Talk:Schizophrenia/Archive 4

message: No-one has written anything about the glutamatergic hypothesis of schizophrenia. The dopamine hypothesis has it's own wikipage, thus in the interest of fairness i think a page should be created on the glutamatergic hypothesis, or at least have the role of glutamate  be made into a section on the main schizophrenia page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.5.184.175 (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dopamine theories aren't outdated and are mentioned briefly, as is the glutamate material. Unfortunately the article is so big everything can't fit in. There is a causes page which this can be expanded upon.cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  glutamatergic hyptothesis 

message: The study on cannabis that is referenced (#114 Arseneault, 2004) was specifically a developmental study, and showed that cannabis use by the age of 15 increased the risk of developing psychosis 4.5 times and cannabis use by the age of 18 increased the risk 1.65 times. This is a more interesting and relevant fact than the one actually referenced on the page.
:What about the connection between LSD use and schizophrenic symptoms?  I think the correlation would be greater than for marijuana.  Similarly for methamphetamine.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.210.219.192 (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cannabis study 

message: <snip>
----
However, as pointed out above, this issue has been discussed in the Request for Comment.RalphLendertalk 17:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see violence is back in. If violence is in, then compassionate acts of schizophrenics should be placed with it.--Mark v1.0 19:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ok Vaughan set me staight on this, there is "scientific" literature on schizo. and violence. I would have to find literature on lovemaking and compassionate acts of schizophrenia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mark v1.0 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: And the result was the fact that this was not the case...that I am not related to RalphLender and that we are separate individuals.  Your accusattion is not only unfounded but is antithetical to wiki policy in that it is irrelvant and and does not assume good faith and is a personal attack DPetersontalk 01:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a Personal attack and violates Wikipedia policy.  I am unrelated to Jones this false accusation now requires administrator action as you continue to make personal attacks against me DPetersontalk 21:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Schizophrenia and violence

message: #RalphLendertalk 17:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Retain/include disputed section

message: # No other article has violence statistics. --Mihai cartoaje 23:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see violence is back in. If violence is in, then compassionate acts of schizophrenics should be placed with it.--Mark v1.0 19:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ok Vaughan set me staight on this, there is "scientific" literature on schizo. and violence. I would have to find literature on lovemaking and compassionate acts of schizophrenia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mark v1.0 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Exclude/delete disputed section

message: RalphLender and DPeterson have been the object of a suspected sockpuppetry report. A checkuser was not done at the time. More information is here: . --Mihai cartoaje 
:And the result was the fact that this was not the case...that I am not related to RalphLender and that we are separate individuals.  Your accusattion is not only unfounded but is antithetical to wiki policy in that it is irrelvant and and does not assume good faith and is a personal attack DPetersontalk 01:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a Personal attack and violates Wikipedia policy.  I am unrelated to Jones this false accusation now requires administrator action as you continue to make personal attacks against me DPetersontalk 21:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: In the recently archived discussion someone made a mention of a problem in the viral etiology discussion, where one writer wrote, "viral infections during the third trimester (4-6 months) of pregnancy."  This was clearly an error as the third trimester of pregnancy is from the 6th to the 9th month of pregnancy.  In researching the the references listed, as well as a web search, all references to this issue state that, "Patients whose mothers were in their second trimester of pregnancy (between four and six months pregnant) during the epidemic were more likely to be diagnosed schizophrenic than those whose mothers were in their first or third trimester or those born before the virus appeared http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1175/is_n3_v22/ai_6406131 ."  Since edits are disabled by non-registered users, can someone make that correction please?  It should read, "Some researchers postulate that the correlation is due to viral infections during the second trimester (4-6 months) of pregnancy."  Actually, strictly speaking, there is no reference for what "some researchers postulate," so a better edit would remove that phrase and replace it with something like, "Some studies have shown that the correlation is due to viral infections during the second trimester (4-6 months) of pregnancy." and then reference Brown, A.S. (2006) Prenatal infection as a risk factor for schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 32 (2), 200-2, which is reference 35 on the reference list. RAA 65.10.35.73 06:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  viral causes discussion 

message: It says that antipsychotic medication is less usefull against negative symptoms than positive symptoms. These drugs may create negative symptoms. So it should not be hinted that the drugs are somewhat helpfull against negative symptoms.
:The newer atypicals claim to help with negative symptoms (Geodon, Abilify?).66.19.68.181 22:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although ziprasidone has been found to have one of the lowest weight gain profiles, it is still linked to weight gain (see ). However, I would argue, as with DrCareBear's contested addition, that this information should go in the antipsychotic or ziprasidone article. The schizophrenia article is not the place for an in-depth discussion of medication effects. - Vaughan 08:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drugs effect on negative symptoms 

message: why it was deleted ???
He wrote: "The patients that I have observed do not respond to situations as they should; they are frightened by what is not there, yet they remain indifferent to what is. It is as if they have a split mind."   ??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.137.6.71 (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eugen Bleuler  phrase 

message: I was very surprised to find no mention of this, since it is a very common misconception that schizophrenia means having multiple personalities, and many people will come to the page thinknig that. I thought maybe a sentence at the end of the first paragraph to clarify this would be useful
212.32.11.115 09:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only mention is at the beginning of the article where the meaning of the Greek derivation is explained.  What would you suggested adding and where? DPetersontalk 12:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a heading of "Popular misconceptions" just above the Violence heading and done some fleshing out.  --CloudSurfer 09:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schizophrenia and split-personality disorder 

message: :I would like to add the following to the Incidence and prevalence (without the http links) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia#Incidence_and_prevalence
--Mark v1.0 17:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding material 

