[Sometimes psychotic]

A simple blood test could detect mental illness. I know one company has an 80% accurate blood test for sz but that's a little too inaccurate for me. So I just read about this one they are working on for depression and this one actually measures the serotonin transport activity which is actually involved in the illness rather than the random markers in the sz test so it might be more accurate...however there are likely other factors as well.

http://www.meduniwien.ac.at/homepage/1/news-and-topstories/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=4739&cHash=7dc8464850e28387b1f1df64426b8637

But just imagined you're in for a routine cholesterol screen etc and the doc pulls up your results as positive and instead of all this complex interaction we have with pdocs and labeling of things like depression he/she says oh looks like your serotonin transport activity is a little off..we've got a med that will fix that right up. No judgment a simple biochemical test and it's correction. If you were depressed and your sert wasn't off then no need for meds as it wasn't a chemical imbalance but might benefit instead from therapy or something.

I wonder if this is the world pdocs thought they were getting into when all the meds started up...a world with specifically targeted meds for people who actually had a biochemical basis to their illness...I wonder if that's what they want to believe they are doing now despite the fact that they have no idea what causes any one person to get sick...

But I think it would be great if we knew from day one who would benefit and who would not so there wouldn't be this odd sense among the general public that forcing people to take meds that might be ineffective for them would solve all the worlds problems.

Idk...things like that make me uneasy. Maybe because the hospital I was at seemed to think that unless your problem was a neurotransmitter issue, then there was nothing wrong with you! I think it might help those who tested positive (reduce stigma - simple biochemical problem like low thyroid etc), but say that you had all the symptoms of depression or OCD or sz yet tested negative, and the docs just told you it was 'all in your head' like psychosomatic disorders and your very real symptoms were dismissed. I actually think that a huge chunk of psych patients would test negative for stuff like that. I'm not convinced about the neurotransmitter stuff anymore (I think I've been gradually becoming increasingly skeptical about the science of psychiatry & MI)

*Willow*

[TheatreKid]

If there was a way to figure out which meds would work specifically for that person, that would be great. I just wouldn't want it to turn into something that would cause fewer babies at risk of mental illness to be born. If they could have screened me in utero and found out I would be a transgender 3 month preemie, with mental illness and possible ADHD, what would my parents have done?

I have one foot on the edges of the autism community because I've been diagnosed with Aspergers (but I think it's ADHD instead, almost certain it isn't aspergers but at one time I did) and a lot of autistic activists are against the charity Autism Speaks because they're advocating for a cure for autism and autistic people see this as an insult, that their neurology will be wiped out.

Maybe schizophrenia and psychotic illnesses aren't a useful adaptation, but it's getting kind of close to eugenics and that scares me.

[Sometimes psychotic]

I think they might test negative but then you know not to waste your time messing with the meds and try something else instead. I mean for sz if you don't have a dopamine imbalance of some sort why use a dopamine blocker....I mean yeah it will sedate/restrain people it if you're not treating an underlying condition then that brute force sedation becomes a lot harder to justify. Right now it's closer to society having a mute button for people they don't want to deal with than any sort of science based medicine.

[Sometimes psychotic]

Originally Posted by TheatreKid

If there was a way to figure out which meds would work specifically for that person, that would be great. I just wouldn't want it to turn into something that would cause fewer babies at risk of mental illness to be born. If they could have screened me in utero and found out I would be a transgender 3 month preemie, with mental illness and possible ADHD, what would my parents have done?

I have one foot on the edges of the autism community because I've been diagnosed with Aspergers (but I think it's ADHD instead, almost certain it isn't aspergers but at one time I did) and a lot of autistic activists are against the charity Autism Speaks because they're advocating for a cure for autism and autistic people see this as an insult, that their neurology will be wiped out.

Maybe schizophrenia and psychotic illnesses aren't a useful adaptation, but it's getting kind of close to eugenics and that scares me.

