Page 1 of 2 [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

DGuru
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 283

27 Sep 2011, 6:12 am

I see many people getting indignant about how we're not from vaccines or from environmental toxins, but even if we were would that really change anything? We are what we are however that happened.

There seems to be this bias that if a disease originated in genetics it's not as bad as if it came from toxins in the environment.



Mummy_of_Peanut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,564
Location: Bonnie Scotland

27 Sep 2011, 6:20 am

If it came from an environmental toxin, it's definitely a disease, illness (whatever you want to call it, it's all negative). If it's genetic, there always the possibility that it's not a disease, just a benign mutation, a difference, not necessarily negative and, in the correct circumstances, might be positive.



TwistedReflection
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 180
Location: At the End of Everything

27 Sep 2011, 6:21 am

DGuru wrote:
I see many people getting indignant about how we're not from vaccines or from environmental toxins, but even if we were would that really change anything? We are what we are however that happened.

There seems to be this bias that if a disease originated in genetics it's not as bad as if it came from toxins in the environment.


I don't think that anyone wants to go through life believing that their existence came about as the result of an 'accident'. :roll:

NTs aren't any different - hell, they invented mythologies that detail the creation of not only mankind, but the universe as a whole - so it should come as no surprise that there even is a "bias", as you say.



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

27 Sep 2011, 6:24 am

These false etiologies are a problem for more than just us.

Here's a pretty stark presentation of what the anti-vaccination propaganda has caused:

http://jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny ... /Home.html

As for us? How about:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9074208/ns/ ... n-therapy/

These stories lead to parents taking extreme actions and untested treatments - they don't vaccinate their children, which reduces herd immunity - as well as specifically their own children's immunity. They can subject their autistic children to dangerous, unproven treatments just because they believe that heavy metal exposure caused autism and they need to have it removed. And these are far from the only dangerous treatments that autistic children have been subjected to. The point is these false claims cause tangible harm to people. That's what's wrong with them.



Surfman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Aug 2010
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,938
Location: Homeward bound

27 Sep 2011, 6:32 am

All the power is in the present, rather than the past or future



izzeme
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Apr 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,665

27 Sep 2011, 8:37 am

it does indeed matter; trying to stop a cause for autism that doesn't exist might kill off many other good things to lots of people, anti-vaccination movements are only the tip of the iceberg.

it doesn't really matter to me that it is found out what causes autism, but they should not throw around bogus claims.



Burzum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,205

27 Sep 2011, 10:04 am

DGuru wrote:
There seems to be this bias that if a disease originated in genetics it's not as bad as if it came from toxins in the environment.

Autism isn't a disease, whether it's genetic or not.

And to answer your question, there is a big difference between genetic mutation and a defect brought about by environment. The latter would imply that we are faulty humans, whereas the former would imply that we are simply different, whether for good or bad.



animalcrackers
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,207
Location: Somewhere

27 Sep 2011, 11:08 am

I think understanding the cause(s) of autism does have some importance.

Lay-people without autism seem to have more difficulty understanding, accepting, and supporting us when they have no idea what makes us different.

Helping professionals (doctors, therapists) need to have an accurate understanding of the cause(s) of autism to provide appropriate help to people with ASDs. I think that knowing cause(s) can also be important in terms of accurately diagnosing people.


_________________
"Coming back to where you started is not the same as never leaving." -- Terry Pratchett, A Hat Full of Sky

Love transcends all.


Joe90
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 26,492
Location: UK

27 Sep 2011, 1:20 pm

I've always known it as just a disability, just like Down's Syndrome, Fragile X Syndrome, Soto's Syndrome, Dyspraxia, Dyslexia, Mental Retardation, and lots of other diversities, only with different symptoms.


_________________
Female


DGuru
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 283

29 Sep 2011, 7:30 pm

Mummy_of_Peanut wrote:
If it came from an environmental toxin, it's definitely a disease, illness (whatever you want to call it, it's all negative). If it's genetic, there always the possibility that it's not a disease, just a benign mutation, a difference, not necessarily negative and, in the correct circumstances, might be positive.


I don't see how that's logical at all.

A disease is a disease based on the overall harmfulness not based on its origins.

Let's say they put a new chemical in vaccines and it had the side effect of raising everyone's IQ level 20 points but didn't have any other side effects.

Obviously, the side effect would not be a disease in that case.

So given the same effects in either case it would make no sense to say that autism would be a disease if caused by environment but not by genes.



Tuttle
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,088
Location: Massachusetts

29 Sep 2011, 9:28 pm

Verdandi wrote:
These stories lead to parents taking extreme actions and untested treatments - they don't vaccinate their children, which reduces herd immunity - as well as specifically their own children's immunity. They can subject their autistic children to dangerous, unproven treatments just because they believe that heavy metal exposure caused autism and they need to have it removed. And these are far from the only dangerous treatments that autistic children have been subjected to. The point is these false claims cause tangible harm to people. That's what's wrong with them.