message: "In the absence of a confirmed specific pathology underlying the diagnosis, some question the legitimacy of schizophrenia's status as a disease."
This sentence should be moved up in the initial text and given more prominence as a first level section or maybe even an article on its own (like the 'Scientific Validity' section of psychoanalysis) . It's my strong sense that these two play the essential role in casting psychology and psychiatry as pseudosciences, with analysis standing on much firmer ground. On the one hand things that aren't really pathologies or disease states are cast as such (e.g.so-called peak experiences) and on the other varying different clearly disease states are lumped together as if they were a single underlying phenomenon without any convincing proof. The bottom line seems to be the real state of affairs is that schizophrenia is what they call madness these days. Unfortunately there's more baggage than just pretension with the use of the term. Lycurgus 10:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How would you factor in the DSM IV R TR criteria? RalphLendertalk 16:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It wouldn't seem to affect the material condition (lack of an underlying scientific hypothesis to explain the phenomenon and therefore give a scientific meaning to the term) at all. Persisting ever more methodically in something fundamentally erroneous is I think what they call perseveration, one of the diagnostic criteria if I'm not mistaken. Lycurgus 12:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main issue is how many discrete conditions there may be which are currently classified under the banner of schizophrenia. Szasz (and antipsychiatry) raised some good points several decades ago but the idea that schizophrenia as a concept is not legitimate is pretty fringe, especially when there are huge burdens of disease measured in epidemiological studies secondary to schizophrenia. DSM is constantly being fine-tuned with the boundaries between conditions, which is where schizophreniform psychosis arose last time round (III-R to IV I think) cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 13:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hardly a fringe issue, as the continuum model of psychosis and as molecular genetic research shows. The issue is not whether experience or phenomena or real or whether people are burdened by them, but whether the diagnostic category signifies a discrete condition than be identified on levels other than its phenomenological description. This is still debated as the literature shows. - Vaughan 13:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I made myself clear...but nevermind I essentially agree with what you've stated in the previous paragraph.cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 13:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insufficient Emphasis 

message: Letranova has added the following lines:
From yet another angle new discoveries in physics and general systems theory regarding the subject of time, and causality seem to challenge the earlier correlations of causality and schizophrenia. Theories of complex systems, and topics in chaos theory propose the possibility of phenomena like the butterfly effect where a small cause in a system may lead to a complex and large effect on another part of the system. This complex causality challenges narrow assumptions of cause and effect relationships.
I found them too vague, loosely related to such a specific topic as schizophrenia, and unreferenced. I propose to discuss them before including them in the article. Best regards, CopperKettle 06:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just don't see the relevance to this article. DPetersontalk 13:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contribution by [[:User:Letranova]] 

message: Removed the following.  This section is completely uncited, and appears to be given undue weight.  If warranted, perhaps it could have its own article.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? Everyone I know in the field pays alot of attention to negative symptoms as it is a good guide to prognosis...cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 11:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs to be cited, and added to the right place (probably to Causes of schizophrenia.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deficit syndrome, removed 

message: Currently, there is debate in the field about a new subtype known as the deficit syndrome. It is not currently included in the DSM-IV-TR, however it has been receiving a great deal of attention in the last 20 years. This subtype is more expansive than the other subtypes as a person can be diagnosed with both paranoid schizophrenia and the deficit syndrome. It is characterized by primary negative symptoms (which means that they cannot be caused by such things as the side-effects of medication or depression). People with the deficit syndrome tend to have extremely flat affect (do not appear to be very emotional), do not have good eye contact, do not enjoy normally pleasurable activities (see dysphoria), and seem to be uninterested in social interaction. (There is, however, conflict in the research on this last point. While people who have been diagnosed with the deficit syndrome report being uninterested in social interaction, in the laboratory, they often report normal reactions to the situations.) Patients who have been diagnosed with the deficit syndrome tend to have a worse prognosis as these symptoms tend to be resistant to medication. This fact has brought much needed attention to negative symptoms (which have traditionally not been viewed as important as the positive symptoms).
::Huh? Everyone I know in the field pays alot of attention to negative symptoms as it is a good guide to prognosis...cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 11:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs to be cited, and added to the right place (probably to Causes of schizophrenia.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deficit Syndrome

message: Hi Sandy,
I think this needs to be in its own section and not in the prognosis section, as it also covers violence to people diagnosed with schizophrenia and is a significant and much debated topic in its own right.
- Vaughan 14:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree with that.  I'd like to see it continue in a separate section.  BTW, Sandy, nice job of editing...thanks!! RalphLendertalk 15:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But violence against people with Schizophrenia or by people with Schizophrenia are both Prognosis — both have to do with how well people with Schizophrenia fare. I know this section has been the subject of ongoing and debate and mediation here; it seems to have taken on undue weight because of the controversy, but it's still Prognosis.  A lot of text will need to be tweaked now that I've altered the structure, but when I rewrote Tourette syndrome, I did find that following MEDMOS helped keep the article focused and streamlined.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Sandy, prognosis is the course of the disease not the general well-being of the patient after diagnosis. If a person with schizophrenia suffers violence owing to prejudice after they have been diagnosed, this is not part of their prognosis. Articles for medical conditions should reflect the way in which the disorders are handled by the medical speciality which treats them. While generally a good framework, the MEDMOS guidelines have obviously been designed for the sorts of things treated by physicians, rather than psychiatrists. Trying to shoehorn, particularly psychiatric diagnoses, into these headings is likely to obscure some key information. - Vaughan 19:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's a big deal if various sections don't fit into MEDMOS, so if it really troubles you, moving it would be fine (although it still seems to be a good fit in prognosis); I was trying to streamline a rambling TOC, but one section isn't a deal breaker.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm done for a bit now and will leave it to you all, having left a long list on the review.  I'll add more comments later as work proceeds.  It doesn't make sense to get into copyedit needs now, as Causes and Treatment really could benefit from Summary Style.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice job.  I do think that the violence section should remain separate.  It is a tricky topic and, given that significance, maybe should have its own section.  There are a lot of dimension to the violence issue that do not directly relate to prognosis, which is why I don't think it belongs there...just my opinion. RalphLendertalk 21:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also just want to say what an excellent job you've done Sandy. - Vaughan 08:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violence section 

message: Hello. I've improved Prepulse inhibition a little, dug up some references. The section on PPI deficit in schizophrenia is not full, I fear, as I'm an amateur. Improvements are welcomed! I thought that maybe the mention of PPI deficits in schizophrenia and the role of PPI reaction in the search for new antipsychotics (and PPI disruption in rodents as a schizophrenia endophenotype) could be included in this article (or other related articles?). Best regards, CopperKettle 12:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Prepulse_inhibition#PPI_deficit_in_schizophrenia|Disrupted Prepulse inhibition]] in schizophrenia 

