As a consequence of this thinking, Jim van Os then says the following: Are psychotic-like modes of experiencing not a natural phenotype simply occurring in the population? The prevalence of positive-like symptoms in the general population is about 8%. A relatively large number of people in adolescence and early adulthood have "as if" producer symptoms. In most people, they pass. So there is a natural dimension to psychoticism, from subclinical to overtly psychotic forms. Perhaps the first episode of schizophrenia is simply an unfavourable, unnatural way for these phenomena to get out of control, as Jim van Os writes: "poor and unnaturally comorbid outcome"? So why not rename schizophrenia for different reasons? Van Os points out that the name schizophrenia is not associated with any common human experience. The Greek word sounds mysterious and separates the healthy from the sick with a magic line. If a layman hears the word depression, he may realise that he himself has been sad. And through this understand depression. If a layman hears the word schizophrenia, he is unlikely to relate it to his own daily experience. And if a new name, according to van Os, it is at the same time based on a neurobiological basis and understandable to people. In his view, it is easier to relate to one's own experience the phrase that for someone 'too many things matter' than schizophrenia. And at the same time, such a take has a solid biological underpinning, in the form of knowledge about the function of the dopamine system. It is therefore true and potentially understandable.

And why this new division, into 'salience syndrome' with affective and developmental expression. Here van Os invokes an analogy with metabolic syndrome. If someone has already developed such a syndrome and their symptoms eventually reach a clinical level, the person starts to be treated for either hypertension, diabetes, 'heart disease' or obesity. The basic, complex process is the same, although the diagnoses may vary. Similarly, people may experience psychotic symptoms in the context of mania, disorganisation or cognitive deficits. We could then make a diagnosis of impaired meaning making in the context of affective symptoms or the context of neurodevelopmental damage. But this is already a considerable expansion of the scope of the proposed changes. How about starting with schizophrenia...?

I remember when it was said that drugs would cure schizophrenia. Then there was a phase of focusing on the fact that medication works on positive symptoms, on negative symptoms. Of course, it's undoubted that they work, but that doesn't solve the problem of treating people with this diagnosis either. The process of developing knowledge about schizophrenia and psychosis is moving from generalisations (schizophrenia as a disease) to isolating more and more specific elements (dimensions) of it, and then understanding the role of the dopamine system in health and illness. And at the same time, there is a process of understanding that the treatment of schizophrenia should be made up of many elements. Because since there are so many causes, so many elements before its onset, the ways to help can be many too. Increasingly improved antipsychotic drugs, but also family support, education, counteracting social isolation, support, professional and creative activity, various therapies and psychotherapies, community treatment. And perhaps also diet (omega acids)? If we 'demystify' schizophrenia, it is worth treating it in the same way as any other multifactorial condition.