Fallible wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:So answer me this doubters - if somebody diagnosed with schizophrenia stops taking antipsychotics and lives for 50 more years before dying, without experiencing any symptoms, is it not fair to say they are cured? Is it really such an inappropriate use of the word? Really?

..this is pretty disjointed. A cure us something that is administered to the individual to make an illness go away. Antibiotics cure bacterial infections. Recovery is the improvement over time of an illness. Do you really not get this? Really?

In what way is it disjointed? And as for the rest of it - oh dear

Keep It Real wrote:

Fallible wrote:
You see how useless it is to try and diagnose when youre not qualified?

There's a difference between diagnosing a specific (or even generalised) mental illness based on some internet posts and doing it based on 100s of hours of one on one in the flesh dialogue.

Also - I never saw you, or anybody else, pipe up ONCE to smack down any of the relentless slurs against my current mental health status (eg. 17 likes for a comment directed at me saying "get help") despite the fact those slurs are:

A. Based on some internet posts.
B. Not made by competent or qualified mental health practitioners.

But then again as long as somebody's having a pop at me you're down with that right fal? Ironclad had a good point when he tore into you in that thread imo.

Keep It Real wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:Schizophrenia is not a viral infection Fallible. I mean - if you thought the tracheotomy metaphor was a stretch...

Shrunk wrote:

Afraid not. It could take months, even years. But it also might never happen. The odds are just against that.

So answer me this doubters - if somebody diagnosed with schizophrenia stops taking antipsychotics and lives for 50 more years before dying, without experiencing any symptoms, is it not fair to say they are cured? Is it really such an inappropriate use of the word? Really?

Yes, because that isn't what the word means. At any point, they could experience symptoms. If they were cured, they could not experience them. Is this really so difficult for you to understand?

Oh dear

Again, you have a funny way of acknowledging that you're unable to dispute what I said. Or do you really not grasp something so plain and straightforward?

Keep It Real wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:

Fallible wrote:
You see how useless it is to try and diagnose when youre not qualified?

There's a difference between diagnosing a specific (or even generalised) mental illness based on some internet posts and doing it based on 100s of hours of one on one in the flesh dialogue.

Also - I never saw you, or anybody else, pipe up ONCE to smack down any of the relentless slurs against my current mental health status (eg. 17 likes for a comment directed at me saying "get help") despite the fact those slurs are:

A. Based on some internet posts.
B. Not made by competent or qualified mental health practitioners.

But then again as long as somebody's having a pop at me you're down with that right fal? Ironclad had a good point when he tore into you in that thread imo.

"Get help" is not a diagnosis, it's someone advising you to get help, because something is clearly ailing you. It's not their fault if you choose to view it as a slur. That's an ego thing, which is more than a little ironic.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:
Yes, because that isn't what the word means. At any point, they could experience symptoms. If they were cured, they could not experience them. Is this really so difficult for you to understand?

Oh dear

Again, you have a funny way of acknowledging that you're unable to dispute what I said. Or do you really not grasp something so plain and straightforward?

It's peripheral semantic quibbling SAM. If "no longer experiencing any symptoms - forever" is completely divorced from your definition of "cured" then, well, you need to chill the fuck out TBH.

SafeAsMilk wrote:
"Get help" is not a diagnosis, it's someone advising you to get help, because something is clearly ailing you.

They (and I'll bet my bottom dollar you were one of them SAM) might not have been specific in their diagnosis, but they diagnosed mental illness nevertheless.

Keep It Real wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:
Yes, because that isn't what the word means. At any point, they could experience symptoms. If they were cured, they could not experience them. Is this really so difficult for you to understand?

Oh dear

Again, you have a funny way of acknowledging that you're unable to dispute what I said. Or do you really not grasp something so plain and straightforward?

It's peripheral semantic quibbling SAM.

I know, for you using two words with different meanings as if they were the same isn't a problem for you. This is a language issue that follows you around a lot.

If "no longer experiencing any symptoms - forever" is completely divorced from your definition of "cured" then, well, you need to chill the fuck out TBH.

There's a reason why those words mean different things, and there's a reason why you're trying to pretend they're the same. Maybe you should chill the fuck out and get over the fact that it's been demonstrated that you're wrong?