message: I was just wondering when the regular editors of this article planned on working on the issues mentioned at FAR?  I went ahead and set up Causes of schizophrenia, moving all the content from the main article into it.  That can now be summarized back to this article in three or four paragraphs.
I also merged all the content from Overview into the appropriate sections, so now several of those sections are repetitious and need merging.  
Then the Lead can be rewritten to the overall summary that was once included in overview, following the guidelines of WP:LEAD.  I don't want to get too far ahead of you all, and the article does have a month at FAR, but the copyedit at the end may require a good two weeks, and the citation needs are also going to be time consuming.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and summarized Causes, which brought the prose size down to 45KB of readable prose, and eliminated a TON of uncited text, which is now in the daughter article.  I imagine the knowledgeable editors here will want to examine some of my pruning, but that's an example of how it can be done.  Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that was a ton of pruning (Great work BTW). Are you familiar with the subject matter at all or is your knowledge/interest solely from/within wikipedia? I work in the field but have refrained from much in wikipedia on psychiatry as it can be controversial (and I much prefer doing my hobby thingies) The refs shouldn't be too hard..cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  | contribs 11:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My interest is really in FAC/FAR; this article has not met current FA standards for a very long time.  I was sorry to see it nominated to FAR at a time when I was hoping to focus on another medical article (Lesch-Nyhan syndrome) at FAR; I would have preferred to leave a list here and give editors time to comply before FAR nomination since there is so much to do, but I am really hoping that the regular editors here will kick in and do the work necessary for the article to retain featured status.  It has a long ways to go, but there's a month in which to do the work.  I'm dismayed that little progress has been made, and I've probably done all I can do for now, by putting a structure in place and listing the work still needed.  The copyedit needs after the article is trimmed, merged, and cited will take several weeks, so I hope work gets underway soon.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Get stuck into the other then and I'll see what I can do....one of the reasons I didn't like to edit psych things is there were generally loads of people involved but it's pretty quiet 'round here otherwise.............cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 21:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR ? 

message: FWIW I think para 4 can come out of the lead, given its length. cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 13:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it hard to focus on the WP:LEAD when so much work is needed throughout. The lead should be a stand-alone, compellling summary of the entire article, which is why I usually leave work on it for the very end, when everything else is done.  The summary of Causes of schizophrenia needs work, and Treatment of shizophrenia should probably be written and summarized back to the main article before the lead is finally written.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, good point. I'll find some time to work on it a bit later. can do bits but Common Raven is first priority at present. cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 20:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree that the para 4 Prevelance, cold be removed...or heavily edited along with the para 2.  Is this what you are referring to here? DPetersontalk 00:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heck, I think they've moved. Anyway I'll take SandyGeorgia's advice and wait up a bit until the rest is reorganized. cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 04:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I've been reorganizing alot today - I think Epidemiology should probably slot in before Causes as it is a nice segue between diagnosis and cause (given the epidemiological focus of alot of the stuff in causation) cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 04:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MEDMOS isn't strict on order of Section headings; do whatever makes sense.  Glad you're going to wait on the lead; all too often, editors get all tangled up in spending too much time on the lead, which really can be left 'til last.  A new problem:  a whole crop of new choppy sections just appeared in Causes, Prognosis and Epidemiology; two sentence sections aren't really warranted, and clutter up the TOC with the choppy sections.  Those could be merged into a whole.  Unless there are several substantial paragraphs to be written on a topic, it really doesn't warrant a separate heading.  Also, to keep in mind; the article is still largely uncited, which is still the most urgent need; if the regular editors can't thoroughly cite the article, the rest of the work will be for nought.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree epid should go before causes.  DPetersontalk 22:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I removed Urban Drift' subheading, but I am wary of others - I felt many points within the article were lost in a mass of text previously, so much so that there was much reduplification which I am sure was unintentional.I figure Factors (within prognosis) can be a table, which is what it is in texts I have. Causes I am not so sure about. I can move Stress-diathesis into main bit though. The Others at the end of that section is tricky and probably should go on the subsidiary page. cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 23:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I've gone through and added all the missing citations. I notice a few recent ones have been added by citing a general psychiatry text book which will really need replacing with primary sources in the future - Vaughan 15:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kaplan and Sadock (now Sadock & Sadock) is one of the benchmark psychiatric texts used by psychiatrists in training. However you're right, they are all secondary sources...cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 11:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Sandy I've tagged a few that I can see. Can you (or others) please tag other sentneces thoughout which you feel need citing? This needs to be the first step towards achieving adequate citation (BTW what is the recrod number of cites on a wikipeida article?)cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 23:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone through and added all the missing citations. I notice a few recent ones have been added by citing a general psychiatry text book which will really need replacing with primary sources in the future - Vaughan 15:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kaplan and Sadock (now Sadock & Sadock) is one of the benchmark psychiatric texts used by psychiatrists in training. However you're right, they are all secondary sources...cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 11:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of citations

message: Right, I guess we should come to a decision on where we'll discuss stuff as it can be done here or on the FAR page. I guess it is better to do it here and await presentation as it were when we're pretty happy and asking for a discussion on keeping/removing etc. Thoughts? If we're all ok then I would place a quick note on the FAR discussion page to indicate this. cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 11:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Streamlining Discussion 

message: OK - i've organized section into diagnosis' (process/criteria) then controversies. The first two paras of controversies overlap quite a bit.
:Looks good Cas. - Vaughan 23:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thankyou. Can I leave the frist two paras to you?cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 23:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It splits rather nicely into 2 4-5 para sections, and the neurocog stuff can go under thge diagnosis bit.cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 23:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break - diagnosis section

message: The more I read this the less sense it actually makes to me and is just plain incorrect:
Western psychiatric medicine tends to favor a definition of symptoms that depends on form rather than content (an innovation first argued for by psychiatrists Karl Jaspers and Kurt Schneider). Sims, A. (2002) Symptoms in the Mind: An Introduction to Descriptive Psychopathology (3rd edition). Edinburgh: Elsevier Science Ltd.  Therefore, a subject should be able to believe anything, however unusual or socially unacceptable, without being diagnosed delusional, unless their belief is held in a particular way. In principle, this would stop people being forcibly detained or treated simply for what they believe. However, the distinction between form and content is not easy, or always possible, to make in practice (see delusion).
Issue:
context of beliefs is critical and the criteria allow for a belief in a cultural context which may otherwise be deemed delusional; this may include cults or peer groups as well as various religions. Furthermore part of the DSM criteria is about bizarre delusions (i.e. taking note of the content) - also, one must have the criteria as well as Social/occupational dysfunction not due to substance misuse/mood disorder/medical illness, so a nondistressing delusion in a normally functioning person doesn't count anyway.
Please add thoughts here before reinstating. cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 13:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with removal.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: last para removed

