A question being asked more and more often. But might the answer not be a very simple one? If those “who are doing best” and those who “long ago quit their medical treatment” is one synonymous group then surely it stands to reason that a single third factor could easily account for the fact that these other two factors are synonymous? That single third factor could quite simply be that this was the group which wasn’t so seriously ill, and therefore found it much easier to get by without medication and would probably have experienced recovery anyway, with or without medicine. Whilst those more seriously ill were not able to get by without medicine and would probably have continued having relapses whether or not they stopped the medication.
There is no physically demonstrable pathology that can reveal schizophrenia, but a small percentage of people in every culture and from every recorded age in history have been visibly afflicted with something which impairs vital thought processes, disturbs perceptions and in particular disturbs emotional responses making normal social interaction a stupendously difficult task. In order to be able to help as many of these people as possible epidemiology would recommend the grouping of them all under one diagnosis or group of diagnoses, but this isn’t always enlightening when you don’t have a pathology to cross check against. The result is probably that too many get diagnosed with the illness in cultures where health services have become highly developed, and health professions have high status, whilst too few perhaps get diagnosed in other cultures. Schizophrenia is probably best regarded as a genetically primed disposition of abnormal vulnerability to the emotional stresses of societal life, which may or may not become activated depending upon which environmental stressors the carrier of the disposition is exposed to.
If I’m right then you are also strictly speaking right in questioning the idea that schizophrenia is a “brain disease”. A genetic predisposition which under certain circumstances might lead to disturbance in brain function, expressed psychologically as disturbance in ego function, is not strictly speaking a brain disease, any more than it can be said that a computer is faulty when it fails to function well because of poorly programmed software. Still, if you don’t understand programming and are unable to fix the software you might be able to get a better functioning computer by adjusting the hardware. You may even have to wipe out the harddisk to have any chance of getting it working. So it is I fear with those most seriously afflicted by schizophrenia. Some of them will never be able to cope without medicine, which is not the same as saying that you may as well drop other forms of therapy which take interpersonal contact as the basic building element of a recovery, but they may well be unable to take advantage of these forms of therapy without medicine.

I have just published my memoir ‘Surviving Schizophrenia: A Tale of Sound and Fury’. It is a story of my recovery. I do wish I had access to a site like yours a long time ago – I had to come to an understanding of my own of what had happened to me and it took me a long time to work it all out. On the bright side, I have got there at last!

I have found that few mental health professionals see patients as people. Thank you for being one of those who does so.

Louise

Hi Judy.
I notice your “siblings’ are not speaking for themselves. I would say that belies your presentation.
What “scientific studies” do you have to prove they are still fully human? Why don’t they speak for themselves?
There is lots of scientific evidence to show that the “the management of their symptoms to taking medication” is due to the suppression of their emotional life ” I cite Robert Whitaker’s book Anatomy of an Epidemic”

So, “scientifically” speaking is that the way you like to relate to other human beings – all “scientifically-like” without their emotions?

Who’s burden bothers you anyway ,? Yours or theirs? I suspect that they enjoy their psychosis a lot more than you do
Maybe their burden is YOU.

Think about it. Think about what it means to be human.

.
I think it was then also that “S” said in disgust “No human being can watch a movie for an hour and a half and not have a reaction!” . His action was as an intervention – it worked- my motor kick-started a few turns, as it were.
..
It’s why I believe Group Psychotherapy is the best for personality change, the group situation is very powerful and provides so much opportunity – and note that the people “working” were not SZ – if not for the wide variety of personality types there I would not have had the opportunity to learn, observe and react off so many other human emotions.
Also, I was extremely t withdrawn, introverted and afraid – It doesn’t matter for anyone – once a person it there – in a good psychotherapy where the therapists will take the clients to their work points and require them to make a choice – – there is no escape from the transformation process.
…
People use lots of excuses to not go to groups preferring individual – their only real problem is the excuses preventing them from getting there.
—

BTW, a “no answer” infers the answer is no.
If yes, it probably would be “yeah sure, do it all the time, no problem.”

Groups are best , perhaps one on one will work., I have no experience with that in one on one.
…
The exercise, simply knelling on the floor, hitting a cushion with the fist, then adding sound then replying to a few questions.
Anger is facilitate and there is actual support of a trusted human being to express anger.
One objective is to get the person to be able to consciously face another person ad just say I am angry at (you) (person), This is taking control of the self.

Of course the use depends who the person is and what is happening with them,, it’s just one of a range of exercise and techniques dealing with anger issues. This one is is for repression of for developing expression.

Such a simple thing – could be used for children by parents – but there are many contemporary therapists who refuse to do this.They even ridicule it, but never do the simple scientific thing of testing it. They are afraid of anger or don’t have enough experience with the wide emotional life of humans
..
It’s what I mean in that common social culture itself is counter-productive to growth principles.
I’m not saying this is the cure-al, it’s just one exercise to try. If therapists are not trying impartially every thing that can be tried the they are not being very scientific, , they are not thus experimental and will very probably create failure which they have pre-determined in their inner narrative.
..
So… any thoughts?
..

Another counter-productive issue is when therapists “refuse to be involved” – meaning they stifle their human responses that would actually facilitate growth process. You cannot help a person facilitate emotional growth by avoiding emotions or by picking and choosing which ones you like and which ones you don’t.
…
The first thing effective in group that I remember is that the senior therapist punched every deliberately on the shoulder as I was sitting next to him in group. He did it twice. He also castigated and ridiculed me for my reaction.
IE
“How to you feel? What do you feel”
“Nothing. My shoulder feels a little sore”
…
The co-therapist across the circle participated in the confrontation by being very sympathetic to me saying ho she could hear that “whack”right across the circle -I still said “nothing”
I was perplexed, I knew he wasn’t attacking me. I trusted them. I was missing something, it nagged at me, that was the lesson that day, it was the beginning, of course it just made me want to go back again and again to group – I was hoked on unfinished business – perhaps the first time my consciousness started to work after being drugged for several years.
Hooking – that’s why patients return again and agin to therapy to face pain because they are hooked on unfinished business which they need to complete not because they “like or dislike” the therapist – if it is an effective therapy.

So in a strange way, if SZ people have a very negative upbringing like myslef they might be better off as the psychotherapy experience will cure can them., I suspect that teaching SZ people to express and own anger is fundamental for all types , not just my type.
It goes against Canon and precisely for that reason, I think not many SZ are getting cured. It takes a tough, courageous and skilled person to know how to do this. SZ is a disease of the emotions so IMO SZ need emotional therapy not “talk” therapy.For that emotions need to be strengthen and the others can’t come until the fear is deal with and anger is learned , embraced and used.
Fortunately my former psychotherapist was from the holocaust and was tough enough for the job.

Good Luck!