Schizophrenia?

Question

Couple of questions:
(1) When does it usually hit?
(2) Have you ever known someone with schizophrenia? What was that person like before and after its onset?

Answer 1

(1) Schizophrenia usually strikes males in late teens and early 20's. Females in late 20's or early 30's. The first onset is often fairly swift and often results in an acute psychiatric hospitalization.
(2) I know many people with schizophrenia. Typically the individual is pretty typical. They have had academic and athletic achievements. Once schizophrenia presented itself, the typically did not return to previous levels of functioning.
Sometime the individual is quite average prior to the first episode. Other times the person has shown some minor oddities causing people to think: "Oh so-in-so is a little odd or different.".

In all but a very few cases, schizophrenia is very treatable with medication and counseling.

Answer 2

initially loopy del is mistaken - it may well NOT be cured through treatment. It will also be effectually TREATED however there's no medication for schizophrenia. It is an overly very tough ailment to regard. My grandmother has it. She has battled with treatment all her existence and it's nonetheless very tough for her. She ultimately discovered a treatment in her 50's that set to work fairly good, however her dose has been upped such a lot through the years, and she or he nonetheless hears voices now and then. If the voices inform her that she are not able to stroll, then she collapses while she attempts to get up. It regulations her mind now and then. As some distance because the 25 factor, I do not know however i have heard of individuals having it as early as 22 years historic. As some distance as youngsters having it?? I do not believe so - certainly not heard that - continuously heard it was once early 20's (identical op_'s reply mentioned youngsters have it) ***btw - very fascinating query!

Answer 3

It doesn't just "hit" you. It takes months, if not years to develop (late teens and early 20s most commonly) People often undergo subtle changes in their behaviour and social and emotional interaction. They may eventually present in an episode of acute psychosis (hallucinations and delusions) and a diagnosis if usually made at this point in time. A decline in social/ occupational/ study usually goes hand-in-hand with the development of schizophrenia. They may see/ hear or experience unusual sensations and have unusual/ bizarre or illogical ideas or sentences. I recommend watching "A Beautiful Mind" with Russel Crowe in it as it illustrates the condition quite well.

Answer 4

it usually hits in your late teens early twenties. i myself have schizophrenia. i am 51 years old now. mine hit me when i was around 10 or 12. it started with hearing voices and sounds that weren't there. it wasn't untilil i was in my 20's that i started seeing things that weren't there. i don't really know what i was like before i developed it. but my family tells me that after getting put on meds 6 years ago that i am a very different person now than what i used to be, even though i do still to some extent still see and hear things occassionally.

Answer 5

vinster82, i agree as well. someone needs to stop this woman before she actually harms someone. just look at what she's trying to do to someone who is trying to help others here.

for the actual question posted here, schizophrenia usually hits in the late teens-often in college for many people. i've never known anyone personally with the disorder, so i can't help you there.

Answer 6

To the above poster, nobody said anything about court officials? I've read just about everything you've posted on the web now. You're a HUGE copy and past machine aren't ya? Still trying to find out if you really have a masters degree or not...

Thanks Livie, so glad I found somebody else who agrees...

Answer 7

vinster82, she has an agenda that she wages on here like a Nazi purging the "impure." Her advice is dangerous, especially when the time comes that she convinces someone who is in desperate need of their meds to stop taking them. Hopefully, it won't be someone whose suicidal ideation is controlled by the meds. Until then, all we can do is disagree and hope one day, Yahoo takes measures.

Answer 8

i know the answer to your first question and it normally hits in your early 20's

Answer 9

It will be alright is brilliant and she should be thanked for her information which can not only save peoples lives but also give people a chance to be happy, which is something that medications shows no hope for.

Answer 10

It is unclear to me how court officials have any authority to use their positions to effect harm on the people by causing them to become psychiatrically labeled like this. Also how this authority is given to them to coerce and force any medical treatment on people based on these labels without their full and knowledgeable consent as possible plea bargains or lighter sentences?