message: The diagnostic approach to schizophrenia has also been opposed by the proponents of the anti-psychiatry movement, who argue that classifying specific thoughts and behaviors as an illness allows social control of people that society finds undesirable but who have committed no crime. They argue that this is a way of unjustly classifying a social problem as a medical one to allow the forcible detention and treatment of people displaying these behaviors, which is something which can be done under mental health legislation in most Western countries.Szasz T (1974) The Myth of Mental Illness: Foundations of a Theory of Personal Conduct. Harper and Row
Issue:
This is now outdated as since the early 1980s the massive deinstitutionalisation means no-one gets admitted to hospital for very long if at all, and the case is far more that potentially dangerous or suicidal people are not admitted than non-dangerous people locked up for long periods. This is worldwide. What is more an issue is that many people currently in jail have an undiagnosed mental illness.cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 13:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2nd last para removed

message: I'm really conflicted on this one. It is clearly a political rather than medical diagnosis and there is a ton of good material about it, but part of me feels the link with the medical condition of schizophrenia per se is only tenuous, so is sort of tangential to the material of the rest of the article (like some sort of imposter). Anyway, musing here...Maybe better in political abuse of/by/with psychiatry page? cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 13:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Para on Russian/Chinese political use of diagnostic term

message: I notice some key words are higlighted with italics, others with boldface. Is there a guideline for this, or should we just decide on one for consistency? - Vaughan 09:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is a guideline, and it is currently being tightened up to address the messy bolding going on throughout Wikipedia.  See WP:MOS and WP:MOSBOLD.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Related note; you might want to run through WP:MEDMOS at some point to pick up anything that might apply and/or need to be addressed (particularly in terms of comprehensive, which is becoming my main concern about the article as the citations are being addressed.  Has anyone added info on differential diagnosis yet?)  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, Cas added some great info on medical tests to discount other possible causes. I'll add some stuff on the different diagnostic systems - Vaughan 12:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great !  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highlighting 

message: I've removed the 'tobacco' paragraph from the causes section as this seemed mostly to be about prevalence and interactions, rather than causes. Also it's repeated in the main 'causes' article. Furthermore, I've added an 'environmental' section which needs expanding a little. - Vaughan 10:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you did that with the tobacco - will have a look at environmental.cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 11:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was one of my questions when I did the summarizing.  I left it there because there was one small portion of it that did mention causes.  If the whole thing is deleted from Causes (and doesn't all pertain to causes), where can tobacco be mentioned in the article?  If it's not Causes, then it doesn't actually belong in Causes of schizophrenia either, no ?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's one of those things which is an interesting observation and probably has some relevance to various hypotheses of receptor abnormalities proposed in schizohprenia. The real problem is that the coverage of subpages is pretty patchy currently. I'd leave it at causes at the moment and it can be hived off or noted elsewhere. Maybe a note in hte editspace..cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 13:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causes section 

message: I've removed the following from the 'prognosis' section for discussion:
:Just as the clarity of the diagnosis itself attacts controversy and criticism, it is difficult to establish a clear picture of recovery and rehabilitation. Both long ago and in the recent past, patients in developed countries were told that chances of recovery were limited, with statistics being quoted to support this negative prognosis. Today, with the advent of a vocal "Recovery Movement" in mental health, and longitudinal studies indicating better rates of recovery than previously assumed, attention is drawn to cultural and local factors in impeding or accelerating recovery and different models of rehabilitation and recovery.Bellack AS (2006). Scientific and Consumer Models of Recovery in Schizophrenia: Concordance, Contrasts, and Implications. Schizophrenia Bulletin 32(3) 432–442.  Full text available.  McGuire P (2000). New hope for people with schizophrenia. Monitor on Psychology. 31(2). Retrived on 2007-05-17.
It seems to talk about recovery models, but not about prognosis. Like the 'tobacco' information, this was originally in a more generally titled section, where it live quite happily. Personally, I'm ambivalent about keeping it, but I think we need to keep an eye on this sort of 'orphaned' information to make sure we don't lose any good stuff - Vaughan 14:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, I was musing on removing it as this information is touched on elsewhere.cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 14:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chomped paragraph from prognosis section 

message: I thought these were generally frowned upon in FAs these days. I am reviewing these to see how they can be incorporated into the text. Already I have incorporated thought disorder into the lead. All input appreciated. cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 04:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Eden Express and books belong in the other reading section under Personal Accounts JonesRDtalk 15:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. All incorporated into text. cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 12:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also Section 

message: There is a list of factors which portend a good or poor outcome. At the moment this section is stubby. We can either expand it as a listy paragraph or have a table. thoughts? cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 05:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table for Good/Poor Prognostic indicators 

message: I can whip up a few sentences on differential diangoses - do we want one somewhere in the diagnosis section? cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 05:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that would be a good place for it. JonesRDtalk 15:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, but I need to get some refs methinkscheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 21:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Differential Diagnosis Section

message: OK, I've added and subtracted what I feel is the necessary, apart from discussion on a table for prognostic issues above. Now are we happy with the content and time to start copyedit and lead?cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 21:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems more or less there to me. Actually, I want to add a little in the epidemiology section but I think a copyedit and read through will also do much good in picking up on gaps as well. There's still some minor checking of references to be done as well. - Vaughan 22:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contents, are we happy with how it stands?

message: I've removed the following paragraph as it's a very specific finding and seems a lot of text for a single study:
:Electroencephalograph (EEG) recordings of persons with schizophrenia performing perception oriented tasks showed an absence of gamma band activity in the brain, indicating weak integration of critical neural networks in the brain.Spencer KM, Nestor PG, Perlmutter R, et al (2004). Neural synchrony indexes disordered perception and cognition in schizophrenia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101, 17288-93.  Full text, Retrieved 2007-05-16. Those who experienced intense hallucinations, delusions and disorganized thinking showed the lowest frequency synchronization. None of the drugs taken by the persons scanned had moved neural synchrony back into the gamma frequency range. Gamma band and working memory alterations may be related to alterations in interneurons that produced the neurotransmitter GABA.
- Vaughan 22:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 03:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is fine with me too. DPetersontalk 13:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gamma band paragraph 

