Landmark Schizophrenia Study Recommends More Therapy

Justin Karter
50
250

Results of a large government-funded study call into question current drug-only approaches to treating people diagnosed with schizophrenia.  The study, which the New York Times called “by far the most rigorous trial to date conducted in the United States,” found that patients who received increased drug counseling along with individual talk therapy, family training, and support for employment and education experienced a greater reduction in symptoms, were more likely to resume work and school, and reported a higher quality of life than those receiving current standard treatments.

Current treatments for schizophrenia in the United States, or the control condition in this study, often require lifelong use of antipsychotic drugs.  Side effects from these drugs are so severe that almost three out of four patients stop taking their prescriptions, against medical advice, after a year and a half.

The new treatment program called NAVIGATE includes four different interventions for people suffering from their first experience of psychosis.  First, antipsychotic drugs are managed differently. According to the ‘Times report, doses were reduced by 20-50%.  Second, the families of the suffering individual are given “psychoeducation.” Meanwhile, the patient participates in resilience-focused individual therapy and, finally, an employment and education program.

The NAVIGATE program shares some similarities with the Open Dialogue programs that have been successful in Finland since the 1980s.  It involves a whole team of mental health care workers, including psychologists and social workers as well as psychiatrists, and uses a shared-decision making approach, allowing the clients and their family members to have equal input in the recovery process.

The study, called Recovery After an Initial Schizophrenia Episode (RAISE), was led by Dr. John Kane from Hofstra University and will be published in the American Journal of Psychiatry.  It included thirty-four clinics spread out over 21 states and began recruiting participants in 2010.  Seventeen of the clinics implemented the NAVIGATE program, and seventeen continued to provide standard care. Every participant enrolled in the trial for at least two years.  The researchers used various mental health assessment tools regularly throughout the treatment period, but the primary outcome measure was quality of life.

In total, 223 patients were included in the NAVIGATE program, and 181 enrolled in standard care.  The researchers found that the participants enrolled in the experimental program were significantly more likely to be working or going to school, experienced greater improvement in depression and psychosis symptoms, and were less likely to be hospitalized for psychiatric reasons.

Another key finding in this study is that patients who were treated sooner after their onset of symptoms derived substantially more benefit from the NAVIGATE treatment.  This lead the researchers to suggest that “prolonged duration of untreated psychosis is an issue of national importance.”

*

Editors Note: While RAISE and Open Dialogue may have similarities, it is an error to say that the former is based on the latter as was previously implied on this post. In addition, the current study does not report on any differences in antipsychotic dosages between the two groups and this article has been updated to reflect this omission.  

 

Read More:

New York Times: Talk Therapy Found to Ease Schizophrenia

The Washington Post: Study suggests new way to treat people after first schizophrenia episode 

Huffington Post: ‘Game-Changer’ Study Says There’s A Better Way To Treat Schizophrenia

NIH Director’s Blog: Study May RAISE Standard for Treating First Psychotic Episode

 

*

Kane, J. M., Robinson, D. G., Schooler, N. R., Mueser, K. T., Penn, D. L., Rosenheck, R. A., . . . Heinssen, R. K. Comprehensive Versus Usual Community Care for First-Episode Psychosis: 2-Year Outcomes From the NIMH RAISE Early Treatment Program. American Journal of Psychiatry, 0(0), appi.ajp.2015.15050632. doi:doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2015.15050632  (Full Text)

Support MIA

Enjoyed what you just read? Consider a donation to help us continue to produce content, provide up-to-date research news, offer continuing education courses, and continue building a community for exploring alternatives to the current paradigm of mental health. All donations are tax deductible.

$
Select Payment Method
Loading...
Personal Info

Credit Card Info
This is a secure SSL encrypted payment.

Donation Total: $20.00

50 COMMENTS

  1. I’m glad this has finally gotten some national attention. Of course, they still have not considered how many of the clients would do even better with little to no neuroleptic “treatment” at all. Still, it’s definitely a step in the right direction, and appears likely to have a bigger impact than Wunderlink or Harrow, even though both showed similar trends.

    When it comes to psychiatry, less is most definitely more!