This is an industry of greed taking advantage of peoples suffering to sell a product of so called care and kindness when the truth is it is actually anything but caring and kind to demand things by use of fear, coercion, force, and compliance and is based on who gets and how to get money in people's pockets.

One commonly hears the terms "major mental illnesses", "proven biological diseases of the brain" and "chemical imbalances" when these are not accurate to describe the causes of our societies difficulties which are being labeled and treated. This eliminates any real help, choice, or solutions that could be given to people to help solve these problems and allow for any kind of real corrections or restorations. This does not fix any of the real issues or causes. This authority is a basic infringement on one's human rights and dignity, and the legitimate critiques of contemporary psychiatric theories and research have largely been ignored, hidden, dismissed, and the whistleblowers or critics are blacklisted and sometimes even abused in different ways for their efforts to stop this.

The strike asked for scientific evidence based on the following standards: (1) the measures used are relevant, valid and reliable (2) the subject populations are selected by a sample method that is free of bias (3) the confounding variables are controlled for and (4) the causation is distinguished from any simple correlation. This information to support their claims should be in the form of cited material that could be easily found and understood in some short document. However with over 1,000 documents, which confound one another and each other in different places, even PubMed knows this is an impossibility and that this material is meant to be used any way that the person using it desires to use it, howevcr they best benefit from it.

The Hunger Strike Questions were asked for purposes of obtaining this information:

1. Evidence that clearly establishes the validity of "schizophrenia", "depression", or any other "major mental Illnesses" as biologically-based brain diseases.

2. Evidence for a physical diagnostic exam such as a scan or test of the brain, blood, urine, genes, etc that can accurately and reliably distinguish individuals with these diagnoses (prior to treatment with psychiatric drugs), from individuals without these diagnoses.

3. Evidence for a Base-line Standard of a neurochemically balanced "normal" personality, against which a neurochemical "imbalance" can be measured and shown to be corrected by pharmaceutical means.

4. Evidence that any Psychotropic Drug can correct a "chemical imbalance" attributed to a psychiatric diagnoses, and is any thing more than a non-specific alterer of physiology, just as any other mind altering drug of a legal or illegal nature.

5. Evidence that any Psychotropic Drug can reliably decrease the likelihood of violence or suicide.

6. Evidence that Psychotropic Drugs do not in fact increase the overall likelihood of violence and suicide.

What we had hoped might happen is that there would have been a public admission of the truth of the facts and that is this: they do not have these answers. This has not been forthcoming because it is not available, but this fact of lack of scientific evidence should be taken into consideration in any court case involving this type of thing, shouldn't it.

What the ones that should have this information will do is give this common line to anyone that ask for it: The answer to your questions are widely available in the scientific literature, and have been for years. Then suggest one read Surgeon General David Satcher's report, Mental Health, A Report of the Surgeon General, the Textbook of Psychiatry (3rd edition) edited by Andreason and Black, also The American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc.'s Textbook of Clinical Psychiatry (4th edition) edited by Hales and Yodorfsky, and the American Journal of Psychiatry and Archives of General Psychiatry. No specific citations for reliable, valid, and conclusive scientific research evidence can or will be given to anyone, they can not give this to you.

On August 22, 2003 the Scientific panel replied to the APA: We are a panel of 14 academics and clinicians who have agreed to review any such reply for scientific validity. No specific studies of any kind were cited with reference to any of the questions. In examining these sources, we found numerous statements that invalidate that behaviors referred to as "mental Illnesses" have specific biological bases.

The Report of the Surgeon General (1999) states: there is no definitive lesion, laboratory test, or abnormality in brain tissue, pg 44. It is not...easy to establish a threshold...in light of how common symptoms of mental distress are and the lack of objective, physical symptoms, pg 48. The precise causes (etiology) of mental disorders are not known, pg 49. Few lesions of physiological abnormalities define the mental disorders, and for the most part their causes remain unknown, pg 102.

