The Pro-Cure Thread

Post Reply New Topic

I doubt that anybody has ever done a study that actually attributes autisim to specific genes. I know that papers have been published hinting at this but in every case disputed by later findings. This whole genetic thing is just another scientific copout and a way to get some funding.

Overstimulation of the brain during a child's first 4 years can lead to autism, or so one study showed. During this time the brain is still developing, and if the supposed autism gene turned on, this person would become under the spectrum, as their brain would start to develope those spectrum related traits rather than normal traits.

I agree with Gary in that there are some cases where there might be family predispositions. But in most cases no.

I'm sure everyone has heard about how many autism cases there are in Silicon Valley. Most of those people who don't exactly have AS are Asperger phenotype, just farther out on the scale of normal so as to not have a disability. Of those people who have AS, many are high functioning and are engineers, programmers, etc.

Of those people who have the same genes, some may develop AS or not. AS is not just a biological condition, but developmental, as well. So some psychological, physical and cognitive social skills features can be developed in one person but not develop in another person with similar genes.

Finally, to get rid of all those autism cases in Silicon Valley, you'd have to more or less get rid of the smart people who are their parents who are also on the spectrum, but far enough out so as to be Asperger phenotypes, not AS.

Any disorder that is so "spectrum" oriented will be difficult to define by genetic testing. How do you slice up a spectrum, exactly, with genetic testing? Only the worst cases would be "spottable". Otherwise, you'd just have to zap everyone in Silicon Valley and people like them.

There is no autism gene. arg, arg, arg.

That is something entirely different than what you said. But yeah, there have recently been hints that we are on the track of this. The problem is that:
1) "autism" is a big, symptom driven umbrella meaning that accounting for everyone diagnosed with a single physiological cause is unlikely
2) related to the above, we don't even really understand the physiological differences though that's coming
3) even when you've a uniform physiological difference that is known, tracing back to the gene takes time
4) the less obvious the link, the more combinations of genes involved, the is the harder it is to nail down

Although success isn't there yet, the results still look promising. More promising than "environmental only" so far. Basic cause and effect says this is coming from somewhere, and hopefully we can discount "the Autism Fairy Visited you". That puts genes in the lead.

"Disputed" can mean a lot of things. Including "you don't have the full answer because here are the exceptions we see". That's part of the normal progress.

I've read that the latest findings in research are that autisim is a 'timing' issue in the brain and has nothing to do with chemicals, genetics, etc, etc. It's an electrical signal problem.
I though that was very interesting as somebody several decades ago suggested this possibiity.

Attempting to screen based on genetics ((EDIT:alone)) is a separate issue from whether or not there is a genetic predisposition. Because of the complexity that appears to be involved, and also the strong link to [widely agreed] "favourable" traits, it seems unlikely that genetic screening would be feasible even if you wanted to attempt it.

Last edited by DwightF on 18 Dec 2008, 7:58 pm, edited 4 times in total.

It actually makes sense.

If I recall it was here where I read about two twin guys, but one was autistic.

My traits are also non-sense genetically, my family is INCREDIBLY NT.

I just read that it was triggered by kids watching Pokeman.....those who weren't throw into full blown seizures became either ADHD or autistic....the writer of that show....autistic...coincidence or a lonley guy looking for future playmates ?

Yes...I Am kidding but I did read that over stimmulating TV is linked to autism, but I read it on AUtism Speaks(spying on the enemy..ssshhh)

Course that doesn't explain Einstiens autism or my own...the most stimulating thing I watched was Kung Fu and Gentle Ben

TV was a parental figure in my life, hmnn.

PS: Curse Autism Speaks .

Unless you want to talk in terms of "magic", in your brain timing = the rate and sequence of chemical reactions. Your brain is one big chemical-electrical reaction. That's how psychoactive medications/drugs work, tinkering with the chemical reactions.

EDIT: And your genes have a big influence on how the chemical reactions are initially set up EDIT: and also on the configuration of the "hard bits" that stay in place to guide these reactions.

Last edited by DwightF on 18 Dec 2008, 8:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Here is info from Wikipedia on what Anti-cure is supposed to be about, since the OP and "cure" people won't explain:

Anti-cure perspective

Curing autism is a controversial and politicized issue. Doctors and scientists are not clear on the cause(s) of autism yet many organizations like Defeat Autism Now! and Autism Speaks advocate researching a cure. Members of the various autism rights organizations view autism as a way of life rather than as a disease and thus advocate acceptance over a search for a cure.[7][8] Some advocates believe that common treatments for the behavioral and speech delays associated with autism, like ABA therapy, are not only misguided but also unethical.

The anti-cure perspective endorsed by the movement is a view that autism is not a disorder, but a normal occurrence -- an alternate variation in brain wiring or a less common expression of the human genome. Advocates of this perspective believe that autism is a unique way of being that should be validated, supported and appreciated rather than shunned, discriminated against or cured. They believe quirks and uniqueness of autistic individuals should be tolerated as the differences of any minority group should be tolerated and that efforts to cure autism should not be compared, for example, to curing cancer but instead to the antiquated notion of curing left-handedness.

Variations within the anti-cure movement are diverse. Jim Sinclair, a leader in the movement, argues that autism essential to a person, not a disease secondary to the person. He says that wishing that an autistic person be cured is equivalent to wishing that he disappear and another completely different person exist in his place. Visions for a future where autism has been eradicated, he believes, is the desire to end the autistic culture. Some movement members with Asperger Syndrome, who do not have the language delays typical of autistic individuals, believe their way of life should be respected and they should be left alone completely. Other members agree that autistics should not be made to act exactly like everyone else, but that they should receive therapy to help them learn to communicate in innovative ways or regulate emotions.

Simon Baron-Cohen, a professor of developmental psychology at Trinity College, Cambridge and an autism researcher, expressed the latter view. Baron-Cohen said: "I do think there is a benefit in trying to help people with autism-spectrum conditions with areas of difficulty such as emotion recognition. Nobody would dispute the place for interventions that alleviate areas of difficulty, while leaving the areas of strength untouched. But to talk about a 'cure for autism' is a sledge-hammer approach and the fear would be that in the process of alleviating the areas of difficulty, the qualities that are special - such as the remarkable attention to detail, and the ability to concentrate for long periods on a small topic in depth - would be lost. Autism is both a disability and a difference. We need to find ways of alleviating the disability while respecting and valuing the difference."

Sounds reasonable to me!

The state of promising research is, Autism may be caused by a combination of 15 genes, which when switched to some combination of on/off, might cause Autism, or might be caused by Autism.

Keep up the $10,000,000 a year funding and maybe in ten years we will have an update.

If it was a simple as Downes, it would have been done.

All of this money goes to research, and actual living autistics are ignored.

Of course the other $10,000,000 funds fund raising for screaming head banging child syndrome.

Research and fund raising are done by NTs, they like money.

We must bail out Wall Street because they stole all the money.

Bernie robbed the charities, where does Autism Speaks invest?

Right on spot.
If autism is biological there are huge bucks for the taking. If it is neurological far less money but both will take what they can get and do other research with it as autism is way down on the list of scientific interests.
So far we're a small minority that is non-threathening and apparantly submissive.

Last edited by ephemerella on 18 Dec 2008, 8:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I've actually talked with some so-called brain scientists and they readily admit that we know about as much about the brain as we do about the universe, which is almost nothing. I compare the modern state of learning and published papers to be on par with those cave drawings in france from about 30,000 years ago that were on the cutting edge in their day.
Not much has really changed. Inner space is still totally uncharted territory.