    —- Steve

      • Good one! I wish all docs had to take neuroleptics for two solid weeks before they were ever allowed to prescribe them. Only the totally sociopathic ones would be unmoved by the experience.

        I am sure they had to include medication in the mix as a way of placating the psychiatrists. It’s interesting that when I went to the “NIH Director’s Blog” link, the coverage stressed the importance of not waiting to start treatment and of adding therapy to the mix, and totally minimized the large reduction in drugs used. I made a comment on it, too. Doubt it will be read much, but hey, trying to do my part.

        — Steve

  2. Let’s hope and pray this nation changes it’s approach to how the “mental health” industry treats what they call “psychosis” or “schizophrenia,” ASAP. Especially, since there’s absolutely no scientific evidence “schizophrenia” is a valid disorder or disease, and the most common trait of all so called “schizophrenics” today is adverse childhood experiences and / or child abuse.

    http://psychcentral.com/news/2006/06/13/child-abuse-can-cause-schizophrenia/18.html

    Read’s other research does point out that 77% of children brought to a hospital suffering from abuse get diagnosed as “psychotic,” whereas only 10% of non-abused children are so stigmatized. No doubt, it’s so much more convenient and profitable for the psychiatrists to profit off of misdiagnosing child abuse victims, rather than dealing with all the legalities, etc. of actually helping them.

    And, of course, anyone with a brain in their head should be aware of the reality that child abuse is a crime, not a “chemical imbalance” in the child’s brain. Thus, putting child abuse victims on neuroleptics, which is the “gold standard” treatment for “psychosis” / “schizophrenia,” would CREATE a “chemical imbalance” in the already abused child’s brain, not cure an unproven “chemical imbalance” caused by the theorized “psychosis” or “schizophrenia.”

    And the neuroleptics are known to cause both the negative and positive symptoms of “schizophrenia.” The negative symptoms of “schizophrenia” are iatrogenically created via neuroleptic induced deficit syndrome:

    “Neuroleptic induced deficit syndrome is principally characterized by the same symptoms that constitute the negative symptoms of schizophrenia—emotional blunting, apathy, hypobulia, difficulty in thinking, difficulty or total inability in concentrating, attention deficits, and desocialization. This can easily lead to misdiagnosis and mistreatment. Instead of decreasing the antipsychotic, the doctor may increase their dose to try to ‘improve’ what he perceives to be negative symptoms of schizophrenia, rather than antipsychotic side effects.”

    And increasing the neuroleptics, or adding other psych drugs like the antidepressants or benzos, can result in anticholinergic toxidrome, which emulates the positive symptoms of “schizophrenia,” like actual “psychosis” and hallucinations:

    “The symptoms of an anticholinergic toxidrome [can] include blurred vision, coma, decreased bowel sounds, delirium, dry skin, fever, flushing, hallucinations, ileus, memory loss, mydriasis (dilated pupils), myoclonus, psychosis, seizures, and urinary retention … Substances that may cause this toxidrome include the four “anti”s of antihistamines, antipsychotics, antidepressants, and antiparkinsonian drugs[3] as well as atropine, benztropine, datura, and scopolamine.”

    What all this means is that it is highly likely that at least 2/3’s of all so called “schizophrenics” in our society today are, in fact, dealing with a completely iatrogenic illness, created with psychiatry’s “gold standard” “cure” for “psychosis” / “schizophrenia,” to cover up the appalling problem of abuse of children in our society today.

    And my understanding is at least a portion of the other third of so called “schizophrenics” in our society today may also be dealing with completely iatrogenic illnesses, since it was confessed to me by an ethical pastor that covering up easily recognized medical mistakes and child abuse, by creating “psychosis” / “schizophrenia” symptoms in this manner, is the “dirty little secret of the two original educated professions” (the religions and medical industry).

    It’s time to get rid of today’s “witch hunters,” the psychiatrists, and we live in a much too paternalistic society. We ALL need to respect the laws of our countries, and the “professionals” need to stop psychiatry’s sickeningly paternalistic cover ups and abuse of women and children.