Keep It Real wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:
"Get help" is not a diagnosis, it's someone advising you to get help, because something is clearly ailing you.

They (and I'll bet my bottom dollar you were one of them SAM) might not have been specific in their diagnosis, but they diagnosed mental illness nevertheless.

Because someone would totally diagnose an apparent cognitive problem as a broken arm or something You have to stretch the word beyond all meaning to assert that anyone saying you have a problem you might want to get checked out is a diagnosis, seriously.

Neither of those are worthy of a response.

Translation: "I'm incapable of responding."

That doesn't make any sense in the context of the conversation. Perhaps you have some sort of personal, esoteric meaning for a tinfoil hat.

I said the previous two posts of yours weren't worthy of a response. You then decided to ignore that statement and invent your own interpretation of what I'd said out of thin air - just as a conspiracy theorist refuses to believe what is staring them in the face and invents their own narrative they find more pleasing/acceptable.

Keep It Real wrote:I said the previous two posts of yours weren't worthy of a response. You then decided to ignore that statement and invent your own interpretation of what I'd said out of thin air - just as a conspiracy theorist refuses to believe what is staring them in the face and invents their own narrative they find more pleasing/acceptable.

You can't even use emoji's without mangling their meaning Thanks for making my point, I guess.

If you were capable of showing that I was wrong, you'd do it instead of responding to me by telling me you won't respond to me. Can't blame me for noticing a pattern whenever you've painted yourself into a corner.

Oh jesus - will I ever learn to just avoid replying to you altogether I wonder.

Given the amount of time you spend begging for attention, I doubt it.

Keep It Real wrote:

Fallible wrote:
You see how useless it is to try and diagnose when youre not qualified?

There's a difference between diagnosing a specific (or even generalised) mental illness based on some internet posts and doing it based on 100s of hours of one on one in the flesh dialogue. This is some kind of variation of an appeal to authority which you keep banging on about fal. If somebody studied and digested all the material which is present in a training course which leads to an official qualification, and much more material beyond that, but outside an official training course, why would they be ineffective at practising the skills learnt compared to somebody who acquired similar skills within official channels?

You haven't done that. But one reason would be that you need to have been observed in practice and to have passed stringent tests to ensure competence. Another would be that you need to have achieved a specific number of practice hours using specific skills. Another is that you only assume you have covered everything you need to be the same as someone who is qualified, but you don't seem to be aware of a number of aspects of the job. Another is that you haven't been assessed for understanding of the material you have apparently digested. In short, you claim this and that, but have no way to show it. I myself am a surgeon. I've read loads about it and I've spent hundreds of hours chopping up meat and playing Operation in person. But for some reason, no one wants to accept that I have this skill. But my good friend definitely has a hiatus hernia. I just need to persuade her to have the surgery.

Keep It Real wrote:

Fallible wrote:..you seem to think psychosis is the only symptom. Not experiencing psychosis is not the same as not experiencing any symptoms.

Do you really think I don't know that fal? Psychosis (the primary positive symptom) was used as an illustrative example in order to make the point more expediently - I didn't think anybody would be pedantic enough to take issue with the fact the other positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia weren't listed...

Yeah, it's someone else's fault that you were caught fiddling about with facts. In your conversation with Shrunk, you were specifically talking about psychosis. Shrunk said that you could go for months without an episode, or that it might never happen. You switched this to having no symptoms in your increasingly desperate attempts to show that schizophrenia can be cured. There's nothing pedantic about noticing your attempts to win an argument by misrepresenting the situation.

Keep It Real wrote:

Fallible wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:So answer me this doubters - if somebody diagnosed with schizophrenia stops taking antipsychotics and lives for 50 more years before dying, without experiencing any symptoms, is it not fair to say they are cured? Is it really such an inappropriate use of the word? Really?

..this is pretty disjointed. A cure us something that is administered to the individual to make an illness go away. Antibiotics cure bacterial infections. Recovery is the improvement over time of an illness. Do you really not get this? Really?

In what way is it disjointed? And as for the rest of it - oh dear

Amazing rebuttal. If that's all you've got why bother?