message: "Rarely, medical illnesses may manifest with psychiatric symptoms and so investigations are undertaken to rule out a large number of conditions.[citation needed] Once a delirium or other organic condition is ruled out, there are several psychiatric conditions which may present with psychotic symptoms. Regardless of cause, antipsychotics are the acute treatment of choice for psychotic symptoms although ones with minimal anticholinergic activity, such as haloperidol or risperidone are preferable if a delirium is suspected."
ummm... what? this doesn't make any sense. would there be objections if i deleted this (and replaced it with different content) or does this actually mean something to someone? ~kinda 01:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does. I will lsit the points and am happy to see if you think it can be rephrased better:
*Most of the time someone presents with psychotic symptoms it is schizophrenia or some psychosis of a shorter duration (eg drug induced etc.). Rarely a medical condition such as thyroid dysfunction, vitamin B12 deficiency, neurosyphilis, cerebral manifdestation of an AIDS related illness or some other condition may mimic psychotic symptoms. This is why baseline investigations are done when someone presents for the first time with psychioatric symptoms.
*With psychosis or delirium - the treatment involves antopsychotics (the one exception is alcohol withdrawal which is treated with valium)
*Though in delrium it is beter to use haldol or risperidone (actualy I could leave this out)
How's that? (yeah is a bit muddled isn't it) cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 02:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Casliber, that's ok...what about this:In rare instances, medical illnesses may manifest with psychiatric symptoms.   These conditions may include delirium or organic conditinos.  Once an organic condition is ruled out, there are several psychiatric conditions which may present with psychotic symptoms, such as Schizophrenia (maybe list others?. Regardless of cause, antipsychotics are the acute treatment of choice for psychotic symptoms although ones with minimal anticholinergic activity, such as haloperidol or risperidone are preferable if a delirium is suspected.JonesRDtalk 14:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. We'll take one para please :) cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 14:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: is "psychiatric" in the first sentence supposed to be "psychotic?" also, the treatment information seems misplaced... ~kinda 18:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  differential diagnosis 

message: Is anyone planning to address the last comments I made on the FAR four days ago?  Also, how much more time is needed to finish up after those items are reviewed?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea where the others are. If it is just me it'll be about a week I think (honestly not optimistically)cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 21:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been away for a week, but am now back. I can happily add a little on screening and prevention, although this is a relatively new field and still somewhat embryonic (see 'prodrome / at-risk / ultra-high-risk mental state' work) so it probably doesn't warrant a great deal, but worth adding. Will have a look through the FAR and see what still needs addressing. Great work by the way Cas - Vaughan 11:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR update 

message: Actually in terms of content I am thinking of alternate ways of organizing Diagnostic issues and controversies which cotains 3 distinct ideas - 1st is casting doubt on diagnosis with some political overtones, 2nd is neurocognitive stuff (which I wonder may be better elsewhere as it isn't a controversy as such but a development of recent work into the coginitive deficits in scz which psychiatry is well aware of, and 3rd is the political abuse stuff (Russia/China). Neurocoginitive stuff could be moved from here into either diagnosis or pathophysiology where they could come after discussion of frontal lobe underactivity.
Sound good? 
:I'd be concerned if this section was removed or dissolved into other sections, as it is a significant area of debate in both the academic and non-academic literature. I've no problem with the political overtones, as psychiatric diagnoses has a social as well as a medical function and has been the subject of much discussion. The neurocognitive stuff is indeed an extension of the work into neurocognitive deficits but is also being used as a basis for arguing against the current diagnostic criteria (e.g. see the work on latent inhibition, PPI, non-affected family members, schizotypy and the continuum model of psychosis). Also, from experience, if this section ceases to exist you'll just get lots of people adding an 'arguments against schizophrenia' section without bothering to track down the relevant information in the other sections. - Vaughan 09:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually on second thoughts if the neurocog stuff goes to  pathophysiology then the rest makes for a more cohesive section.cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 10:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I think this section desperately needs a cleanup, but I think it's a good focus for the theories that might not be mainstream, but still have a significant following. - Vaughan 09:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2 heterogeneous problem sections

message: I tagged a ref which is goofed up; the source given is ^ Luc Ciompi, MD, Switzerland: The Soteria-concept. Theoretical bases and practical 13-year experience with a milieu-therapeutic approach of acute schizophrenia, but I find   Can anyone verify the text and figure out what the correct ref is (or remove the text)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Sandy, I've removed the text as it's a Japanese journal that doesn't seem accessible online. If anyone can verify it, it's probably worth re-including it, but I don't think the articles misses much without it. - Vaughan 16:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ref to be sorted out

message: *(I don't know what "received wisdom" is. Perceived wisdom?  "they have been shown"? how about, just ... it varies across the world ...)  Despite the received wisdom that schizophrenia occurs at similar rates throughout the world, they have been shown to vary across the world,[46] within countries,[47] and at the local and neighbourhood level.[48]  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Received wisdom is a common term like "common knowledge" though in this instance could be considered pretty fluffy.cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 00:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Who knew :-)  ?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Correct cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 00:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: But what specifically was looser in the US?  What exactly were they doing differently on each side of the pond? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Essentially folk were diagnosed with schizophrenia in the US who would not have qualified for teh diagnosis in the UK. I can't remember exactly which criteria differed though.cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 01:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It is not a symptom as such but a common feature I guess - with several factors potentially contributing to it as listed. this could be reworded a bit.cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It's important to be careful with language for the sake of accuracy and good style. Primarily, the term 'schizophrenic' as applied to a person is becoming increasingly depreciated as it defines a person by their condition. Notably, this is a trend across the board according to international guidelines on writing about disability, so it's worth avoiding talking about 'diabetics', 'schizophrenics' and so on. Also, 'sufferer' implies the person is suffering, which may not be the case in schizophrenia. In fact, they may positively delight in their psychosis, even if they are disabled by it. Furthermore, some people diagnosed with schizophrenia may lead a full, unimpaired, distress-free and / or symptom-free life. Describing all people with schizophrenia as suffers is inaccurate and possibly stigmatising. 'Patient' should only be used where the person being described is under medical care. Notably, this may not be the case in many studies relevant to schizophrenia as they might deal with never-treated or prodromal participants, or psychosis-like experiences in healthy participants. - Vaughan 17:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for clarifying all this. I hope you don't think I was being glib, as my first bullet point was asking about including accounts of the experience of schizophrenia, not something I'd likely inquire on if I had some simplistic concept about "schizophrenics". I was suggesting that "sufferer" is a word commonly used to refer to anyone with a disease state (in certain contexts), whether or not they're "suffering". The implicit question was, I wonder what one does write instead of "schizophrenic", "patient", and so on? Are we reduced to writing "a person who has been diagnosed with schizophrenia" over and over?... –Outriggr § 03:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Well, I can see now that maybe I did sound glib. I didn't mean for this phrase to come out like it did: "I have difficulty not calling... schizophrenics 'schizophrenics'". It was a rhetorical device, I guess, a roundabout way of asking what is a reasonable way of referring to "a person diagnosed with schizophrenia" while still writing well. I'm sorry. If somebody quoted me on the above phrase—I didn't intend it to come out that way—I'd be aghast! –Outriggr § 03:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah tricky - "people with schizophrenia" mixed with liberal pronouns is about the best way to go..cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Outiggr, I don't think you sounded glib, but were just highlighting an important and tricky point about prose style which is one of the challenges about writing about complex medical and social phenomena. - Vaughan 07:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscellaneous notes 

