No, it’s a causal factor in susceptible individuals, if anything is. Whether you call it a causal factor or contributing factor (a semantic quibble -contributory causation is still part of the meaning laymen should reasonably expect to attribute to the word ‘cause’) so you can dismiss its influence, the point is, susceptibility to schizophrenia from underlying genetic and environmental factors which cause a predisposition will always be there in a proportion of the population. This, coupled with the severity of schizophrenia as an illness, and the prognosis for recovery, mean that it is of huge risk to those with the disposition. Lifetime prevalence of psychosis is between 0.3 and 0.8 percent. So if you take this as a susceptible population estimate that’s anywhere from roughly 200,000 to 500,000 people in the UK potentially at risk. My point is there is good enough data for this to be included in any balanced assessment of the drug. Proponents who omit this, along with the effects on memory of long term use, which are severe, are being ideological about the drug.