Sz has hundreds of genes identified most of them rare mutations...they'll never be able to screen that prebirth because there are too many combos....I have 20 of those mutations myself and of almost 40 years if life have only had 1.5 months of psychosis....plus environment is clearly a factor...

Originally Posted by Sometimes psychotic

I think they might test negative but then you know not to waste your time messing with the meds and try something else instead. I mean for sz if you don't have a dopamine imbalance of some sort why use a dopamine blocker....I mean yeah it will sedate/restrain people it if you're not treating an underlying condition then that brute force sedation becomes a lot harder to justify. Right now it's closer to society having a mute button for people they don't want to deal with than any sort of science based medicine.

I think that meds would still be used to 'shut people up', especially here when the NHS can't deal with the number of people who need psych support. I just fear that you will go to your GP with symptoms, the blood test will come back negative and you will be SOL because the test says meds won't help (which, yes, saves you the time and discomfort of trialling meds that don't help and have side effects), but you won't get therapy either because the wait is 18 months if you're one of the lucky one that actually gets any. GPs under fire would prescribe a med to sedate a patient and get them off the GPs back in desperation if the patient is distressed and suicidal or something during the wait for therapy that may never come.

I'm just worried that an objective test will divide people into 'real' illness who test positive, and attention seekers/fakers/moaners-who-can't-cope-with-everyday-life who test negative, but I admits that I am biased by my recent experiences, but that is also proof that this labelling of biological as 'real' and psychogenic as 'fake' happens every day.

*Willow*

[Sometimes psychotic]

I know things like this could be misutilized but we're already on the path. People with nmda receptor encephalitis more often than not get a neurology/medical workup despite their main symptom being psychosis. This didn't make people with sz more stigmatized....they stayed where they were at and the nmda ones lost some stigma. It's not like the pdocs are going anywhere any time soon.

I don't think sz would be less stigmatised if a blood test revealed a dopamine problem. People don't fear the cause of sz, they fear the behaviour associated with it. If blood tests could prove dopamine problems, then society would push even harder for drug treatment for anyone who has a sz diagnosis, both out of fear of violence, but also because society buys into illness=medicine. If you have a biochemical problem, insurance companies and the NHS etc aren't going to want to 'waste' money on therapy for you. You found CBT very helpful - what if you'd tested 'positive' for psychosis and (supposing you weren't in a trial) your insurance refused to pay for therapy because you have a biochemical issue that requires meds only?

*Willow*

[Sometimes psychotic]

Nmda receptor encephalitis looks just like sz but they usually get seizures in addition to psychosis so not only are they crazy but they also collapse and shake in the floor...talk about stigma...my point is take the same symptoms and give it a biological basis that can be corrected and you do get less stigma....these people are in ICUs etc rather than locked wards

My second point is not everyone has a dopamine problem so why give them dopamine blocking meds. We're talking less justification of arbitrary meds...

Third I do have a biochemical problem....my issue is with glutamate not dopamine and if they had a med that targeted that specifically I would have not had to endure the lack of emotion and shaking etc side effects associated with dopamine blockade..the reason the med worked for me was blocking d2 increases nmda function. But what if you could just up regulate nmda without having to target the irrelevant dopamine? What if they could treat what was actually wrong...that's not nearly as likely to have side effects in the same way that insulin doesn't have side effects for diabetics it's an actual restoration rather than some off target effect that works out for other reasons.

Here we don't have to have a validation for therapy...if you want it you go...you get x number of sessions per year and have to max out a deductible first they don't care why...besides in my model therapy is not invalidated because it creates chemical/neurological change. Just smiling creates a chemical change if people want smile therapy or laugh therapy for depression that's cool with me. Meds typically aren't a first response so much as what people actually want for medical conditions...

If I weigh 200 pounds, have high cholesterol and sugar the number one thing my doc will say is eat better and exercise more....if I do that then I don't get a med...but most people don't do that so we have statins and anti-diabetes drugs etc...people would love an effective weight loss med. much more so than nutritional counseling. So when it comes down to it people generally favor meds over non-med interventions if they are actually treating the real problem.

