Antibodies from mothers of autistics cause autism in monkeys

Post Reply New Topic

quote:
Rhesus monkeys gestationally exposed to IgG class antibodies from mothers of children with ASD consistently demonstrated increased whole-body stereotypies across multiple testing paradigms. These monkeys were also hyperactive compared to controls.

It dosen't say whether the "were born" with the traits, only that they displayed them. It's really irrelevant, though. This study is interesting, and suggests that the subject should be looked at more, but the numbers are too small for it to have any real meaning. Why are people getting so worked up about it?

sojournertruth wrote:

Because zendude tends to bring that out in people....

Zendell has a habit of distorting facts to fit his pet ideas.

I'm thinking you don't know much about science. Other people who responded either didn't understand it or distorted it. The study clearly suggests, as the authors concluded, that the results "support the potential for an autoimmune etiology in a subgroup of patients with neurodevelopmental disorders." Many others studies reached a similar conclusion.

I don't have any pet ideas. I believe in science and follow the conclusions of the experts. I read the theories, examined the evidence, and based my beliefs on them. If the scientific evidence changes, then I will change my opinion. Many peoples' ideas here have already been thoroughly disproven yet they twist every study or label it junk science for not agreeing with them. I don't do that. If you want to accuse me of that, then please be specific and let me know exactly what fact you think I distorted and how I distorted it.

Hyperactivity is certainly related, but they weren't looking for that. It says the were looking to "stereotypies" and also noticed hyperactivity.

I tend to agree with some of the posters that this doesn't show "autism" per se, but it does seem compelling evidence that the antibody thingies effect behavior... So question that then begs to be asked is does it just produce disorders, or does it help shape personalities.

Hey!! You could feed the monkeys to the wolves from the "Save the Big Gray Doggies" thread and see if they show autistic traits afterwards... I've got friend who win awards for webdesign, they could make us a neat webpage that looks all impressive and we can show the results there... That makes it REAL science, right???

I don't care what people are doing research for...but I can not stand on the same side as those who test on animals!

OK, a serious comment from me.... for a change.....

What would you have them test on? People? Because that's all we've GOT. Animals-People.

I'm not trying to be funny. I had kidney cancer. I was one of the rare lucky ones where it was found very early and removed. Now I have to get checked every six months. My first question, just about was, what CAUSES it. And the doctor said, honestly, we don't know. Humans are the ONLY animals that get kidney cancer, so we can't induce it in animals to test it and we CAN'T test on people.....

If they don't test on animals what alternative is there? Allow people who could be saved to die because we didn't develop treatments for them? I'm not talking about eyeshadow or lipstick here.... I'm talking about drug therapies to save human beings lives...

I agree with you on this. I'd much rather have them test on animals than on people.

I agree. There are far more important things in life than trying to cure diseases. Some people die young--deal with it. You can't outsmart nature, nor should you try and control it. Those animals have as much a right to life as you do.

If a mother carries something in her antibodies that can make her offspring autistic, why is it that the same mother can give birth to 5 kids and only 1 or 2 are autistic?? That doesn't make sense... unless her antibodies were somehow changed by some other factor? possibly an environmental factor such as toxins, etc..? There are so many unknowns...

To expose monkeys to toxic antibodies to try and make them autistic, when we already know that it must be something else (because every mother doesn't give birth to all autistic kids) seems kindof wasteful and sad to me.. If it is the antibodies, then something must change them or there is some other factors involved, otherwise every child born to that woman would have to be autistic... right? or am I missing something here?

zendell, being the pendant I am, I think your topic line should read 'Antibodies from mothers of autistics cause symptoms of autism in monkeys'. Not whatever it reads right now.

Symptoms of autism occur in many many neurological disorders. Even down's syndrome. Severe brain injuries too. Symptoms of autism are not exclusive to autism only.

Interesting article otherwise, as almost always.

Probably said before but stereotypies and hyperactivity does not equal autism. neurodevelopmental disorders might include autism, but check out DSM/ICD ND's - dozens of them. monkies are a long way from humans...

Your title didn't say that, Zendell, it says "Antibodies from mothers of autistics cause autism in monkeys".

It would've sound more neutral and less like you were pushing your idea's if you'd just stuck to the research.

TO SUMMERIZE:

NO THEY DON'T!

The mothers had autoantibodies that attacked the brain. From the research I've read on autoimmune disorders, a combination of genetics and environmental factors (such as mercury and chronic infections) are involved. The reason a mother can have 5 kids with only 1 or 2 autistic is due to genetic differences. If mercury is involved, the effects could be very different for each person (from no noticeable symptoms to severe neurological problems) due to genetics. The symptoms also vary regarding infections so if an infection caused autism it wouldn't have to affect every child. The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) states that rubella is a known cause of autism even though one study only found that 1 in 14 children with rubella were diagnosed with autism.