The third edition of Textbook of Clinical Psychiatry (1999) states: Although reliable criteria have been constructed for many psychiatric disorders, validation of the diagnostic categories as specific entities has not been established, pg 43. Most of these (genetic studies) examine candidate genes in the serotonergeric pathways, and have not found convincing evidence of an association, pg 51.

In the Adreason and Black's (2001), Introductory Textbook of Psychiatry, you find: Much of the current investigative research in psychiatry is directed toward the goal of identifying the pathophysiology and etiology of major mental illness, but this goal has been achieved for only a few disorders. (Alzheimer's disease, multi-infarct dementia, Huntington's disease, and substance-induced syndromes such as amphetamine related psychosis or Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome), pg 23. In the absence of visible lesions and known pathogens, pg 231. Many candidate regions (of the brain) have been explored (for schizophrenia) but none have been confirmed, pg 450.

Such statements invalidate claims for specific, reliable biological causes or signs of "mental illnesses". If, as they state, "the answers to questions are widely available in the scientific literature, and have been for years", then does it not behoove them to give these answers and cite their specific sources? Instead the standard line for them is this: "It is unfortunate that...individuals and groups persist in questioning the reality and clinical legitimacy of disorders that affect the mind, brain, and behavior".

Then they will add something like this: "brain science has not advanced to the point where scientist or clinicians can point to readily discernible pathologic lesions or genetic abnormalities that...serve as reliable or predictive biomarkers of a...mental disorder or mental disorders as a group...The conditions are defined by a variety of concepts. These include the distress experienced and reported by a person...the level of disability from population-based norms for cognitive processes, mood regulation, or other indices of thought, emotion, and behavior...The lack of a laboratory-based test...does not diminish the...evidence that mental and behavioral disorders exact devastating emotional and financial tolls on individuals, families, communities, and our Nation".

To excuse their lack of scientific evidence they will say this: "In the months and years ahead, the APA, along with NAMI, the Nation's mental health research and clinical communities, and the public at large...will not be distracted by those who would deny that serious mental disorders are real medical conditions that can be diagnosed accurately and treated effectively".

We asked them to produce scientifically-valid evidence not excuses for their delusions and ideas to sell and promote their treatments. We asked them to publicly admit to the media, government officials and the general public that they are unable to do so. This is reasonable and fair.

Without evidence no basis exist to call emotional distress, disturbing behavior, or unusual thoughts or perceptions a disease. This negates the sufferer's distress as reaction, protest, or adaptation to their position in any personally relevant social context. A person is understood in terms of personal history and social circumstances. A disease or disorder is understood differently.

The choice of labels is of great consequence as blushing an obviously physical reaction, is not biologically caused. Its effective cause is acute embarrassment. Biological processes make blushing possible, but they do not cause blushing. Even total congruence between biological processes and psychological events does not show that the former causes the latter. We understand that psychiatric research is far from showing any reliable connections between mental disorders and biological measurement, and therefor even much less the nature of mental disorders or the most reasonable and best treatment for them.

Hypertension, diabetes, epilepsy, brain tumors, and other diseases that they compare this to have yet to find the exact cause, they have developed very reliable physical measurements and markers for these and without proper treatment it has been shown that the course of these diseases degenerate and actually may cause death in a rapid fashion. Psychiatry is the sole medical specialty that treats only disorders with NO reliable and valid scientific markers or test. People diagnosed with schizophrenia or major depressive disorder often are physically healthy, unless their social circumstances and neglect interfere negatively, they may live long lives and die of the same physical causes as other people. The APA should therefore explain how sociological concepts which easily define conditions such as poverty, discrimination, natural or man made disasters, or war-substantiate the existence of any actual disease.

