“In order to expose people to dangerous treatments – and immunosuppresive drugs do carry risks – you need serious evidence to suggest those drugs may be useful in treating the condition,” says the director of Sydney University’s Brain and Mind Research Institute according to the Sydney Morning Herald. “In the past, researchers have had great difficulty convincing an ethics committee that this is a treatment strategy for schizophrenia,” but studies showing that immune cells in key brain regions – thought to be affected by schizophrenia – are in fact causing inflammation and damage, “adds to the argument from researchers that it is now reasonable to trial immunosuppresants on schizophrenia patents.”
© 2024 Mad in America Foundation
Sounds like more quackery and flim flammery to me. More promises of having the sure fire proof in another 5 to 10 years. But in the meantime let us experiment on you, even if we don’t have any real proof that we’re right! Turst us, this won’t hurt a bit!
Report comment
Exactly.
How can an ethics commitee allow the funding for something like this?
How is it not unethical to administer dangerous substances to people, most likely against their will or without their knowledge or consent, to treat something that can not be scientifically proven in the first place?
Report comment
The patient is schizophrenic because the psychiatrist says he/she is. This judgement is the same as judging someone a witch in the year 1666. No way to prove or disprove it scientifically.
Report comment