Hmmm....! Convinces me more and more on the dangers of habitual skepticism. Some of you guys are so stuck in your preconceived notions of the world that you wouldn't even bother to learn something new that professionals from your own field find.
Maybe all you atheist, skeptical types should retire to the caves (like the Essenes or something) so that you can be insulated from all new ideas. You guys can discuss 19th/20th century science among yourselves, play checks and crosses on the sand ....and be very happy with yourselves! 
Not really, Sriram - whether you like it or not there is a difference between current and established clinical practice and what is suggested in some parts of the media. There may well be credible but as yet speculative research that is being noted for general interest but there also those elements of pseudoscience that are attractive to the gullible. Based on the content of the first link you posted yesterday, which was hopeless as serious science, I'd suggest that if this really interests you it would be better to skip the summaries you seem to like and concentrate on the detail of the source literature: such as on the aetiology of mental illnesses.
There are lots of factors that can influence mental health: genetics is the obvious one in relation to schizophrenia but there are others such as stress, family history, other physical conditions and of course the abuse of certain substances. So, when you said in #9 in this thread '
So...it is possible that bacteria do cause such sudden abnormalities. Almost like catching the same infection.' really doesn't reflect either the nature of mental illnesses or the reality of mentally ill people being treated professionally: and they aren't being treated on the basis of them having some kind of bacterial infection.
I note your last post, quoted above, consists primarily of ad homs - which is telling.