      • Thanks, Steve, I tend to agree with all of what you say as well. Let’s hope and pray we may be able to get the psychiatric industry out of the business of turning child abuse victims, and their concerned mothers, into “schizophrenics” with their neuroleptic drugs some day. Such behavior is unacceptable human behavior.

    • Someone Else,
      I think it’s correct that neuroleptics used long term tend to create the negative symptoms of supposed schizophrenia. In layman’s terms they induce apathy, withdrawal, amotivation, etc., as a consequence of generally depressing the nervous system and preventing people from thinking clearly and feeling feelings.

      I don’t think they create positive symptoms but could be mistaken about that. If you have a source for that idea please post.

      Also, I think the “positive symptoms” (delusions, hallucinations, disorganized speech) are consequences of being in terror for long periods and of losing contact with consensus reality. Often the real underlying cause of psychotic experience is severe abuse, neglect and isolation. In other words I think the positive symptoms of schizophrenia are very real and do not at all require neuroleptics to start. After all they existed long before the age of neuroleptics. Of course that doesn’t mean that schizophrenia is a valid or reliable label, it isn’t and it should be abolished.

      • Hi bpd,

        There’s often clever denial of this, but neuroleptics can cause problems that are interpreted as symptoms of ‘mental illness’: such as anxiety, akathesia, suicidal reaction, hopelessness, funny thinking and everything else.

        You might notice that when someone “acts out” medication is an issue somewhere. I’ve been a risk to myself under Severe Adverse Reaction, but never off medication.

        Effects are frequently covered for in manufacturers information literature.

        • “You might notice that when someone “acts out” medication is an issue somewhere.”

          That is so true. I had problems at the point when I entered psychiatry but it was not before I tried some of their pills that I’ve become suicidal, with panic attacks, obsessive, paranoid etc. Not that I didn’t have reasons to be like that given the nature of my relationship at the time but going on these poisons and then coming of them because of the side effects and then going on different ones and ;like that for weeks and months seriously screwed me up. The worst by far was Zyprexa – the person who came up with this one should burn in hell.

      • bpdtransformation,

        I agree the “‘positive symptoms’ (delusions, hallucinations, disorganized speech)” can be the result of “being in terror for long periods and of losing contact with consensus reality.” And I also agree that the “underlying cause of psychotic experience” can be “severe abuse, neglect and isolation.” Or even sleep deprivation. But the neuroleptics can also cause “psychosis,” in high quantities, or when mixed with other psych drugs, like the antidepressants – via a condition known as anticholinergic toxidrome or anticholinergic intoxication syndrome.

        As to a source, you may google “toxidrome,” and read up on anticholinergic toxidrome. Although I think this description from drugs.com does a better job of showing the similarity between the “positive symptoms” of “schizophrenia” and anticholinergic intoxication syndrome.

        “Agents with anticholinergic properties (e.g., sedating antihistamines; antispasmodics; neuroleptics; phenothiazines; skeletal muscle relaxants; tricyclic antidepressants; disopyramide) may have additive effects when used in combination. Excessive parasympatholytic effects may result in … the anticholinergic intoxication syndrome … Central symptoms may include memory loss, disorientation, incoherence, hallucinations, psychosis, delirium, hyperactivity, twitching or jerking movements, stereotypy, and seizures.”

        http://www.drugs.com/interactions-check.php?drug_list=2330-1540,1744-1113&types%5B%5D=major&types%5B%5D=minor&types%5B%5D=moderate&types%5B%5D=food&types%5B%5D=therapeutic_duplication&professional=1

        The only real difference between the central symptoms of anticholinergic intoxication syndrome and “schizophrenia” today is “inactivity” vs. “hyperactivity.” And I was described as “hyperactive” when I was having “psychosis” created by my psychiatrists via anticholinergic intoxication syndrome. My doctors, of course, called their anticholinergic poisoning of me ‘bipolar,’ however.

      • “I don’t think they create positive symptoms but could be mistaken about that.”

        You are in fact mistaken. The work of Robert and others clearly show that the use of neuroleptics, especially long-term increases a chance of psychosis (so-called supersensitivity).

