[throw18376]

i'm getting very argumentative on the internet today (under a pseudonymous account because as you might guess from my incessant posting, this issue is personal for me)

trauma (at any time), drug use, other experiences -- all can make schizophrenia more likely in those susceptible. absolutely true.

but it is a biological disease, and healing trauma won't stop its progression. as your source notes, the trauma causes differences in brain development, and once that's done its done.

i don't think coming up with a new drug, the main advantage of which is it doesn't numb you the horrible way existing antipychotics do, is a bad thing.

this is basically a drug that was only created to improve the QoL of people with schizophrenia. if society just wanted to numb them, we already have drugs for that and could just be much more aggressive in violently coercing treatment.

investing in these drugs isn't "looking away", it's putting in a huge investment of many billions of dollars to help the victims live better lives.

[rendx]

> once that's done its done

"As such, the hippocampus and hippocampal neuroplasticity may also play a key role in resilience and recovery from stress. This is supported by the current finding that hippocampal volume increased following psychological therapy."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5943737/

"we found a significant [hippocampal] volume expansion during a 12-week treatment period, which correlated with clinical improvement"

https://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-32...

Increased hippocampal volume and gene expression following cognitive behavioral therapy in PTSD

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/arti...

[sterlind]

All those articles are for PTSD. PTSD is not the same as schizophrenia. Just because psychotherapy helps with PTSD doesn't mean it'll help with schizophrenia. Mental illnesses, and their treatments, are not fungible!

[none4methx]

I’d like to call you both right on the basis that a working brain at age 40 retired with less than a working brain from age 27 or whenever schizophrenia tends to present.

Outcomes are what we’re hoping to improve. Your data looks like we get brain recovery, which is an improvement to outcomes. Necessary, maybe not sufficient.

[creatonez]

No one mentioned PTSD?

[maybelsyrup]

> but it is a biological disease

I want to be charitable because I think I know the point you're trying to make in your comment, and what I want to say is mostly to the side of that. But I think that this statement at best glosses over what's been a long, expensive, and heated (though sincere) scientific conversation about schizophrenia over the past century and change. It's one that not only includes a substantively fruitless search for any underlying pathophysiology, but a spirited conversation about the validity, reliability, and plain-English usefulness of the concept itself! Further, this conversation is far from the stomping grounds of cranks and scammers; it has taken place inside what you might call the most orthodox psychiatric and psychological institutions: the APA, the major high-impact journals, fancy universities etc etc.

So when an eminence like Robin Murray, knighthood and all, can go into Schizophrenia Bulletin (2017) and write something like ...

"I expect to see the end of the concept of schizophrenia soon. Already the evidence that it is a discrete entity rather than just the severe end of psychosis has been fatally undermined. Furthermore, the syndrome is already beginning to breakdown, for example, into those cases caused by copy number variations, drug abuse, social adversity, etc. Presumably this process will accelerate, and the term schizophrenia will be confined to history, like 'dropsy.'" [1]

... saying that we know it's a biological disease as part of broader claims about treatment effectiveness doesn't tell the whole story. (I encourage everyone to read Murray's reflections in the linked article, as it's a fascinating retrospective on an illustrious career in psychosis research and psychiatry.)

[1] https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article-abstr...

[sudoshred]

Excellent comment. A “symptom” of schizophrenia is thinking that one does not have schizophrenia. A “heads I win tails you lose” situation where the single doctor is solely and individually responsible for diagnostics and treatment, but not liable. Criminals are given more rights and protection from abuse, and the legal systems has known and documented failures. For those who are labeled mentally ill there have not been established effective safeguards to protect and support those who might speak out, and by definition of competency their perspectives are not valid. Those who are economically incentivized to argue in favor of a biological explanation can be expected to do so, despite no personal expertise in the matter, and regardless of reproducible evidence.

[throw18376]

well, okay, then we can say that a lot of people diagnosed with schizophrenia now, even if the concept of schizophrenia is not viable, do have biological disease(s) that cause psychosis alongside what we now call the negative symptoms of schizophrenia. I'm fine with that claim.

it's very different than the common anti-psychiatry claim that the schizophrenia diagnosis is a social construction that gets applied to healthy people who violate social norms.

[throw23478]

Are there any consistent biomarkers for people with schizophrenia?