Depression - TalkSport Diagnosis

[kaosmark2]

Nope, I'm just looking at it. Which is more than the head nutters* will do because the very existence of that evidence scares the shit out of them. It's the start of a path which could see them declared an irrelevance, of being exposed as the fakes and not scientists they've actually been up to this point. If it turns out from further investigation that mental illnesses and the like are strictly medical, huge numbers of people are suddenly out of a job.

(* not the treated, the treators).

[worm]

Thing is, what's defined as medical and what's mumbo jumbo is a grey area. Social engineering influences the physical aspects of the brain. It's all holistic. Politics gets in the way of social science so much.

[feral chile]

I was a little confused when I read that schizophrenia is caused through brain abnormality. The first question that I thought of was if it was how come a third of people can recover without treatment?

Back in the 80's I was taught about the Double Bind Theory and that was accepted by many institutions. Essentially the cause is through family and conflicting messages to the child during childhood. The premise also says that psychotic episodes are not meaningless ramblings but a demonstration of internal conflict (that could be supported somewhat by Ferals biological basis for thoughts). Psychotic episodes were something to be engaged and worked through. Given people can recover through such therapys without medication such a theory can still stand up.

Edited April 20, 2012 by feral chile

[Purple Monkey]

Fight/flight is all about escape - society makes it very difficult to escape life stresses in a manner natural to us. So no escape route results in meltdown.

[eFestivals]

They've never been scientists.

I know that and you know that. It's a shame they like to pretend differently.

[eFestivals]

There is no doctor that can say that every person diagnosed with schizophrenia has brain abnormalities.

True, as no doctor has tested every schizophrenic.

At least one doctor is, however, able to say that he/she has discovered a brain 'abnormality' in every person they've tested who has schizophrenia, and that 'abnormality' is not linked with any other medical condition. That doctor's belief from that evidence is that the 'abnormality' they've found is the root cause of schizophrenia.

That's because not every person diagnosed with schizophrenia has brain abnormalities. Fact.

What you believe to be a fact, you mean. Just as I believe the fact to be different, via something I know of which has passed you by for whatever reason.

Time to move on methinks.

I wish the likes of you would. ... it's precisely why I'm attempting to pass on what I've come to know of.

[kaosmark2]

True, as no doctor has tested every schizophrenic.

At least one doctor is, however, able to say that he/she has discovered a brain 'abnormality' in every person they've tested who has schizophrenia, and that 'abnormality' is not linked with any other medical condition. That doctor's belief from that evidence is that the 'abnormality' they've found is the root cause of schizophrenia.

What you believe to be a fact, you mean. Just as I believe the fact to be different, via something I know of which has passed you by for whatever reason.

I wish the likes of you would. ... it's precisely why I'm attempting to pass on what I've come to know of.

[worm]

One doctor's experiences aren't proof.

This is the sort of thing that could be proven, but it would need evidence from a much greater range of patients than just one doctor's.

[worm]

True, as no doctor has tested every schizophrenic.

[eFestivals]

One doctor's experiences aren't proof.

This is the sort of thing that could be proven, but it would need evidence from a much greater range of patients than just one doctor's.

I've said "one doctor" because that's all I've got any certainty about from what I've seen and what I remember of what I've seen. Having got myself into this and having been challenged about it, I'm merely ensuring I'm not over-stating things.

What has been done by a single doctor or more than one (I can't remember which it is) was considered worthy enough for some fairly widescale media attention, enough to get itself in front of my eyes with a subject I don't follow and have little interest in. The only reason it registered with me at the time was because of some discussion or other which was taking place on these forums at the time I saw it (within the last year, I'm pretty sure). I know I mentioned it in a post here somewhere at around that time, but it didn't get pursued here by others as it has this time.

So while I can't be certain from my vague memories of it, I'd say that that it's likely to be research that is considered more than worthy enough to be considered valid.

[eFestivals]

So then you can't make the claim you did.

and neither can you make your claims on the same basis, because of the variables in the testing that has been done with every diagnosed schizophrenic.

[worm]

So while I can't be certain from my vague memories of it, I'd say that that it's likely to be research that is considered more than worthy enough to be considered valid.

[feral chile]

There is no single defining cause of schizophrenia

http://www.schizophrenia.com/research/surg.gen.2002.htm

This article lists them all, and genetics, brain abnormality, and family and life stresses are all implicated. It's not as straightforward as a single cause - the factors implicated cause a vulnerability, and life then finishes the job, like diabetes is a physical illness bit can be controlled with the right lifestyle.

[eFestivals]

It would need evidence of brain abnormality in every single diagnosed schizophrenic patient. There is however evidence of normal brain functioning in a vast number of schizophrenic patients, thereby proving Neil's claim incorrect.