  3. Honestly, it doesn’t really take a seven year study to know that talking to a patient is a revolutionary idea. Of course, we need psychotherapy; of course we need input from the community; medications may be relevant, but antipsychotics are not the treatment, but an aid to help diminish the terror. Schizophrenia is a human problem. People with schizophrenia are people. We need to make a relationship and deal with the psychotic character in psychotherapy. We need to treat the whole person. We have lost our way in believing that schizophrenia is some bio-neurological disorder.

    • And the psychiatric industry has a trouble comprehending the reality that “schizophrenia” / “bipolar” “cures” do in, fact, cause the positive and negative symptoms of “schizophrenia.” This is a problem for the psychiatric industry as well, since they have odd delusions their drugs can’t possibly cause the adverse symptoms of “schizophrenia,’ but I’ve already pointed out the medical evidence the psych drugs CAN create both the positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia.”

  4. In my mind this is huge news and is validating Open Dialogue and the work of Whitaker and others in raising these questions. This seems like the final blow for the “high dose polypharmacy neuroleptic/throw away the key you have a permanent disease” model of care. I want to see this translated into on the ground care as soon as possible.

    Just recently I worked with a client who had been committed and had to strenuously advocate for her meds to be dropped significantly…and they did do that- down to a very low dose- but that took a lot of effort and willingness to fight and stand up to the doctors at that hospital. Most people don’t have advocates doing that for them and it should be required practice to not prescribe high poly pharmacy doses anymore.

    I’m very happy this article is strongly highlighted in the NYT.

  5. Because it is so obvious to many therapist and to those with lived experience, the title “Landmark study recommends less drugs, more therapy” is kind of ridiculous. However this study will be important for several reasons:

    – It repeats and confirms the type of results that Open Dialogue achieved, i.e. a low medication, high emotional support approach soundly surpasses treatment as usual. It sets the stage for further studies and replications. It will be interesting to read the study in detail and to ascertain exactly how much greater the improvement was for this novel approach. Hopefully it will really make treatment as usual look bad.

    – It may immediately or with further replications lead to changes in state or federal policy on how to manage first episode psychosis. This would particularly be the case if it can be shown that the state and government save money due to this type of program over a long time period. Then again, who knows given the short-sightedness and simplemindedness of our legislators.

    – It is the first large American study to argue in favor of less drugs and more therapy for psychosis. In other words, the exceptional country of America, which is also among the most backward nations in the world for mental health care, finally comes to a most obvious realization.

    – It helps get the message out to the everyday person, i.e. probably about 95% of Americans, who is ignorant about what psychosis is and about what can help people with psychotic experience.

    This study helps to move the position of Big Pharma and of the psychiatrist-minions that serve them closer to that of Big Tobacco in the mid 20th century: being in the position of having to defend the indefensible, i.e. a severely damaging, harmful, unethical product, i.e. lifelong heavy doses of neuroleptics.

    Let’s keep holding their feet to the fire.

  6. Though the findings in Benedict Carey’s article are not news to Mad in America readers, it should be counted as a victory every time something like this appears in the “mainstream” press – to counter all the propogandanistic claptrap that so often counts as “psychiatric authority” put out there by mainstream psychiatry’s well-paid “thought leaders.”
    The article even quotes NAMI’s Ken Duckworth (NAMI’s on-the-payroll psychiatrist”) as saying that the finding will be a “game changer”….one wonders what he means, given that the bulk of NAMI’s money comes from Big Pharma….maybe he is envisioning a job change for himself, if NAMI’s funding from BigPharm ends up going down…

  7. Point of clarification, Navigate was not based on Open Dialogue. While there are some shared elements, there are also important differences. The RAISE researchers would say that early intervention with neuroleptics, albeit in lower doses, is critical. The family component in Navigate is psychoeducation and the education is about teaching a more medical model understanding of the problem.
    While I celebrate the attention this is getting, these distinctions are important.

    • Maybe I was overly optimistic. That is important and I do recall reading about this now, how RAISE included a partly medical model approach. It is not surprising that in America, with most psychiatrists being under the dominion of the drug companies, early attempts to address psychosis more holistically like RAISE would include a partly medical model approach. Nevertheless the RAISE study can show that human support, even, ironically, human support which may be based on a false understanding of “schizophrenia”, can be better than just heavy drugging and nothing else.

