this and similar work at bipolar disorder. /skagedal... 09:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
It's a bit troubling that no one bothered to welcome this new user: I just did that. A full revert was also a bit ... abrupt; there seemed to be some issues worth investigating. I continue to be troubled at the overreliance of primary sources; it would be nice to see generally here discussions and edits based on secondary high-quality sources and reviews and less stringing toghether of primary source studies. It would be helpful to better orient this user rather than reverting without a welcome. I'll leave some additional messages on his/her talk with some editing tips. While a better orientation to encyclopedic vs. journal writing might be in order, there were some very good edits there, perhaps some updates to outdated information, and some cleaning out of some possibly WP:UNDUE sections in this article; I'm not sure I endorse the wholesale revert, but I've encouraged him on his talk page to consider editing more slowly and using the talk page here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
induced
i believe it can induced through persistant drug use, notably cocaine. the symptons are the same after repeated and prolonged use of this drug. although most addicts have also remarked that they were attacked by demons which begs the question, is this hallucination or are repeated actions that cause self abuse effectively opening doors to a very malevolent spirit world. where does our belief and then treatment of such people start. give them a bible or medication, or both.
OR Definition
That new definition that propped up recently is obvious OR, at least until proven otherwise by sources. Put back what all authoritative sources say (See refs). Defining a disease as a diagnosis may be a new funny victory for PC, but it contradicts all the sources as well as common sense: read what diagnosis (medical) is: "the recognition of a disease or condition by its outward signs and symptoms". Thus, are we talking about "the recognition" here? We talk about "a disease" itself.Muscovite99 (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- I cannot see what you are saying: what do you mean by "self-published website"? The first is the site of a US government agency, the second is Britannica; there is no contradiction in the third. I am not about fine points (such as "chronic"), the point is that this article is about a disease/disorder/illness (pick whichever) -- not a diagnosis thereof.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- This is a case of Wikipedia:Verifiability -- pure and simple. If you want to introduce a definition that contradicts all the reliabl? sources -- please discuss your proposal here. This OR definition having been here for long does not justify it being here.Muscovite99 21:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- As i said above, the adjectives are not the point (i do not mind them being modified). The point is that it is downright wrong (both in terms of WP policies and common sense) to define a disease as a diagnosis. I understand that among the people personally affected this is a kind if established euphemism as the word "illness" tends to get tabooed; but what may be a conventional social norm, is unscientific in an encyclopedia. Muscovite99 (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- That demeaning aside attributing the issue to people clinging to euphemisms, is what is downright wrong. You have no right to exclude any notable views from Wikipedia - as if there's a separate lesser group with homogenous views who do'nt have their own minds & can't be scientific (some of course are actually mental health professionals clinicians and scientists consultants etc). That's not to say there isn't very real suffering and a lot of disability in many cases (for various reasons) EverSince (talk) 09:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- There was recently a consensus to keep the diagnosis wording, see mental illness section above. I did try to say I thought you had a fair point, pending consensus to change, but you try to a priori shut out the issue & dismiss the relevance of construct validity. You linked to diagnosis (medical) but it also says: "It should be noted however, that medical diagnosis in psychology or psychiatry is problematic...different theoretical views.... functional descriptions...vulnerable to circular reasoning due to the etiological fuzziness inherent of these diagnostic categories." Specifically in relation to sz (moved from below) - Deconstructing Schizophrenia for DSM-V --- Should DSM-V Be a Schizophrenia-free Zone?. You say you're not bothered about the adjectives but you restored them - with the same 3 sources noted to be contradictory & a duplicate of a NIMH public pamphlet. Here's what the American Psychological Association has to say about NIMH's perspective: "Finally, we hoped, NIMH would see the merit of critical commentary complaining that the Institute focuses too much on the brain and too little on behavior ... The failure of NIMH to capitalize on recent progress and opportunities within the behavioral and social sciences is disappointing, as work in those areas is critical for understanding the nature and development of the cognitive, affective, motivational, and social processes that go awry within mental disorders"[22] There may be a bit of an EU-US difference as well as an inter-professional one, in that experiential & environmental factors may tend to be more regarded in the former & there is perhaps more institutional skepticism towards psychiatric categories. EverSince (talk) 09:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
New Term: Salience Dysregulation Syndrome
It may be nice to link to this term so that it can be found by people that search for it to find this article. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.249.194.71 (talk) 11:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Earliest misdefinition of schizophrenia as "split personality"
The article incorrectly states the first time schizophrenia was (incorrectly) described as "split personality." It was not by T.S. Eliot in 1933 but rather by an anonymous Washington Post reporter in 1916.
The sentence in the entry should read, "The first known misuse of the term to mean "split personality" was in a 1916 Washington Post article about U.S. neutrality during World War I. The offender is an anonymous reporter quoting educational psychologist G. Stanley Hall, who had read Bleuler's work and that of other German psychiatrists. Thus, the misuse was widespread early-on among experts and not the result of the watering down or changing of the psychiatric terminology when it was popularized."
Tchussle (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Suicidal risk in schizophrenia
My bother-in-law is a psychiatrist(Professor of psychiatry) in Chennai.He read teh article and felt that a few sentences or maybe a paragraph on suicidal indicators in schizophrenia along with references may come in handy.I wonder if that seems a good proposition.He in fact lent me 3 papers in reputed journals on this.
(RNaidu (talk) 10:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC))
Source of the article : Wikipedia
EmoticonEmoticon