As I've pointed out to you once already, it's within the range of possibilities that a person could have a 'brain abnormality' while having 'normal brain functioning'. The two things are not necessarily tied together.

To demonstrate: the engine on my van has an 'abnormality', but it continues to function in perfectly normal fashion to everyone who looks.

As for what is 'normal' within the brain - in both 'functioning' and any 'abnormalities' - we're still very much in the dark ages. Which gets to mean that there's a huge chance that any idea of what is 'normal' will be over-turned by newer discoveries, and thus set a new and different 'normal'. That appears to be the case with what I saw.

And the reason for this is clear: the diagnosis of schizophrenia is based upon social symptoms, not physical factors.

And here's the proof that those who believe themselves 'mind scientists' refuse to defer to the medical. They're building a wall around their 'science' to try to exclude the possibility of all they say ever being proven as false.

Edited April 20, 2012 by eFestivals

[worm]

and neither can you make your claims on the same basis, because of the variables in the testing that has been done with every diagnosed schizophrenic.

[worm]

As I've pointed out to you once already, it's within the range of possibilities that a person could have a 'brain abnormality' while having 'normal brain functioning'.

Edited April 20, 2012 by worm

[eFestivals]

Well, having been presented with proof from studies rather than by media speculation by those with a far greater interest than you, you should perhaps reconsider your assertion that schizophrenia is caused by brain abnormalities. It just isn't true.

are any of those studies one's that are referencing what I saw about, and then giving a fully-researched reason for why it isn't true?

Then they're not fit for purpose for dismissing what I've said about.

[worm]

are any of those studies one's that are referencing what I saw about, and then giving a fully-researched reason for why it isn't true?

[eFestivals]

There is no single defining cause of schizophrenia

http://www.schizophrenia.com/research/surg.gen.2002.htm

This article lists them all....

.... for how things stood in 1998.

It might be the case that what I saw hasn't hit medical journals as yet, it might have been something from preliminary findings.

[feral chile]

As I've pointed out to you once already, it's within the range of possibilities that a person could have a 'brain abnormality' while having 'normal brain functioning'. The two things are not necessarily tied together.

To demonstrate: the engine on my van has an 'abnormality', but it continues to function in perfectly normal fashion to everyone who looks.

As for what is 'normal' within the brain - in both 'functioning' and any 'abnormalities' - we're still very much in the dark ages. Which gets to mean that there's a huge chance that any idea of what is 'normal' will be over-turned by newer discoveries, and thus set a new and different 'normal'. That appears to be the case with what I saw.

And here's the proof that those who believe themselves 'mind scientists' refuse to defer to the medical. They're building a wall around their 'science' to try to exclude the possibility of all they say ever being proven as false.

Edited April 20, 2012 by feral chile

[worm]

It might be the case that what I saw hasn't hit medical journals as yet, it might have been something from preliminary findings.

[eFestivals]

They're studies that show, without a shadow of doubt, that people can be diagnosed with schizophrenia without having brain abnormalities. Ergo, you've learned something new.

And the study I saw about, without a shadow of doubt, says that people can't be diagnosed with schizophrenia without having a very particular brain 'abnormality'.

So what I've learnt is that you're unable to accept things that have the same basis as other things you've sucked up.

Until you find the study I saw about, read up about it, and there's a fully-researched rebuffal of that study, you're unable to have any certainty about what I'm saying.

You're more than welcome to think I'm making it all up out of nothing, particularly as I'm unable to point you at what I saw. But none of that changes that I know what I saw, and I know that what I saw puts you out of date at best, and in far worse places at worse.

[feral chile]

.... for how things stood in 1998.

It might be the case that what I saw hasn't hit medical journals as yet, it might have been something from preliminary findings.

[eFestivals]

It is more likely that what you're saying is bollocks though given the innane stupidity of your assertion.

I know what I saw, and I know that from my layman's position I've taken the correct understanding of what it was saying as its major finding.

And I'd say that your take is the one that is inanely stupid, because you're coming at this from the angle that there's nothing more to be discovered in the area of schizophrenia by physical medicine. Just a thought.

[eFestivals]

oh it's out of date is it, then maybe you won't be interested in this quote from the link:

I've no idea if it's out of date or not. I've merely picked up on that what you quoted from was from 1998. Given the dark ages quality of knowledge on the subject even now there's a pretty good chance that things have moved on some since then.

then maybe you won't be interested in this quote from the link:

I'm not much interested in the subject at all. That doesn't stop me from being able to take in what goes past my eyes, or from having a willingness to perhaps pass it on.

As for what you've quoted, they appear to me to be fairly 'large scale' things about the brain. As time goes by, any further study gets more and more into the finer detail of things. From the little I remember of what I saw it sounded like fine detail.