A new model for schizophrenia?

Schizophrenia is a complex disorder (or, more likely, group of disorders) that has reality distortion at its core. Efforts to establish the cause of schizophrenia have been ongoing for more than a century, and many models have come and gone in that time (not for nothing has schizophrenia been called ‘the graveyard of neuropathologists’ (Plum, 1972)).

Part of the problem has been that very often the models would deal adequately with one aspect of the disorder (the neurochemistry, say, or the cognitive impairment) but fail to explain another, or just ignore it. Without a good model of schizophrenia, developing ways to treat the condition or prevent it before it begins is much harder, and much less likely to be successful.

In an article published in The Lancet at the end of last year, Oliver Howes and Robin Murray have set out what they call ‘an integrated sociodevelopmental-cognitive model’. As can no doubt be told from that title, this is a model that tries to account for the very wide range of factors that have been associated with increased risk for psychosis, from the neurobiological to the socio-demographic.

At root, this model suggests that the key biological dysfunction in people with schizophrenia is that they make and release too much of the neurotransmitter dopamine. This is not new (dopamine models of schizophrenia have been around since the first antipsychotics were shown to block dopamine receptors) but Howes and Murray tie this together with another well-established model, that of schizophrenia being a neurodevelopmental disorder.

In the original neurodevelopmental model, proposed by Murray (Murray and Lewis, 1987) and others (Weinberger, 1987) nearly 30 years ago, altered dopamine was a result of the interaction between early damage to frontal brain regions (perhaps as the result of complications during birth) and normal development.

Now, Howes and Murray argue events early in life, such as birth complications but also now including the effect of genes on brain development and childhood adversity, sensitise the dopamine system. This sensitisation makes the system more vulnerable to stress, such as that caused by social adversity. At the same time, cognitive models suggest that such stress can bias an individual’s thinking toward paranoia. A vicious circle develops, where the symptoms result in greater social adversity and stress, leading to more symptoms and so on, the end result being the full threshold psychotic break.

This model represents a real advance, in that it puts life events and the impact they have on the individual’s interpretation of the world around them at the centre of the process leading to schizophrenia. This fits with much of the advances of the past decade or so, that show that being an immigrant or being exposed to physical or sexual abuse are associated with a threefold increase in risk. It also suggests that interventions to reduce stress, or alter disordered patterns of thinking (such as cognitive behavioural therapy), ought to be particularly beneficial in the early phases of illness.

However, the article is not without problems. Largely, this is because the authors are not trying to conduct a systematic review, but to bolster the case for their model. In several places, the evidence is rather weaker than is made out, or is heavily reliant on animal models that may not in the end prove applicable to the human. Howes and Murray themselves concede that their model does not easily account for the persistent negative symptoms and cognitive impairments seen in many patients.


The author said;
schizophrenia is a complex disorder{or,more likely,group
of disorders} that has reality distortion at its core . !!

OUR simple notice;
the author do not talking about a whole condition that including
a complex disorders {symptoms}
he talking about a group of independent disorders {symptoms} that
are non-interconnected in a context of unity phenomenon

He talking about symptoms (a group of disorders}
instead to talking about a universal condition that products many disorders

the truism conclusion:
the author do not know; what is the nature of the case so-called schizophrenia !!
Just he knows an observed symptoms {disorders)

SO THAT,it is easy to says;
the term “schizophrenia” is not a name of universal condition { like genetic condition,
genetic disease,mental illness },but it is a name given to a group of macroscopic
symptoms { observed disorders } that they are independent and isolated
from each other

1 Like

The fundamental problem that facing all scientific researches in the
field of schizophrenia,and which be ignored or viewed lightly “unrivaled”,
which lead to the manifestations of failure in every psychiatry research
designed to discover the CAUSE of schizophrenia,is that;

The researchers do not know ,what is the essential characteristics
of the inner ontological case of sz as it as in itself ?
what is the new things (ontological symptoms} that are embodied
within the nature of mind-brain of the schizophrenic individual ?

what is that,without delusional interpretation,misrepresentation,
distortion,twist,authorship the data,fantasies,blur the real information,
marginalization,and without weaving the basic nature of the ontological
features on the size of prior biological viewpoints or …etc

No way to knows any real information about the sz without knowing
the nature of things that are embodied inside the internal psychological
world of the schizophrenic individual

SIMPLY;without knowing everything about the things that so-called
hallucinations,all psychiatry researches become unable to achieve
any real understanding,explanation or treatment ,

ignore or neglect that,it means ,all psychiatry researches become
a field to writing a prose articles that they are irrelevant the sz
the researchers can not know the
nature of sz, or the cause of sz,treatment sz,and can not explain any
symptoms.and they remain in argumentation around the sz
that never ended

The schizophrenia for viewpoints of all researchers is merely
a group of non-interconnected symptoms or disorders or parts

-Sz is a group of individual phenomena,independent of each other
-Sz is a group of molecular properties do not connect with each other
in a context of universal phenomenon,they are disarray disorders

the researcher do not know the root which produced these group
of disorders /symptoms /molecular properties,do not know the nucleus
that generate and control those disarray symptoms /disorders

this means that,the researchers deal with the observed symptoms {disorders}
as if each one of them is an independent phenomenon about the rest of others,
and that is fatal mistake {theoretically or practically },BECAUSE all internal
and external symptoms of sz case are arise from one root internally !

that is to say,there are relationship between all types of symptoms /disorders
together,and between them and the root origin !
we meant,there are functional integration between all disorders “symptoms”,
wherever each disorder /symptom have specific role in the basic schizophrenic process

But the main problem is that,all researchers do not know the basic schizophrenic process,so that they are fail to find any relationship between the root origin and all
symptoms -complex disorders-

That seems to be how it happened to me. Dumb ass immature people kept calling mt gay. Got paranoid, got delusion, kept running in a stressful life, started hearing voices, and then bam psychotic break in a scenario that demanded my suicide.

