âEven if you win an argument on twitter youâre still a loserâ thatâs my attitude.
I wouldnât waste your time arguing with them firemonkey.
What else would you expect from psychologists?
Some pearls from their paper:
Evidence is accumulating that the idea of an illness called schizophrenia might be the result of clinicians concluding that two things are related when in fact, they both independently affect the likelihood of someone seeking help from services.
For example, many people sometimes experience one or more of the following: finding it hard to look after themselves, feeling desperate, confused or disoriented, hearing voices, thinking suspicious or paranoid thoughts.
There is increasing evidence that, contrary to what clinicians have traditionally believed, these experiences are often unrelated. Those who experience only one or two of these problems are unlikely to seek help from services. Only people who experience several of them and to a severe degree, are likely to end up seeking help from services and so receive a diagnosis
LOL, so they say that many people experience from time to time either thought disorders, voices, a negative symptom, delusions⌠but if it is only 1 of these, no problem! (yeah someone that experience âonlyâ thought salad or apathy is unlikely to seek help from services!).
But if you are unlucky enough to experience many of these unrelated (!) symptoms you would receive this fake diagnosis from these biased psychiatrists. 
Experiences such as hearing voices are real experiences for the person having them, and can lead to very real distress. However, this does not mean that they are necessarily symptoms of real âillnessesâ, for example schizophrenia. Giving something a name, and even being very clear about its definition, doesnât mean that it necessarily exists in reality. Most people would agree on how to identify a unicorn, for example, even though they are mythical rather than real creatures. The problem is that the existence of the label can give the misleading impression of the existence of the âthingâ. As psychiatrist Jim Van Os puts it: âThe complicated, albeit ultimately meaningless, Greek term suggests that schizophrenia really is a âthingâ, i.e. a âbrain diseaseâ that exists as such in Nature. This is a false suggestion.â
Do you understand, psychiatrists? Stop giving schizophrenia diagnoses to people otherwise they might believe that schizophrenia (and unicors) really exist!!! 
This is one reason that the newest version of the diagnostic manual, DSM 5, has been so controversial. The diagnosis of schizophrenia is particularly so. For example, there is evidence that young black men are particularly likely to receive a diagnosis of schizophrenia and that this might relate partly to racism (and perhaps also gender and class discrimination) both in society and within services.
Damn those racist psychiatrists that invented schizophrenia⌠
It is widely assumed that psychosis has a biological cause. It is in pharmaceutical companiesâ
interests to promote the idea that schizophrenia is a brain disease
no comment 
the view that everyone who has a diagnosis of schizophrenia needs to take medication, are increasingly being challenged.
Luckily it is being challenged only by shamans, fraudsters, schizophrenics with no insight⌠and psychologists. 
Sadly this will probably result in some people going off meds and relapsing.
Wish instead they would put resources into biomarkers for who CAN safely go off meds. Because right now itâs a crapshoot.
Critical comments about that paper:
wait, Iâm curious now about who are the ones who are insane?!?
@firemonkey Negative symptoms from a neurology perspective.
Video - âweb psychosis connectum_2013â - (10 minute clip).
@NutsAboutU Hard to grasp all that was being said.
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.