It produces results, but to label them 'succesful' is begging the question.
No, the results speak for themselves.
If you build a GPS system based on the findings of physics (relativity), then it works.
If you do not then that GPS will not work properly: it will get your location wrong and as a result it will fail to guide you to your destination.
Ah, but this is adding information to your original statement which merely pointed to its existence.
Because I didn't consider I needed to mention the obvious previously.
Apparantly I was wrong about that. When I talk about the actual existance of something, I kind of imply that it
demonstrably exists and that it is not just some type of "belief".
So you agree your initial reasoning was deficient then in this instance.
I do not. Instead, I'll agree that apparantly on this site, I need to state the obvious all the time because apparantly these things aren't so obvious to certain people on here.
Just to point out though, Medicine in general and Psychiatry are not scientific systems.
/facepalm
Do you know what the term 'psychosis' means?
Yes.
It means a disconnection from reality
Actually, I'ld say it refers to an accute episode of reality distortion wich is characterised by hallucination (visual, auditory,...). Such an episode usually happens in context of a psychiatric disorder like schizofrenia etc. But it doesn't have to.
How do we determine reality though?
Through empirical independend testing.
Anti-psychotic medicines fall in two classes. These are typicals and atypicals, which broadly act on dopamine receptors and 5HT receptors. No antipsychotic has ever been found that does not act on d2 receptors however. These receptors are related to emotion and perception and no connection to reasoning as such has been demonstrated outside of associations to depressive or manic states and even here the evidence is ambigious.
Considering the fact that anti-psychotics help greatly in either getting a psychotic episode "under control" or having it end, seems pretty good evidence that it works.
Did I mention that a closed loved one suffers from chronic paranoid psychosis? I witnessed it up close and was there every step of the way on the road to recovery.
I have first hand experience seeing how these medicines
worked.
Now, she is on a "mainenance" dose and probably will remain on one for the rest of her life.
After the first episode, she was fine for over 2 years and it was decided to try and break down the maintenance dose week by week until there was none left.
2 months later she relapsed.
The theory of HOW psychosis emerges is very much up in the air, from glutamate-derived pathways through genetic susceptibility though psychological triggering in susceptible patients.
Yep.
Such broad statements that you are making is simply poor understanding of the literature.
What "broad statements"? I don't think I ever said that anti-psychotics cure anything. What I said was that anti-psychotics are currently the best we got. As in: it currently has the best trackrecord in helping people with such disorders.
I'ld sure love it if it would get refined / improved / replaced with something better. As medication, anti-psychotics are rather heavy with, in some cases, rather nasty side effects. But it's still better then the alternative of full-blown psychosis and all the nasty stuff that comes with it.
As to cognitive function, ever heard of neuroplasticity? The brain adapts according to what pathways are used and in what manner. Long term antipsychotics cause improvement in cognitive function, as does psychosis cause worsening, but this is through the brain strengthening or demyelinating the relevant neuronal axons. Whether the drugs cause this we simply don't know. It may be the apsychotic state that allows correction, allows neuroplastic regeneration as likely as any pharmacologic action. Similarly with psychosis, which may be the trigger but not root cause of cognitive decline. It is a bit of a catch 22.
I don't think I ever pointed to a cause. I merely spoke of the demonstrable correlation of untreated psychosis and brain damage - which you seem to agree exists.
CBT reverses the cognitive deterioration and helps people realise when entering a new psychosis? How is this not treating the underlying illness?
Because they still enter a new psychosis..........
Treating the underlying illness would mean that the symptoms thereof no longer manifest. Which would in turn mean that the subject wouldn't need to learn how to recognise the first signals, since it simply wouldn't occur anymore.
It's not "treating the underlying illness". It's more like learning about and arming yourself to deal with it more effectively. You're not "cured". You're just better equipped in dealing with it.
I don't understand your objection to what I said.
Anyway, many studies have shown that CBT is useful and advantageous in all stages of psychosis, acute or chronic. No psychiatric institution on this earth does not offer psychological treatment concommittently with medication, so to champion the one over the other here seems foolish. As stated above, thought form is not altered by medication. We cannot suddenly stop a depressive from interpreting things in the most negative light possible or a paranoid schizophrenic from associating things to his deusions by medications alone, nor can medication suddenly evaporate delusions. If this were the case, then we would inject risperdal in casualty and send people on their way, instead of having to admit them for weeks at a time for multiple therapies to take effect.
I think you aren't recognising the very wide gradations of such disorders. Not everyone that has a psychotic episode requires being admitted.
The evidence for a purely neurological basis is simply lacking however.
I'ld say that the ONLY evidence we have, is for a purely neurological basis.
We don't know much about the brain, sure. Lot's of stuff left to learn, sure.
In fact, compared to how deep our knowledge of other organs runs, I'ld actually be fine by saying that we have "no clue" about how the brain works.
Nonetheless, there is exactly zero reason to think that awareness/consiousness/reasoning/what-have-you is located somewhere else.
All the evidence we have at our disposal, points at the brain. Even if it is just a "little evidence" (debateable imo, but whatever) - all of it points in one direction.
Why would we assume something besides the physical brain as the root/origine/underlying mechanism of these things?
Professionals don't really know how thought forms or functions. Hence they are trying to figure it out
Yes. And where are they looking to learn about it? Your pinky? Your big toe?
It wouldn't by the brain, by any chance, would it?
To pretend they already have to some extent is laughable.
I didn't say that they understand the brain. I said that they agree that the brain is where they should be looking to get those answers.
I am very sorry for you. There are few things more damaging then mental illness in those close to you. I have seen this first hand in my own near relations and in my professional aspect as a doctor.
I would suggest though that you should encourage CBT and not just place all hope in medications alone. A multimodal approach is always more effective in these cases. I have attached a systemic review which strongly supports its efficacy here.
Cognitive behaviour therapy for schizophrenia
Thanks.
She does CBT and it certainly helps in terms of coping with it, recognising early symptoms and overall "recovery" from an episode, wich obviously can be extremely traumatising. What I'm saying is that the medication is absolutely essential.
CBT alone wouldn't work. Medication alone would work in terms of treatment of the accute symptoms. And indeed a combination of both is the best.
The point is that without the medication, CBT does little to nothing.