      I have not yet read the study yet, but would guess that the level of outcomes and symptom reduction achieved will fall somewhere between treatment as usual and Open Dialogue. Open Dialogue appears to me to be a truly humanistic, person-centered, non disease model approach to psychosis, and the way families and individuals are engaged in that approach would seem likely to me to yield better average results than either a partly or fully medical model approach. I think Open Dialogue shares much in common with psychoanalytic approaches to psychosis as pioneered by writers like Searles, Volkan, and Semrad, but focuses more on systems and families.

      I guess RAISE researchers have not reached the point of admitting that DSM diagnoses like schizophrenia are lacking in reliability and validity and that neuroleptics can only dull down a person’s emotional distress, not treat a fantasized brain illness process. Then again it makes sense as they would probably get fired if they did speak out against their institutional overlords who are in turn the slaves of the drug companies, since the funding for this type of project depends on maintaining some illusions about the medical model. Lies that make corporations billions of dollars die hard.

    • Thanks, Sandra! I was really glad to see this article by Benedict Carey in the New York Times — but I want a look at the study.

      My main question: If John M. Kane helped lead this study, and he really recognizes the promise shown by less neuroleptics and more attention to the individual …

      Then why has he signed up to direct Otsuka’s PRELAPSE Study? That’s the one recruiting now, that will randomly assign young people undergoing a first psychotic episode to TWO YEARS of depot injections of Abilify Maintena. Many of these young people probably do not even “have schizophrenia” (assuming we know what the heck that means which I doubt). Even if they did, it seems to me the NAVIGATE study raises big ethical questions about imposing this on patients.

      But PRELAPSE is still going and if anything has added sites:

      http://www.prelapsestudy.org/sites/index.cfm

      • Exactly. The RAISE psychiatrist leadership certainly advocated for low doses. At the same time, they believe that drugs should be started as soon as possible and continued indefinitely. If that is one’s belief the. Early introduction of long acting I jectables makes sense.
        Whe. You read the article – I would love to know what you think – be sure to check out the disclosures,

    • Thank you for pointing this out, Sandra. This program, while emphasizing more therapy, does rely on neuroleptics from the get-go but the neuroleptic regimen is ostensibly decided upon with the patient’s consent or participation. A step in the right direction, but most likely not as big a step as we might like.

  8. Too bad the 404 people in the study weren’t at least checked for heavy metal poisoning especially , mercury poisoning , at a state of the art laboratory’s like Chris Shade’s who’s (www.QuicksilverScientific.com.com ) specializes in testing for mercury , and weren’t funded to get advanced state of the art dental work like that done at the Paracelsus Klinic (yes K) in Switzerland led by Dr. Rau (TheRauWay.com) Had that group of subjects or another group of similar numbers been put together to again do that study after the above changes there really would have been something remarkable to talk about for many of them to their therapist afterwards . See talk on mercury poisoning by Chris Shade PHD on 7 minute video that shouldn’t be missed (even more available) at
    http://www.youputwhatinmymouth.com/chris-shade-phd/

    The State of the art Paracelsus Klinic has found that metal of any kind in the mouth interferes with accurate diagnosis . So what exactly I wonder are multitudes of APA psychiatrists , AMA doctors , and ADA dentists , in the USA and most elsewhere doing for the money they get paid ?

  9. I’m excited. I think, personally, with more and more “wonder drugs” going generic, we’ll see more and more research on psychosocial treatments, nutritional treatments, etc.

    I learned (from a former shrink, no less) that psychiatry cannot be separated from the society in which it exists. This is probably why the Sociologists have a sub-field, “The Sociology of Mental Health.” Many of the problems that we here at MIA and “patients” in general have experienced have more to do with the societies in which we live than with individual psychiatrists, hospitals, etc. For me, that means that a lot of my terrible “treatment” (read: abuse) was because I was/am “different” …in the extremely conservative, class conscious Bible Belt. Predictably, I entered Mental Health, Inc., and predictably…I was promptly destroyed. I’ve only now recovered.