Neuroscientist have not established any normal baseline quantity for any known neurotransmitters as proven by a never consistent reliable type or dose of medication to treat any of these diseases with, nor have they shown any chemical imbalance to correlate with mental disorders diagnosed on unmedicated individuals. The statement these people give simply states what is known, all mind and mood altering drugs have affects on the brain. This includes illegal mind and mood altering drugs which alter a persons thoughts and behaviors, though no one suggest they actually can correct chemical imbalances in the brain. Given those in charge of this impotent exercise of their mandate to protect consumers from false labels, false treatments, false advertising, pharmaceutical companies recklessly advertise and in the absence of any scientific proof it is ethically and medically reprehensible for doctors to convey such messages to justify prescribing drugs.

The APA, PubMed, and NAMI which is 50% or more funded by the drug companies, can provide no exact citations to any scientific literature. Associations devoted to research, and treatment of genuine diseases readily provide consumers with scientific references on the pathological basis of these diseases so with an annual budget in the billions some of these people ought to be able to provide this to doctors, the public, and to other government officials. They should be able to provide a one or two page list of published scientific studies to support their claims with exact citations. They can't. This simply serves to reduce human beings into simple machines and robots.

Since the discovery of syphllis nearly a century ago, this medical model has failed to explain the cause of any other single mental disorder. Yet, this model dominates the psycho-social-court systems. The APA claims that money spent has greatly improved our ability to treat severe, frequently disabling disorders, while effectively relevant indicators show the exact opposite. For schizophrenia, worsened relapse rates and increased numbers of people on disability status characterize outcomes over the last 50 years. For depression, increased incidence and prevalence are reported. At its best this coerced and forced pyschiatric treatment is not helping. Researchers now recognize that the most popular psychiatric drugs, the antidepressants, rate only slightly better then placebos and negative research findings are commonly suppressed.

A genuine science states hypothesis in ways that allow them to be proven true or false. For a century now psychiatry has put forth hypotheses after hypotheses that are not verifiable. Drug industry funds direct and analyze many drug studies, psychiatric journals publish so-called scientific reports of these drug studies that are ghost-written by industry employees or marketing firms. So on what basis does society justify the authority granted psychiatrists, as medical doctors, to force psychoactive drugs or other treatments upon unwilling individuals, or to incarcerate persons who may or may not have committed criminal acts? We urge you to ask for straightforward answers to our questions from the APA. We also ask you to investigate this mass deception on the courts and the public.

We ask this of anyone that may be involved in the prescribing of this treatment in one way or another, since the possible side effects of these drugs are in fact: Drug induced stuttering, Weight gain, Dizziness, Sleeplessness, Restlessness, Anxiety, Diabetes, Racing heart, Heart disorders, Suicide risk in children and adults, Increased risk of pregnancy while changing from old to newer drugs and increased risk of birth defects, White Blood Cell Disorders, Convulsions and Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome, Life threatening inflammation of the Pancreas, Glaucoma, Harmful food and drug interactions, Synergistic and Anti synergistic affects, Unnatural and dangerous serotonin re-uptake inhibitors, Dyskyntonia, Sudden Deaths, Drug overdoses, Drug induced psychiatric symptoms, Prescribing wrongfully, Illegal sales on the street, Illegal creation of drugs, Illegal experimentation and addiction to drugs, why would you prescribe this as a treatment and court order it enforced?

This was three years ago and even today just this past few months the government directed me to textbooks and articles, however could not answer these questions in any specific ways. They in fact told me to use the information in any way that I seen useful to me and as I seen to use it, so that it would best work for my needs. How is that accurate, I can use it as I see fit and the next person can do the same with an exact contrary viewpoint. Whatever the most popular, not scientifically reliable and valid, way of looking at it is pushed now through peer pressure and coercion and force. That is propaganda at its finest, it is unethical and immoral when it hurts so many people overall.

People are not being given accurate, unflawed information on which to come to a reasonable determination or informed consent for their choices. Here is a small sample of instances that I personally know about: I have seen two of my teenage cousins at a double funeral, know two of my friends nephews that died from O.D.s within two weeks apart, I have a young relative that was on her way to a promising career when these drugs messed her life up she went to prison, a young girl busted and turned into a convicted felon for having just two or three of these pills on her that were not prescribed to her, one young lady in my community was on these when she drove her young son into our local lake to drowned, all from these drugs.

