←back to thread

262 points Anon84 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.281s | source
Show context
Throwaway42754 ◴[] No.44408788[source]
I have schizoaffective disorder, induced by a bad trip from marijuana. It was like the 3rd time I had tried weed, and I naively took too much.

For me psychosis feels like pattern matching going on extreme overdrive, while at the same time memory goes to shit. It's truly an awful illness, and what's worse is that the current medical treatments are bad. I've been fortunate enough where I can get by on a low dose olanzapine, but for many people they simply don't work at all.

Even though I'm doing well enough to function normally and hold down a good, well paying job, it's impossible to find a partner. If I were to have kids, I would have to go through one of the embryo prescreening services. I am strongly in support of these screening services - the disease is truly horrible.

There has been little progress on treatments for schizophrenia, the mechanism of action of these drugs has remained the same for decades. The side effects are almost as bad as the disease, which is why so many schizophrenic stop taking them. The only novel medication recently released is Cobenfy, which I have not tried yet.

Personally I am holding out hope that schizophrenia has some basis as an autoimmune disease. There was a cancer patient who had a bone marrow transplant and ended up being cured: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/29/opinion/sunday/schizophre...

replies(9): >>44408844 #>>44408871 #>>44408920 #>>44409678 #>>44410365 #>>44414818 #>>44416630 #>>44428415 #>>44431189 #
wycy ◴[] No.44408920[source]
Why do you need to do embryo pre-screening for something that’s not genetic? Or do you think it still is genetic despite also thinking you know the specific trigger in your case?

Edit: are you thinking it’s genetic, but exacerbated by weed?

replies(2): >>44408987 #>>44409002 #
jjallen ◴[] No.44408987[source]
Everything is at least partially genetic.

We have a friend whose sister has it and she went to genetics counselors before having kids.

They told her that because her sister has it that her kids had a 20% likelihood of developing it. Obviously 20% is way higher than normal.

replies(2): >>44410157 #>>44416668 #
SoftTalker ◴[] No.44410157[source]
Be sure you understand what this means. 20% higher chance (of a 1% baseline) is vastly different from a 20% chance.
replies(2): >>44413232 #>>44416959 #
1. jjallen ◴[] No.44416959[source]
This is through the grapevine. I thought they said 20% likelihood, not 20% higher likelihood. But this isn’t me and I don’t know the numbers well.

I do know that this woman chose to not use her own eggs for their child. And you would think that going from 1-1.2% would not make you do that. Perhaps there is another variable involved that I am unaware of. Her sister developed it after their parents divorce in her 30s fwiw.