    I guess I’m saying that to point out that these studies are long overdue in the US…because of US culture. These findings will take a good, long while to affect most people/”patients”…because of US culture. This sort of treatment is popular in other places…because their cultures are different, more humane, that 21st century US culture.

  10. “A game changer”, as this has been billed, makes a world of sense. Perhaps psychiatry should be a little faster rather than slower when it comes to catching on. Obviously, voting “diseases” into existence, and then drugging people into other and more major “diseases” doesn’t make a lot of sense, except to the profiteer. If there is any kind of major change, knowing bureaucracies for what they are, I wouldn’t expect it to be all positive. All the same, this is news in the mainstream media, and that is encouraging. A paradigm change? The last time that occurred talk therapy was given the shaft in favor of pill pushers. This could go in the other direction. Nobody here seems to be talking about ending human rights violations though. I think you would have much better results if you also stopped treating people who didn’t want to be treated, and this is especially true where those people are treated against their wills. I also imagine it would be more conducive to “mental health”, “stability”, “recovery”, or whatever you want to call it. The percentage of people forcibly treated, in any event, would go down, and that would lower the overall percentage of people “afflicted”. Imagine, people doing better on lower doses of drugs. I could have told them people would do better on lower doses of drugs. Now, if they could get down to no drugs, then you might begin to see some of your losers become real achievers, perhaps in a big way, and unhampered by any chemically induced impairment.

    • The last paragraph of the above is particularly worrisome.

      This lead the researchers to suggest that “prolonged duration of untreated psychosis is an issue of national importance.”

      Treating untreated psychosis, to me, could easily become an argument for more forced treatment as well as for a larger “mental health” presence in the school system, neither aim of which, to my way of thinking, is worthwhile. Additionally, they are goals that could backfire or, at least, require some sort of corrective if your project starts to go astray of it’s initial rationale (i.e. more positive outcomes).

      • That was my concern as well. It’s quite a spin to take a study that shows LESS drugs and MORE social interactions and job training, etc. lead to better outcomes and say it means that untreated psychosis is the problem! Of course, the psychiatric field will never acknowledge that its interventions are less than miraculously helpful, despite evidence to the contrary, but it would have been great if the NYT authors hit that point a little harder. This is not just a new approach to treatment – it is a total indictment of the “lifetime med management” strategy that is encouraged and at times enforced on the unwitting victims of their “helpful” paradigm!

        —- Steve

        • I would counsel a little wariness about these claims. Who knows what direction psychiatry will be going in? Especially as that direction has traditionally been so harmful, and to so many people. Convincing people that they aren’t “sick,” and ceasing to “drug” them, doesn’t seem to be in the stars. I just searched “game changer”, and in June it was injections of long-acting Risperidal for first-episode psychotic breaks, now it’s lower doses in conjunction with talk therapy and earlier detection. Who know what it will be in January?

  11. First, as to Lieberman’s comment that Bob Whitaker was a menace to society, I have only one name to drop – little Rebecca Riley, dead due to the very Risperdal that Lieberman took so much money to champion for children. Harvard dropped the ball in giving the little man a little rap on the knuckles for all the conflicts of interest he incurred in his campaign to promote this dangerous drug.

    As for Carey’s article and its missing or troublesome pieces, I would agree except that there are so many articles for the general public (so often written by psychiatry’s “thought leaders”) that promote this or that drug, or polypharmacy, forced drugging, and all the rest, that I found it a welcome read.

    • “…little Rebecca Riley, dead due to the very Risperdal that Lieberman took so much money to champion for children.”

      I believe you meant to refer to Harvard’s Joseph Biederman, who popularized the bogus childhood bipolar disorder for his Big Pharma paymasters, allowing children, even toddlers like Rebecca Riley, to be labeled and drugged. But I totally agree with the general premise of your comment. What does it say about Lieberman to call Bob Whitaker a menace to society, not Big Pharma and its minions, including academic psychiatrists, who set up children for destruction. At the risk of trespassing on Lieberman’s territory, I think he is in a major denial.

