Glad you're back Philip! You are right that this test could result in profound discrimination. Imagine performing a genetic test at birth to see which babies will grow up to be entitled to full status as human beings and which will be labeled bipolar and thus not allowed in the professions. Maybe genetic testing should be mandatory prior and people sterilized if they carry the bipolar gene. Oh, and perhaps they can throw in a Jewish dna test too. This really is how the Nazi movement started.

And then there's this, all of the contributions to human society by people labeled as bipolar will not be present if those carrying the gene are weeded out and discriminated against. And this, possibly good result for some, if people labeled bipolar test negative for the gene, can they be released from forced treatment, psych hospitals, lose their disability check, not be allowed psych meds?

One can have this debate with inherited blindness or deafness being a disability that should be prevented, the question is (if you can test for bipolar) is bipolar equivalent to blindness and deafness?

You have an award waiting for pick up at my blog!
I'm havin problem posting a comment on your site.

Kind of funny how the article say that Kelsoe "spent his career trying to identify the biological roots of bipolar disorder." This is like claiming to spend one's career studying the root causes of the migratory habits of the Himalayan yeti in the absence of evidence that yeti exist at all, let alone whether they migrate or just stay put. There has never been a legitimate basis for 'researchers' or anyone else with scientific pretensions to claim that 'bipolar disorder' is proven to have any sort of biological causation, and anyone who's been claiming that it's 'strictly genetic' is either ignorant or lying. There is plenty of space in science for people to put forth all kinds of far-out hypotheses, but no room for making fraudulent claims to truth without evidence.

I love the line about "the notoriously tricky practice of diagnosing bipolar disorder based purely on a person's behavior." Even in the DSM, they don't try to claim that the construct 'bipolar disorder' (or any other 'mental illness') consists of anything beyond a person's though and behavior. John Kelsoe is just one more shyster trying to turn a profit by exploiting human misery.

I have never had a problem with the idea of a genetic base for manic depression IN SOME FAMILIES. My maternal grandmother,great aunt, father, self, and both children had/have this condition. Further, throughout both sides of the family are relatives with depression, anxiety, phobia, and the like. Of this bunch, three were killed by psychiatric ministrations and one committed suicide. I have gotten strong arguments from a number of people in the mental health world about this thesis..."well, surely it also was environmental?" How do I know. I don't even want to know. I just want some retribution against Pharma for the killing part.

Hi there,

I'm just a newbie bipolar blogger, and I've clearly missed a whole bunch of stuff here. Bipolar disorder is not genetic? Cuz my mother is bipolar and her mother is bipolar and I am bipolar...and I guess I don't understand the science behind this being environmental. Can you point me in the direction of this research? I feel like this is coming off like I'm being flip, but I am genuinely asking for guidance!

BipolarGirl welcome. As the researcher for the blood test admits in the above article, there's no research to indicate bipolar disorder is genetic though that's the how the purported disease is described in the literature. When you say your grandmother, mother, and you are all bipolar, I'd say learned behavior passed from daughter to daughter combined with a culture and maybe family in which the three of you are taught to think of your feelings and behaviors as pathological, and with bipolar so trendy the fact that if you go to a doctor and tell him you have a first degree relative with the label you'll get it too.

To say that a behavior is genetic is a dangerous game. To say that bipolar is a disorder is also dangerous. Maybe some people have more extreme moods than others, maybe this style of relating is an evolutionary response to the changes that need to occur if human life is to continue on this planet. This doesn't mean it's wrong for you to choose to control your moods with drugs, but it does mean it's wrong for society to judge you as ill or abnormal for having these moods in my opinion.

Bipolar genetic? Not bloody likely since bipolar is behavior or at least someone's opinion of that behavior.

The problem with "genetics" is the connotation that "genetics" are predictive or causal. With the exception of some single gene disorders like Huntington's, genetics but play a role in disease susceptibility, onset, progression, drug metabolism, and so on. The role genetics play is almost always to increase or decrease a population probability of such.

For example: if a drug is metabolized via P450 2D6 (as some drugs are), there are certain polymorphisms associated with poor metabolism or extensive metabolism. If you have the gene variant associated with poor 2D6 metabolism, you are at an increased risk of having an adverse event. This does not mean you will have a bad reaction, but the risk is higher than those who are extensive metabolizers - they can tolerate higher drug levels as a GROUP.

I find it highly unlikely a biomarker to detect a "mental" illness will ever be reliable because the diagnosis criteria is so utterly subjective. he underlying biological hypothesis is inherently flawed, and the prescribed drugs actually damage the brain which actually makes any sort of real biochemical/imaging analysis impossible.

It's really bloody frustrating. The brain adapts, re-adapts, and is marvelously malleable. Are your neurotransmitter levels set by your mindset or vice-versa? Your brain just won't sit idly whilst you pump chemicals into it... That is until your brain becomes sufficiently damaged - what Peter Breggin and others have called a chemical lobotomy.

Quite frequently I hear people state that 'mental illnesses' must have a genetic component because they seem to run in families, but I think that this argument falls apart when we examine it more closely. First of all, nearly every family has a number of members who are odd, eccentric, or 'mentally ill,' and it's generally easy to find at lest one person in each generation that seems to display 'symptoms' of the 'illness' we're looking for, especially looking back to try to make inferences about people who are no longer living. But considering how high the estimates for the prevalence of 'mental illness' in the general population are, it's not surprising that even small families would have a lot of it. For example, if the prevalence of 'mental illness' is 20%, chances are good than two generations of a small family consisting of only four parents and six kids would have two diagnosable members, without the need for any genetic connection between their 'illnesses.'