[junkDNA]

i had a genetic blood test done by my pdoc. it showed that i have less serotonin receptors than the average person. and something else about psychosis. i admit im not that medically inclined when it comes to the brain. but my pdoc is. and it was mainly for him to know what meds would work best for me. i benefited from the genetic test

[nbritton]

Originally Posted by Sometimes psychotic

I know one company has an 80% accurate blood test for sz

Who? 80% accurate, I think that is actually quite good.

Originally Posted by Sometimes psychotic

A simple blood test could detect mental illness. I know one company has an 80% accurate blood test for sz but that's a little too inaccurate for me. So I just read about this one they are working on for depression and this one actually measures the serotonin transport activity which is actually involved in the illness rather than the random markers in the sz test so it might be more accurate...however there are likely other factors as well.

http://www.meduniwien.ac.at/homepage/1/news-and-topstories/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=4739&cHash=7dc8464850e28387b1f1df64426b8637

But just imagined you're in for a routine cholesterol screen etc and the doc pulls up your results as positive and instead of all this complex interaction we have with pdocs and labeling of things like depression he/she says oh looks like your serotonin transport activity is a little off..we've got a med that will fix that right up. No judgment a simple biochemical test and it's correction. If you were depressed and your sert wasn't off then no need for meds as it wasn't a chemical imbalance but might benefit instead from therapy or something.

I wonder if this is the world pdocs thought they were getting into when all the meds started up...a world with specifically targeted meds for people who actually had a biochemical basis to their illness...I wonder if that's what they want to believe they are doing now despite the fact that they have no idea what causes any one person to get sick...

But I think it would be great if we knew from day one who would benefit and who would not so there wouldn't be this odd sense among the general public that forcing people to take meds that might be ineffective for them would solve all the worlds problems.

I suppose depression has not much stigma at this stage , sz on the other hand is a feared disease. The part where there could be specifically targeted meds for somones bio signature would be great but at the same time could a registrar for the seriously mentally ill be abused in the future.As part of a routine medical for employment oppertunities , could a test be used against any particular person. Psychosis is the tipping point of course , but its now obvious that there are certain bio medical precursers that preexist this mind state. Im not saying its a bad idea , it just depends how its implemented.

[Sometimes psychotic]

Matterly I agree that it could be used in hiring etc in which case we enter a world like the movie gattaca but in my mind if they could figure out what is wrong the there is a good chance they can fix it rather than doping us all up with the same med in different flavors...

[Sometimes psychotic]

Originally Posted by nbritton

Who? 80% accurate, I think that is actually quite good.

http://www.behaviorismandmentalhealt...et-al-2010.pdf

I think the issue is false positives...only 83% of controls were correctly identified so there is a 17% chance they would tell you you had sz when you didn't...even pdocs are better than that. It's also testing a pattern of some 51 markers so it's not any one thing...but it is interesting.

Originally Posted by Sometimes psychotic

Matterly I agree that it could be used in hiring etc in which case we enter a world like the movie gattaca but in my mind if they could figure out what is wrong the there is a good chance they can fix it rather than doping us all up with the same med in different flavors...

Yeah your right . the research should go on. It would be one of humanities greatest step forward. I came to evolution late in life and as a theory its really dumbfounding in its simplicity. It reminds me so much of mental illness in that the current complexity in terms of all the numerous supposed bio markers . Could if we roll back its development have a very simple basis.

[Sometimes psychotic]

Originally Posted by Materly

Yeah your right . the research should go on. It would be one of humanities greatest step forward. I came to evolution late in life and as a theory its really dumbfounding in its simplicity. It reminds me so much of mental illness in that the current complexity in terms of all the numerous supposed bio markers . Could if we roll back its development have a very simple basis.

I know there is often an association with prenatal development---what if it were as simple as giving the right supplement at the right time during pregnancy and the whole thing would just never even be an issue----as easily fixed giving B vitamins to prevent neural tube defects....never to be dealt with again...that would be amazing and stop so much pain....