      • So did the new hero, Alan Frances! He preceded Biederman but seems to have very conveniently forgotten his very early endorsement of Risperidone then a new drug. He was paid a lot of money by Johnson & Johnson to develop their market. All this was happening DURING the writing of the DSM IV – conflict of interest? Corruption at the top?
        He also seems to have developed amnesia regarding the expansion of the diagnosis of ADHD whilst leader of the DSM IV team, which saw an incredible rise in the incidence and income relating to it. He re-endorsed it again in 2001 (I think) with the consequences we see now. Of course the use of the stimulants which so often induce psychosis has led to the explosion of bipolar – something that didn’t exist in children before the drugs. Then there’s Nemeroff! It is simply not possible to trust psychiatry, ever.

  12. I’m copying and pasting what I wrote in a listserv recently:

    While this study (and the NY Times coverage of it) is an important step in the right direction, I would caution the blanket endorsement of it. The “therapy” consisted of psychoeducation of family and patient of the nature of “disease”, how to cope with “symptoms”, suppression of “hallucinations”, and other standard non-depth, non-exploratory “therapy”. One comment posted on the website rang true to me…it referred to the fact that the 2 groups differed not just in the administration of “therapy” but also in dosage of drugs. This commenter suggested that perhaps the effect of better outcomes (itself relative) was due to the decreased dosage of drug and had nothing to do with “therapy”.

    Note: I am not completely knocking this report because it is a step forward, but it also reinforces the “need” for drugs, the need to accept an illness model, and the suppression of experience, which for many is not conducive to recovery.

    • Very cogent points. I also observed above that the NIH director spent a lot of time emphasizing the need for “early intervention in psychosis” and ignored the real point that more human interaction and less drugging led to better results. And of course, as Robert B points out above, no one bothered to try NO drugs as an option. I don’t think they really want to know what the result of that experiment might be.

      —- Steve

  13. Let’s be very wary here. Do they really believe it or is it lip service because they see that the people, the real scientists, the evidence, is painting them in a very bad light. A slight move towards conciliation, e.g. REDUCE drugs, suggest rather rigidly defined procedures that sort of look like the real thing but since they don’t have the skills to implement them are actually sops to keep psychiatrists at the very well paid top. Given the secrecy of institutions, will what actually happens even remotely resemble what they SAY is happening. I see a situation where the status quo will be maintained when they say, “but, there are people who are just too sick to do this with” and the whole thing will disappear. Call me cynical but I was one of the team in a program like Open Dialogue back in the 1970s – it was killed stone dead by psychiatrists in charge with no skills, no compassion, no brains, or foresight, just greed, laziness and arrogance. Like Soteria House where you don’t need psychiatrists, psychologists OR social workers, just empathetic people who could be psychiatrists, psychologists or social workers or not. They crushed it then, they will again unless others take it away from them and offer better. Others, who won’t get their name in the papers, who won’t get grants and big fees, or rooms in hospitals, but to whom the people who want help will turn to. Of course that happened 1000 years ago and most of them were burnt at the stake or hanged. I wish us all GOOD LUCK. (this is a bit scrambled but I get emotional and lose a bit of coherence now and then)

  14. This was how i got a cure for my son who was diagnosed with schizophrenia 9 years ago when he was 19. He told us that he got messages and he heard people telling him that he should hurt himself. He had a terrible temper with cursing and violence towards me and his dad. The doctor gave him different anti-psychotic drugs like Zyprexa, prolixin, risperidone, Ablify but all this even elevated the condition because he became worse over the years not until last two years that help came our way. I got Dr Joseph’s contact from an old colleague of mine who relocated to Kansas city and he told me about this herbal medicine that can put an end to my son’s condition. I contacted the doctor and i explained it all to him and he told me all will be well. I got the medicine and gave him as instructed and before i knew it he was normal again, no side effects at all. I am writing this today because i needed to be sure the cure was a permanent one which it is. I know what schizo is and how heart aching it can be but i tell you today that there is a cure for it. Contact the doctor on (josephakormah @ gmail.com) for psychosis, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, he can help you too