message: Per  I'm removing this passage to here until it can be sourced:
*reffed now and moved back
So, the article is now fully sourced.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catatonia, ECT 

message: Is it hyphenated or not?  Schneider's first-rank symptoms is hyphenenated in the article, but not in Schneider's article.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are used freely in the medical literature. - Vaughan 17:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But within Wiki articles, we should be consistent.  We can't have a hypenated version linking to a non-hypenated version.  Tony1 just extensively reworked WP:MOS to cover hyphens; someone who understands grammar better than I might review that and consult with  if needed.  In fact, I'll leave him a note. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  When I changed that one, I consulted external usage and found the same as Vaughan. Since that leaves us free to choose either, we should choose the hyphenated version, which is syntactically correct. –Outriggr § 03:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with both of these points. Internal consistency is the way to go. - Vaughan 08:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no strong opinion. Happy to go with the flow.cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd hyphenate it; it's much easier to read that way, especially for those unfamiliar with the term/topic; and maybe there's such a thing as "rank symptoms". Tony 07:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent hyphens 

message: I just noticed the article passed the Featured Article Review. Just a note of thanks to everyone for the great teamwork and especially to Sandy for her watchful eye and skilfull co-ordination, and Cas for his informed and erudite prose. - Vaughan 13:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, now to make Bipolar Disorder like this one then....cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. DPetersontalk 15:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR complete and congratulations all round! 

message: "No one sign is diagnostic of schizophrenia, and all can occur in other medical and psychiatric conditions.[16]"
The whole thing before the comma is just horrible... :)
Seigneur101 16:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "No single sign" then....cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange sentence 

message: Right. What I'd do under causes:
Environmental - this section could include psychological input and be called Psychosocial (includes trauma line anyway)
Childhood experiences of abuse or trauma have also been implicated as risk factors for a diagnosis of schizophrenia later in life  -after this line could go some other material.
:OK to move on and I agree that the need is for a summary, as agreed earlier. Sometimes easier said than done when trying to cover less coherent views and evidence from NPOV, but then obviously anyone's free to edit or discuss the style of particular content. I might not personally look to place issues exactly how you say btw, e.g. psych mechanisms related to genetics as well as environment, so I trust we can see how it goes collaboratively. EverSince 13:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll stop there before further edits or additions, in case anyone wants to alter or revert or critique that structure I've just tried, which is hopefully along the lines of "mechanisms" mentioned by Vaughan. EverSince 14:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How to redress the balance and ad some more emphasis on psychological input

message: Anhedonia is a negative symptom of schizophrenia.  This needs to be added to the list of negative symptoms.  
Someone please unlock this page and add it to the list of negative symptoms.  
This is very important because it is a feature of schizophrenia that often goes untreated, and people with the illness suffer.  People need to know about it.  
I know about anhedonia because I have been diagnosed with schizophrenia and diagnosed with anhedonia as one of my negative symptoms.  
Anhedonia is a loss or diminishment of the experience of pleasure/enjoyment/goodfeeling.  It is a chemical problem not an emotional problem.  People with anhedonia will not experience pleasure for things that they would otherwise normally enjoy.  Hobbies, aesthetics, conversation, sex, eating, physical sensations, reading, watching movies... all these things and others are affected.  People with anhedonia are literally unable to have fun or to have a good time or to feel good.  Anhedonia can be in degrees of seriousness and is treated somewhat by antidepressants.  
Anhedonia is different from emotional blunting, as it is specific to the emotions and sensations of pleasure.  
Anhedonia is also a symptom of depression, but schizophrenics may have anhedonia without having depression.  
The schizophrenia entry is incomplete until Anhedonia is added as a negative symptom.  
HopeMr 20:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anhedonia is a symptom of depression. Post-psychotic depression is common in schizophrenia. This is coded separately. It is also important to distinguish symptoms from common side effects from medication. You're right it is important to treat and that is why coding separately to allow treamtent for depression or side effects of meds is a priority. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually this has reminded me that we have't reall covered post-psychotic depression in the article (on a brief look-over). I'll try and find some refs and slot it in somewhere later.cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After a quick PubMed search, it seems anhedonia is often reported in schizophrenia itself. See also  - Vaughan 15:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anhedonia is a negative symptom of schizophrenia 

message: If only 0.4-0.6% of people are schizophrenic, but some source in the article found 3% of violence is commited by schizophrenics, does it not follow that schizophrenics are roughly "6 times more likely" to be violent? (not a fan of logical fallacies or pseudoscience) --Kvuo 04:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  violence 

message: Lead on original research.
There may be an organic cause, created by some 'parasites', and the inability to correctly test for them.  The actual cause is the bodies reaction to the toxins created by such common bacteria as giardia.  Once the test falsely suggests no infection the bacterial growth expands causing a wave like result in symptoms.
The bridge between the label "schizophrenia" and its cause may be found in the term fugue state, casued by bacterial toxins.
I will try to follow-up, may I suggest this as a lead to others.
--Caesar J. B. Squitti  :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 16:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organic Bacterial cause 