Also, there is a powerful confirmation bias at work when psychiatrists are looking to diagnose people. Because of the dogma that 'mental illness' are genetic, a person is much more likely to get a particular 'diagnosis' if they have relatives with that label. For example, a person presenting exactly the same 'symptoms' would be much more likely to get a 'schizophrenia spectrum' label if they disclosed having a relative with psychosis, and much more likely to get a 'bipolar' label if their relative is believed to have had 'manic depression.'

Most importantly, there is a huge difference between a trait being heritable and being genetic. Heritable means that it can be passed from parent to offspring, not that it is necessarily genetic. For example, if someone is Christian, and their parents are Christian, and their parents' parents are Christian, going all the way back 2000 years, that certainly suggests that religion is heritable. But does it mean that it's genetic? I for one, don't think that the fact that people are much more likely than random chance to practice the same religion as their parents and forbearers means that the burden would be on skeptics of a religion-is-passed-genetically claim to come up with research somehow showing that it's just environmental.

Well, the concepts of inheritance are deeply embedded in genetics as we each receive genetic material from both our parents. What people generally refer to though are are the inheritance of dominant and recessive genes or mutations/polymorphisms.

Your point is spot on imho. In my opinion, behavior is largely a learned trait. Whilst we may have certain genetic predispositions that may make us more susceptible to react in a particular way, DNA does not make decisions for you. We are all responsible for how we choose to behave.

The problem is that certain "Dr. wanna-bes" are turning a behavioral issue into a bona fide disease. They can't cure this disease and will tell you do take these drugs or else. Refusing to comply is proof of disease. It's bizarre, but it has the force of law now.

Paul, you are right. As has been pointed out elsewhere (http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/about.html)

the genetics argument is a bit of BS. UnderTheThresher's Christian example is on point. If my parents were Catholic and their grandparents were Catholic and I, raised in the Catholic Church, by relatives who cannot conceive of a world outside of Catholicism, become Catholic, does that mean Catholicism is genetic? What about people in Asian countries who eat rice because it's what they were raised on, does that mean a diet based on rice is genetic?

Of course we come close to forgetting that Hitler and his psychiatrists believed that all sorts of character traits were genetic, in fact these folks were eugenicists...look what that got us, it ain't mental health imho!

Paul is correct when bringing up what many ppl do not understand, is how the medication [ALL meds] are processed via the liver, etc. there are blood tests for that, and can help determine if anyone could have adverse events due slow metabolizing etc. Just because a person's body processes medication adversely, does not mean they are bipolar.

It means they cannot tolerate certain chemicals/drugs in their bodies, and this DOES run in my family. Doesn't mean bipolar does, it means the drug sensitivy DOES.

There are no difinitive diagnostic tools to dx bipolar, and no drugs prove themselves to work, it's not a wonder it's a guessing gamel; and just because "bipolars" react [at times] to anti depressants, does not mean they are bipolar and some psych's use that as a baseline for a diagnosis.

If people would stop and take a look at how these are chemicals, look at it from a chemistry point of view and question how the changes in liver, and the brain can happen for instance, one might understand how a person gets MIS diagnosed bipolar.

It is impossible to go back into a family tree and say with clarity "they were all bipolar or SZ" because who knows what was the driving force per behavior witnessed. Was it alcohol? lead paint? mold and pollution inside homes? exposed to chemicals in factory jobs? to sit back and look at certain family members comes down often to hearsay stories.

Don't forget the Kennedy sister who had the lobotomy; for all I can understand when reading about her, she was high spirited and a rebel according to "standards" expected back then.

Now she probably would be on Seroquel, Abilify and God knows what else to squash her personality.

This is all my opinion, based on a decade of reading [things such as 2D6 pathway etc.]When I would ask the psych's about that they had a dead pan blank stare. They are not chemists, or [most of the time] do not understand HOW these meds work, they give the patient this famous line and we've all heard it: "Don't know why they work they just do." or "trial and error, just have to find the right med cocktail"....and decades later they wonder why they have not found it.

Wow. How many of you suffer from Bipolar or any mental defect? Or for that matter a nastey case of diareah? If it were so simple to merely behave or control your emotions or say will your diareah away wouldn't that be nifty and no problem at all.Just don't drink alcohol and you won't be a drunk. Many, many things people believe are weakness, and can be remedied if you just stop it.
I am very well behaved, educated, and have suffered from Bipolar for 20 years. And it is to suffer to have your mind betray you and take you places best left to Steven King. I have a dibilitating back disease that leaves me disabled and in constant pain. I have an autoimune disease that has left me with hives and swelling in all my joints. None of that compares to the Bipolar. Yet,most people even the closest of friend will dismiss the Bipolar as depression or make believe or just will it away. No one expected my brother to just stop that Leukemia as it ravaged his body and mind. No one was suprised when it killed him. No one faulted him when he couldn't will it away.
So many people suffer in this world one way or another. It amazes me how people decide what is best, what is real and how we can just control situations if we set our minds to it. That's the problem. Mental disease dictates to the mind. Otherwise we would all be happy, healthy, beautiful people living in a tropical paradise.
In case you wonder I have a big problem with Tom Cruise.