Blood test predicts onset of Alzheimer's

rkzenrage • Oct 16, 2007 5:13 pm
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/16/blood-alzheimers.html

Blood test predicts onset of Alzheimer's

A blood test has been developed that can reveal Alzheimer's two to six years before its onset, say researchers at Stanford University.

The test identifies a "dialogue" between key proteins in the blood that highlights changes in brain function with an accuracy rate of 90 per cent compared to clinical diagnosis.


Very cool
xoxoxoBruce • Oct 16, 2007 7:31 pm
Yes, very good news. Hopefully they'll improve on the accuracy and time.
Aliantha • Oct 16, 2007 7:35 pm
I saw this on a current affairs show a couple of nights ago. Apparently there are negative implications also, such as problems getting health insurance if you know you're a candidate.

I think it's good though. Maybe people will benefit from knowing earlier, especially if research proves that like some cancers, early detection can mean erradiaction.
TheMercenary • Oct 16, 2007 8:58 pm
Ali, I was going to bring that up as well. The "markers" being discovered for numerous illnesses is potentially going to make people uninsurable. If you get the test and results and knowingly do not claim that you have the knowledge of the said results on your inusrance could be fraud. At the least they insurance company may be able to deny your claims.
rkzenrage • Oct 16, 2007 8:59 pm
Won't it piss god off when we tell those he is about to smite about it in advance?
Aliantha • Oct 16, 2007 9:11 pm
At this stage it has nothing to do with god. Only living breathing human beings.
ZenGum • Oct 17, 2007 1:54 pm
Re: becoming uninsurable

I suggest that this is one more reason why universal (i.e. government) health cover is a good thing. Everyone is automatically included, no-one can be refused, and the burden is spread as widely as possible.
Cloud • Oct 17, 2007 2:26 pm
I think it's too late for me!
Sundae • Oct 17, 2007 4:37 pm
I would want to go quietly if I knew Alzheimer's was in the post.
I feel like a burden on my family while I'm able to talk and appreciate them in person, let alone if they became frightening strangers to me.

Mum thinks Dad has Alzheimer's. Well, she says she does, I think it's the meanest thing she can think to say to him when his forgetfulness annoys her. The downside of an older husband I guess. I'll tell her about the test, that might make her stop and consider what she's actually saying.
Aliantha • Oct 17, 2007 7:12 pm
If that's the meanest thing she ever says then she's doing ok SG.

In fact, I've just spent this morning telling my husband he's an idiot because he got the time of his flight wrong and so there's been a whole knock on effect today. It has been fairly light hearted and all, and not meant to be hurtful. Just a statement of fact really. What kind of an idiot gets their flight time wrong??? I ask you! ;)
rkzenrage • Oct 17, 2007 9:49 pm
ZenGum;396286 wrote:
Re: becoming uninsurable

I suggest that this is one more reason why universal (i.e. government) health cover is a good thing. Everyone is automatically included, no-one can be refused, and the burden is spread as widely as possible.


Who is going to tell your insurance company? In the US that is illegal.
ZenGum • Oct 18, 2007 12:50 pm
rkzenrage;396421 wrote:
Who is going to tell your insurance company? In the US that is illegal.


Aliantha and Mercenary (posts 3 and 4) raised the issue. Even if no one else is allowed to tell the insurance company, as Merc points out, the patient has to (or may have to, I don't know the law over there). Its in the full disclosure bit.
Aliantha • Oct 18, 2007 6:12 pm
Exactly. So if they make a claim relating to their alzhiemers, they'll of course look into the patients medical history and discover that the patient knew all along what was coming (just for those who still don't get it).
xoxoxoBruce • Oct 18, 2007 9:53 pm
Not if you get the test under an assumed name and don't bill your insurance for it. Neat little sideline for labs.
Clodfobble • Oct 18, 2007 10:05 pm
By the time Alzheimer's sets in, aren't most people old enough for Medicare anyway? '2 to 6 years before' isn't that much younger.
xoxoxoBruce • Oct 18, 2007 10:07 pm
Not always, it strikes some in their 40s and 50s.
Clodfobble • Oct 18, 2007 10:44 pm
Okay, but wait. All this really translates into is "getting" the disease 2-6 years earlier than you actually get it. From an insurance standpoint, if you are insured (through your employer or otherwise) when you get the test, it would be covered as a new disease. The only way you would become uninsurable is if you lost your insurance after being tested/diagnosed, and were also unable to get on another group policy through a new employer. Which is not a great situation, to be sure, but it's what already happens now to millions of people with pre-existing conditions.* This blood test is not the same as being able to tell from birth all the diseases and conditions you will eventually get.

*And for the record, many states do already have government insurance programs for people who are uninsurable because of pre-existing conditions. In Texas they call it the "High Risk Pool," and my friend's 5-year-old diabetic daughter is on it.
tw • Oct 18, 2007 10:51 pm
The wife of a friend this last month was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. After a few weeks spent with a psychologist, it was discovered her medication was creating Alzheimer's symptoms. A problem known to exist with those drugs but (apparently) unknown to her doctor who diagnosed Alzheimer’s. Her prescriptions were changed. He says he finally has his wife back.