Then this incident at Virginia Tech that we want to blame strictly on bullying and not these drugs (if he was or was not prescribed them) which is more convenient for those pushing them as treatment, but all people that are bullied don't do this, not matter how frustrated or desperate they get. Now a man high on Xanax has killed a sheriff. This is this man's life as someone once said to me as an excuse for pushing this medication on people, and these drugs may have ruined it once the evidence is in. It has certainly hurt this sheriff's family and community and he seems from all indications that I have to have been a good guy and wanted to do what was right for his community and make it a better place to be. LOOK HERE NOW I CAN ADD TO THIS THAT VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE'S SON HAS BEEN BUSTED FOR THESE DRUGS! Is that great or what?

How many more people have to die or become convicted felons before we can see that mind altering brain damaging addictive drugs are not candy, not to be taken lightly, and that they are causing more harm to our society then they are helping. I have seen too much of it!

Our children are legally having drug parties on the weekends with their prescription drugs and the ones that their parents have in the cabinets. The entry into drugs is no longer the less harmful ones, if there are any less harmful, it is the stronger more addictive unhealthy ones, the chemicals, the legal medications.

Harming the little guy, busting them, coercing, and forcing them to take more drugs, ruining their lives isn't helping and it isn't going to help. I have told people for three years that these psychiatric drugs are dangerous mind altering addictive drugs. The same ones that I have and have seen others use recreationally over time, only they are not recreational they almost ruined my own life before I got free from them. I have told people that they really have no valid and reliable scientific evidence for calling these drugs the best treatments. Situations like this are not being reported in the data bases that they are using to build their case for the use of these medications and that is certainly flawed evidence, it is skewed. We can not keep busting the small time fish while the real big time pushers are free and legal to push these so called medications or drugs on anyone that they want to.

This is the drug companies and the government that have to stop this! As long as they are out there like candy they will be looked at that way and more and more people will be getting addicted to them and more and more people will be abusing them and dying from them. It is not funny to me. These drugs are not a best treatment, and one has no way of knowing how these so called medications will cause addictions and drug abuse over all, do we blame the victims that have become addicted or the system we have for pushing them on them? I know what these drugs are and what they do, how they are misused out on the streets and stuff like that. People believe that because it is a doctor prescribing it that it makes it different, it doesn't, some people will in fact only want to use these drugs as they think is in a responsible way if there really is any responsible way to use drugs.

Slowly we have to dry this supply up! Slowly, but as fast as we safely can, we have to stop this, these drugs can cause toxic seizures to those that are actually addicted to them who are pulled directly off of them. There is not enough drug free prevention efforts and treatment for those that are already addicted to these drugs. It is not funny. It has to stop! It is not just anyone drug or any drug that is called illegal, it is any drug that can make one "feel good" or so called "do better" temporarily, and it can not be controlled as much as you would like to believe that lie! It is a drug habit and many of these people would not do so many of these things if they were not on these drugs. Some might still do anything if they had it in their mind to do it or had no other way and they felt they had no other choice.

You may be led to believe that the psychotropic medications are so called saving lives and making them better, this is not true, these drugs are ruining more people's lives then they will ever make better there is no way at all to tell what their behavior will actually be while on these drugs. There are better alternatives to helping people in life, alternatives that can and will actually make things better. One only has to pay attention to the things that are covered up concerning these so called medications and start counting how many lives have actually been destroyed under this so called psychiatric treatment then be honest with themselves and others and they will see things in a different light.

Never doubt that people out of their minds on drugs and under major duress can and will hurt you and anyone else without even thinking about it, people that are out of their minds on mind altering drugs can and will do almost anything, even anything that they wouldn't do any other way and then they have to live with it. Never believe that peer pressure and belief are not two of the strongest forces in the world. If you have any comments or excuses, I would be glad to hear them. If we are going to legalize some drug use, especially not just a temporary use, then let's legalize all drug use, or let's stop this.