message: Reward Deficiency Syndrome
Studying the article above will reveal why Dopamine antagonists such as the antipsychotics will cause suicides in those who recieve them because of how they take away a person's sense of well being. People who already have Dysphoria will suffer even more from be given antipsychotics and push them over the edge an perhaps actually commit suicide. No mention is made of Dopamine antagonists in the article above but if you understand this subject the implications become very clear. The article explains that inadequate dopamine stimulation is the cause of conditions such as  attention deficit hyperactive disorder, conduct disorder (iritability) and autism. In autism people except fantacies because nonreality in more stimulating then reality and it helps relieve the suffering of inadequate dopamine stimulation. In ADHD people are compelled to be over active because it causes dopamine release which relieves the suffering of inadequate dopamine stimulation. I see a similar thing happening in people said to be schizophrenic who are given antipsychotics. The akathisia caused by these drugs is the symptom of inadequate dopamine stimulation and this as the article listed above states can lead to suicide. Ritilin works in ADHD and ADD because it is a dopamine reuptake inhibitor. Since the article points out that autism and ADHD and ADD have the same underlying root cause of inadequate dopamine stimulation then I see that antipsychotics are actually making people worse rather then helping them and also leading them to commit suicide. I feel sorry for people with autism because the FDA has approved Risperidone for treating irritability in people with autism including children. Risperidone causes extream dysphoria. It seems to me that Risperidone is contrandicated in use with autism when autism is caused by inadequate dopamine stimulation as the article above pointed out. The article points out that autistic people accept fantasy over reality as a means to relieve their inadequate dopamine stimulation but Risperidone actually antagonises dopamine and it appears that this drug would just make their condition worse but the FDA has approved it for treating their "irritability". Sometimes I wonder if these professionals even know what they are doing and don't understand these things or if they simply do not care and like to see people suffer. Autism sounds very much like the scizoid behavior of schizophrenia because they also accept fanciful ideas they may not be rooted in reality. Read the article above called Reward Deficency Syndrom and you may be on your way to understanding why dopamine antagonists like antipsychotics are causing great suffering and causing people to be violent and suididal and addicted to substances. Dr CareBear 03:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comings?  Not a high quality source, not well-accepted.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Furthermore the article I left was published in American Scientist Magazine which is not strictly a medical magazine but covers all aspects of science. This magazine publishes cutting edge scientific articles. Dr CareBear 08:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dopamine Stimulation Deficiency As Cause for Dysphoria which can lead to Suicides/. 

message: Minor really, but I just thought that it would be interesting to add Jibreel Farishta from the quite famous Salman Rushdi novel "The Satanic Verses," as a sufferer of schizophrenia into the Cultural References section of the article.
:great idea - better for someone who has read the book to add it which excludes me cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural References 

message: To me this:
Some evidence suggests that the content of delusional beliefs and psychotic experiences can reflect emotional causes of the disorder, and that how a person interprets such experiences can influence symptomology
- seems to be explaining the obvious, which if we're trying to summarise, isn't particularly necessary. What do others feel? cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I'm unsure and need some clarification of the sense in which  it might be too obvious, or not enough of a summation. These are two major elements of modern psychological understandings of Schizophrenia, which are often contrasted with traditional psychiatric models where the form is thought to be significant but not the meaning of the content or a person's reactions to their experiences. EverSince 12:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentence and summaries

message: I'm planning to add mention of a few other aspects to this section, and just mentioning some of the rationale in advance - specific edits can be addressed anyway of course. 
Regarding social skills training, there's a sourced mention of advances but there's also significant negative findings in this area, e.g. 2003 NICE guidelines and the 2004 APA guidelines (www.psych.org/psych_pract/treatg/pg/SchizPG-Complete-Feb04.pdf). Regarding family therapy, there's a mildly positive but equivocal Cochrane review (as  mentioned by Casliber), as well as the NICE and APA guidelines reporting strong/consistent evidence at least if it's longer-term. Also the two sentences on music could perhaps be turned into one sentence on other possibilities (e.g. the Schizophrenia-related Cochrane reviews also address art and drama therapy, doesn't sound like much to go on judging by the abstracts). 
Re. the mention of antipsychotics as mainstay, the cited NICE guidelines say "Although pharmacological interventions have been the mainstay of treatment since their introduction in the 1950s, the limited response of some people to antipsychotic treatments, the high incidence of side-effects and the poor adherence to treatment have necessitated a more broadly based approach combining different treatment options..." Some mention needed of the limits to their efficacy and utility (and both guidelines seem to report lower doses generally more effective), and not just in the context of "treatment-resistance" and finding better medication options - e.g. mainstream psychiatric article  reports repeat findings that many seem to do better over the years not taking antipsychotics compared to those who do (although others suggest otherwise, e.g. Eli-Lilly-authored ).  
There's also the major related issue of "compliance" and forced treatment, and e.g.  "It is well known that many, if not most, consumers do not take antipsychotic medication as prescribed." (e.g. 3/4 discontinued in the CATIE trial) and the different views on that from psychiatric services ("generally assumed that failure to take medication as prescribed represents poor judgment by the patient and is something that needs to be fixed, whether through education, persuasion, or use of a medication with a different side-effect profile...") versus consumers ("Discontinuation...rarely assumed to be a reasoned decision by the consumer that should be respected"). EverSince 13:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is where it gets chicken-and-egg like as it is a heterogeneous illness with a huge amount of difference between mild and severe forms - many who have stopped taking meds and have done better may have had an episodic illness anyway. Very tricky - regardless of conflicitng views on overprescription currently they are the mainstay as anyone working in most areas mental health will confirm (notwithstanding communties etc.). Compliance is a big issue - these drugs are laden with side effects, some very serious and many do give serious consideration on whether to intervene -however many public sector health services are so busy that treatment is often only restricted to those where there is a clear risk to self or others. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree with the term "mainstay", for the reasons you mention, just think that it needs some qualification - maybe something like "within psychiatric services". I guess edits could be tried out on that, as well as to include mention of some of these limits and compliance/consent issues, bearing in mind that there are different chicken-egg possibilities in both directions (withdrawal may itself provoke psychosis,  & mentioned in guidelines) and the risk management issue as you mention. In the particular source I cited I don't think they state any group differences in symptom severity in the initial diagnostic assessments, only on prognostic indicators such as perceived locus of control or self-esteem - but even then "the off-medication patients showed better global outcomes than the on-antipsychotic patients, even when subgroups with similar prognostic status were compared." In fact the majority of those who stayed on antipsychotics for 15 years still showed "psychotic activity" in assessments. EverSince 10:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interventions 

message: The treatment of schizophrenia is begging for significant expansions here. This article could appraoch the size of the main one. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: =Update on intervetions

message: Alright - these Featured Topics look interesting....if schizophrenia were one..what else would go in...
Definite:
*Causes of schizophrenia
*Disorganized schizophrenia
*Dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia
*Dementia praecox
*PANSS - if really short can be exempt from FA/GA (see topic page)
*a treatment of schizophrenia page
*Paraphrenia
Possibles (all these overlap with some other category - I'd think about not doing them due to the size of the undertaking....
*psychosis?
*catatonia?
*Interpretation of Schizophrenia?
*Schizophreniform disorder?
*Sluggishly progressing schizophrenia?
thoughts? cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK..here's a goal - Schizophrenia as Featured Topic 

message: A lot of weasly text has crept in over the last few weeks; I left some tags of areas that need cleanup or clarification.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources for the two treatment statements have been discussed just above on this talk page, with quotes, so re-edits can be made. EverSince 14:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasly

message: OK all - I've made a page for this with Prognosis and Treatment sections from this article and tried to rearrange it to make a cohesive essay focussing (not surprisingly) on prognosis and treatment. This can be massively expanded and possibly be another FA candidate. The idea is that, along with causes of schizophrenia the 3 can form a featured topic...cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Treatment of schizophrenia]] now done

message: If Schizophrenics are roughly 5 times more likely to commit a violent crime than people without it, why did the section violence end up under the subheader of common misperceptions? Apparently (and from my own experience) schizophrenics are more likely to commit violence. (217.169.236.12 14:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't add that subheader, but the way you choose to phrase it as if every single person with schizophrenia is more likely to commit violent crime (i.e. applying a statistical total to every individual in a group) is potentially misleading and unsupported. Just as in the general population, the vast majority do not commit violence, while a small minority do. That small minority is a few times larger, in the ballpark of 10%, but no more than various other disorders, including alcoholism. And numerous individual and social variables have been linked to the occurence of violence in that minority - not "schizophrenia" in general. It may be, I believe, that those violent acts includes a higher proportion of the most serious acts such as murder - not sure on the exact findings on that. EverSince 11:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Violence

message: Several parts of the article now have single points referencing by multiple citations. In some cases this seems to be multiple points in the sentence referenced at the end, or multiple studies referenced where a recent review article would do. As this isn't an academic article, I don't think each individual study needs referencing unless they each support separate points. - Vaughan 18:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable. EverSince 11:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing 

message: Dr Philip Seeman of the University of Toronto published an article in collaboration with a number of authors who have worked on schizophrenia over the past decade.  The article was first published in the journal 'Synapse' but is now available in PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America) on internet as of 2005.  This journal has a very high impact factor.
The title of the article is: "Dopamine supersensitivity correlates with D2High states, implying many paths to psychosis" and more discussion of it is mentioned in the Wikipedia section on the dopamine hypothesis.
Briefly the article proves that many causes of schizophrenia (such as gene knockouts and traumatic births); as researched by other authors over the last decade, all result in an increase in the sensitivity of dopamine D2 receptors sometimes to 400% and this is a reason for psychosis and schizophrenia.
As a patient with schizophrenia one of my desires is that there be an answer to the question: "What causes schizophrenia?"; and I have heard this said of other schizophrenics as well - it is an issue of validity and Dr Seeman's article needs to become word of mouth as a respected possibility on the main page.
131.181.23.34 14:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Schizophrenia has been on the main page, so won't be again, however if causes of schizophrenia or treatment of schizophrenia are enlarged and improved to Featured Status, then they might be; this would be ideal information to get on the causes of schizophrenia page. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest findings Dr Seeman 

message: Sorry about this - when I referred to the main page, I meant the page called 'Schizophrenia' - where most hits for schizophrenia would strike.
(I am new to Wikipedia and didn't realise there was a main page).
131.181.23.34 14:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  correction 

message: Lead on original research...
The lack of focus on 'organic causes' ie undetected bacterial infections of the intestinal system, ie giardia, or lymes disease can cause symptoms that may be taken as being some type of labelled mental illness. 
The illness is impacting the mind, it is a mental illness but caused by toxins created by the infection, and/or the infection that corrupts the needed biochemical reactions.
There should be a cross link to the reality that such labels while true, ignore a most likely cause.  half-truths
Hopefully someone can google this lead to find other researchers who can provide the necessary links...
Former Chief of Psychiatric Assocation and views on bacterial infections
--Caesar J. B. Squitti  :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 02:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Mr Squitti, every illness or symptoms is caused by giardia or lyme (what are the digestive symptoms of Lyme, Caesar?), see his contributions to talkpages. The recurrent mention of "half-truths" is also telling. JFW | T@lk 03:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The missing link: 

message: My mother who is a therapist, deals with schizos who have these symptoms, but I'm not sure if it's rare. Can someone find a source that it is true? Thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colagal (talk • contribs) 17:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memory loss, lying, difficulty speaking 

message: I'm just a lay person, and I was confused by what seems like a sudden shift in tone and topic in the last two paragraphs of the introductory section, starting with the sentence "Increased dopaminergic activity in the mesolimbic pathway of the brain is a consistent finding."  Those are some big words, and I'm not sure they belong in the opening section.  Could somebody who knows more about the topic take a look at those paragraphs, and see if they can be cleaned up/clarified, so that they're not so confusing?  Thanks.  Kevinq2000 03:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your input Kevin - it is tricky sometimes balancing readability with accuracy. I tend to rely a bit on bluelinks so that folk can read on things they don't know but will have a look. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The intro is effectively cut and pasted throughout the whole article because it is a summary of what is discussed in more detail below. The topic requires a lot of discussion and I'm not sure a four paragraph summary is entirely unwarranted. - Vaughan 07:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory Section 

message: Modern medicine sees all mental illness deriving only from the brain - primarily from neurotransmitter imbalance and nothing else - the truth is that in many cases there is often an underlining physical cause (eg: infection, celiac disease, etc) and this is often never investigated,  and so its no wonder today we are faced with the current tragedy that the Mentally ill die 25 years earlier, on average. 
Psychiatrist Dr Reading Chris reading knew this and treated hundreds of patients with schizophrenia and found a common link - infection, celiac disease, auto-immune tendencies and malabsorbtion, after treating patients with dietry modification, antibiotics and nutritional supplementation many patients recovered, yet current day medicine does not accept this.
'An autopsy of 82 patients who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia. Gastritis was found in 50%, enteritis in 85% and colitis in 92%.' read more...
'99% certain of a genetic association between schizophrenia and coeliac disease'  
see [ Gut and mental illness]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.235.237 (talk) 05:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do we ignore the physcial causes? 

message: I am seriously questioning the relevance and importance of this link. It is not written well, and who is the person who wrote this?Bronayur 02:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schizophrenia, demons, parapsychology ? Researches on border of science and parapsychology  

message: An ambiguous topic, an undiagnosable disease is not a disease.   Modern science due due mind invasice technology from "Nazi" doctors has meant that they breach the Human Rights Act.  Thus, implants injectable and other rubbish made in a lab, are used to harm or hurt against the ethics of medicine, but not to Nazi doctors.  These Nazi "scientists" are at work in the NE of England in Newcastle University, and also in St Georges Mental Hospital NE England Morpeth.   So then, it is up to you to act or evil will prevail.  This article is crap written by crap.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.130.236 (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schizophrenia