This.

It doesn't matter so much where we do come from so much as where we don't come being known that its where we don't come from. If people are being hurt because of false ideas of where autism comes from, then we should show that its in fact, not caused in those manners and those treatments won't help.



Mummy_of_Peanut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,564
Location: Bonnie Scotland

30 Sep 2011, 2:33 pm

DGuru wrote:
Mummy_of_Peanut wrote:
If it came from an environmental toxin, it's definitely a disease, illness (whatever you want to call it, it's all negative). If it's genetic, there always the possibility that it's not a disease, just a benign mutation, a difference, not necessarily negative and, in the correct circumstances, might be positive.


I don't see how that's logical at all.

A disease is a disease based on the overall harmfulness not based on its origins.

Let's say they put a new chemical in vaccines and it had the side effect of raising everyone's IQ level 20 points but didn't have any other side effects.

Obviously, the side effect would not be a disease in that case.

So given the same effects in either case it would make no sense to say that autism would be a disease if caused by environment but not by genes.


I used the word 'toxin' as I'm referring to harmful substances. I'm not suggesting that all chemicals are harmful.



so_subtly_strange
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 295

30 Sep 2011, 8:26 pm

Mummy_of_Peanut wrote:
If it came from an environmental toxin, it's definitely a disease, illness (whatever you want to call it, it's all negative). If it's genetic, there always the possibility that it's not a disease, just a benign mutation, a difference, not necessarily negative and, in the correct circumstances, might be positive.


agreed. My theory is it is caused ultimately by an environmental 'toxin' not necessarily a particular one, and it is in genetics who is susceptible. The toxin, is not a toxin to the vast majority of people, except people with some sort of digestive mutation. By digestive i simply mean a protien complex or something like that which we autists cant break down normally, not that it even necessarily enters through the digestive tract. Whatever the difference, it causes our brain tissue to develop differently.



Fern
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,340

30 Sep 2011, 9:23 pm

Mummy_of_Peanut wrote:
If it came from an environmental toxin, it's definitely a disease, illness (whatever you want to call it, it's all negative). If it's genetic, there always the possibility that it's not a disease, just a benign mutation, a difference, not necessarily negative and, in the correct circumstances, might be positive.



How about this:

If it's caused by genetics we are X-men.
If it's caused by the environment, we are Spiderman 8)



DGuru
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 283

01 Oct 2011, 1:01 pm

Mummy_of_Peanut wrote:
DGuru wrote:
Mummy_of_Peanut wrote:
If it came from an environmental toxin, it's definitely a disease, illness (whatever you want to call it, it's all negative). If it's genetic, there always the possibility that it's not a disease, just a benign mutation, a difference, not necessarily negative and, in the correct circumstances, might be positive.


I don't see how that's logical at all.

A disease is a disease based on the overall harmfulness not based on its origins.

Let's say they put a new chemical in vaccines and it had the side effect of raising everyone's IQ level 20 points but didn't have any other side effects.

Obviously, the side effect would not be a disease in that case.

So given the same effects in either case it would make no sense to say that autism would be a disease if caused by environment but not by genes.


I used the word 'toxin' as I'm referring to harmful substances. I'm not suggesting that all chemicals are harmful.


It still wouldn't make sense to call it a disease if caused by a chemical/toxin and not if caused by genes. Whether it would be a "toxin" or just a chemical would depend on the cumulative effects on the mind and body, so autism being a disease would make the chemical a toxin not the other way around. If it were from the environment the diseaseness of autism is the independent variable and whether or not the chemical is toxic is the dependent one.



Burnbridge
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 971
Location: Columbus, Ohio

01 Oct 2011, 1:13 pm

As far as it being caused by an "environmental toxin," I have a sneaking suspicion that it has rather a lot to do with how an individual is raised. Their home environment, if you will.

If you'll pardon an analogy, I see it like computer programming. You start with the same hardware, but the programming language makes for an entirely different interface. Like this: "NTs are windows/DOS, Aspies are Linux." There is going to be a lot of translation error getting those different operating systems to communicate with each other.

Do any of us really want to "format drive c:" in our heads so we can be rebooted with NT?

An AS parent is rather likely to load their AS operating language on their children, while school tries to load NT onto them (a DOS shell, hehe). The efficacy of one vs the other determines how far along the autistic spectrum is.

Just my theory, mind you.


_________________
No dx yet ... AS=171/200,NT=13/200 ... EQ=9/SQ=128 ... AQ=39 ... MB=IntJ