I actually fit all of the causation theories. I have birth trauma, was born with fluid in my lungs and put in the ICU, was molested when I was 4 or 5, was bullied, didnt even kiss a girl until I was 20, was disturbed and obsessed with violence and self discipline as a teenager, have two living schizers in my family tree aside from me, had a near death experience at 8 years old, havent had brain scans, dont want to see those swollen ventricles and compressed regions of my brain, thats depressing.

I also meet the ancient 1930’s theories about masturbation and lack of sex play as a minor. My grandfather was a surgeon and I have his 1939 book on psychiatry and it stressed parenting styles, lack of sexual exploration, bottled up emotions, being bullied, ect.

I am the perfect storm for this ■■■■■■ up illness, in every single way. All of the theories, even the extinct ones apply to me. One thing is certain- I take my ■■■■■■■ medications and do what the doctors ■■■■■■■ say to do. I am 90% symptom free, some days more. Functionally, I am 99% recovered.

■■■■ schizophrenia. No wait, skullfuck schizophrenia. That sounds more metal.

One of my many favourite things about Americans is the language they use.

I remember being at a uni debate and one of the Americans calling Sarah Palin “batshit crazy” it was the first time I heard the expression and it works so well.

Im going to try and use “skull ■■■■” with one of my friends to see what happens :smile:

1 Like

Why always raised widespread controversy about the credibility of knowledge
offered by psychiatry ?
Why abound doubts and suspicions about the realistic information provided by
psychological science ?
Why this science comes at the tail of all human science ?
Why this particular science is less advanced /developed than the rest of
the natural sciences ?

=Does not abide by truthfulness in what this science says about the realities of phenomena
that is supposed to discover what they are
=this science is deceptive witness for the facts of things

SZ is one of the well-known example in this area.
SZ in its actual reality {as the individual experience it inside his psychological world},
it is radically DIFFERENT about the meager descriptions and poor in content
which are writing about in the medical reference and scientific journals

this methods- causes the blur actual truth of sz and replace it with pieces of
literary prose which is irrelevant and useless at all

Atabo, I can see science doesn’t do well with phenomenological descriptions of schizophrenia, but that doesn’t imply statistical, neurological, or other scientific measurements and findings, or medications, are worthless or deceptive if taken for what they are.

Science, in contradistinction to religion or delusion, recognizes that it’s knowledge is partial, falsifiable and incomplete.

Sorry if that sounds literary. My only excuse is I was an English major. I think I do understand your point though, Atabo. When I was psychotic I could find nothing that showed any understanding of my subjective experience. And I too found that extremely frustrating and isolating.

The best understanding of the actual reality of schizophrenia that we now have will probably be found right here on this forum, so stay tuned. :smiley:


You said:
"science doesn’t do well with phenomenological description of schizophrenia "
-This is the critical point at all
-All knowledge and conclusions are building on wrong description to the basic
features of the schizophrenia,
-without exceptions,there is a random interpretations to the primary reading
for the ontological characteristics of schizophrenia
-this is happens in all scientific methods which studying the schizophrenia

how can the doctor describe the medication for a patient,while the doctor do not know
what is the disease/ and what is the cause of that disease ?

how can you say,sz is medical condition,while you can not find the
disease material in the anatomical component in the person in the lab ?
-you can not diagnoses the material of any disease in the schizophrenic individual
before the onset of sz,during the occurrence of sz and after long time of
experienced sz
-for what reason you say,sz is a genetic disease,while you can not find
the ill gene /genes who produces the schizophrenia ?

Give us one example to show the useful using of the statistics in the field of sz !

THERE ARE many fatal mistakes in these sciences
the science who can not have correct description to the actual characteristics
of the sz case as it as in its nature,it is failing science

for people who believe that,sz is a disease
the question
what is the disease ? OR
what is the internal logic of this disease ?

all of them give wrong answer without exception !
all of them have going to describe the symptoms,
and what is arise the laughing,they believe that
their answer is correct !

in the case if you say,chemical imbalance,dopamine disorder,development
is some parts of the brain…etc these are the RESULTS of sz effectiveness
on the brain

if you say,paranoia,delusional beliefs,linguistic disorder,…etc
these are the results of sz effectiveness on the mind

no one of them have any idea about the difference between term the “whole case”
and the observed symptoms “the results "
-the first is the ontological case for the thing “SZ” ,while the second is the end products of schizophrenia effectiveness over the main nature” mind-brain" of the person

ALL chemical changes in the brain of the schizophrenic individual are merely
the result of sz effects,they are not the cause of the sz case
-description of the ontological case of sz is vary different about description of
its symptoms “the results” !


the sz is the sum of unexpected personal /chemical characteristics of some
individuals,it is similar to say;

protein >>>>DNA +RNA

we meant,the results can not creating the cause
the group of symptoms can not creating a whole case