Is it common for someone "on meds" to have an attack? It makes me question the effectiveness of the medication other than to impair the person in some way. The reason I am asking is that my friend never receive any medication ever and now has no more symptoms of sz. It did take a long time but he is just as normal now as anyone. He is alert, thoughtful, intelligent and very productive. How is that possible for someone who was as paranoid, hearing voices, sounds and seeing things to no longer have any of those symptoms? It is quite clear that the medications do not cure the affected person of sz and if the person on meds is having an attack, it hardly treats the symptoms.

I am glad your friend no longer has symptoms.  But don't believe from that one example that everyone can recover without meds.  It is possible for someone "on meds" to have a psychotic break or relapse, but much more possible that a person with sz who is NOT on meds to do so.  Read the statistics at the following site: http://www.mentalhealth.com/mag1/scz/sb-cost.html

Keep in mind also that some people are diagnosed as having sz while they may actually have a different disorder such as "depression with psychotic features" that may not require lifetime medication in order to sustain recovery.

And no, medication does not cure sz.  I don't think anyone here supports that notion.  It does not CURE, rather it helps someone with sz keep the symptoms under control so that they can work towards recovery.  Without the medication, therefore, recovery may not be possible.

And lastly, medication DOES treat the symptoms of someone having a psychotic break.  I am living proof.  I have been given a shot of Haldol while floridly psychotic (from being noncompliant) and it quickly calmed me down and laid the symptoms to rest to the degree I was able to recover.  I was hospitalized for a short time and put back on medication.  Today I am able to live independently and take care of myself.  Without an antipsychotic I am convinced someone would be taking care of me in a long-term care center.

Best wishes to you,

Carolyn

The important thing is for there to be some sort of emergency treatment and follow up for people like yourself who really need it. My friend did not ever have a problem with depression. It was just sz. He was diagnosed but never had any treatment because he moved to another state. He attributes his recovery to not believing in the symptoms. Whenever they would come, he would not believe they existed and they would vanish. They would be gone just as mysteriously as they came. Today he doesn't even worry about having any reoccurrence but it took many years to get up the courage to even suggest such a thing because it tends to bring back the memories and it was those thought patterns that he had, which he had to change, that seemed to be the cause. It takes quite a lot of change to change everything about the way you think. It is really strange as if it acts on a person's weakness or susceptibility.

I checked out the charts and it is not very encouraging even with optimal treatment. It does make a difference but I would think it should be better than that. At the end of two years the success rate is twice as high for those receiving optimal treatment but it is still only about a 40% success rate. I guess there are reasons for that but the "optimal treatment" essentially did not help 60% of the people after two years. I'm sure that it did some good (twice as much good) but it is not all that much better than people that get off their meds. It is a difference of between like 60% and 80% failure rate after only two years. I don't know, I think there needs to be a lot more study about sz. There may be some other factors or something I am not taking into account but I think that medication is not being very effective and there are side affects that should also be taken into account but there may be some newer medications that are more effective.