Possible major break though in Autism, Great News.

Post Reply New Topic

This is all preliminary and such, but if it holds up it could be big news for the prevention of this disorder. Could be very big.

While that may be good news I don't see any explanation for the sudden increase in autism over the past 20 years. I do know that ten years ago the statistics were like 1 out of every 150 children being born and that was considered a huge increase over the past. Last I heard, that rate had increased to an even worse statistic although I can't recall now what that number was. I would like to know what explanation there is for this before coming to any kind of conclusions.

1 in 88 is the latest statistic. (from a US CDC study in 2008 http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2012/ ... order.html) Part of that is probably due to increased awareness and better diagnosis processes.

There are also a lot of environmental factors, like increased pollution. I've seen a few people theorize that the human gene pool is shifting to become more and more autistic, but those people are often written off as crazy. I'm not educated enough in environmental biology, genetics, epigenetics, or statistics to tell you which, if either, of those theories are legit.

I have seen some statistics that allergies and autoimmune diseases are becoming more common. Could that possibly be related, since antibodies are involved in those conditions as well?

I hope we will have a day were no more child will be born and have to suffer from this disorder, like many of us. The day the last aspie/auties is born will be a great day.

Sorry, but I can't agree with that last comment.

Without minimising the difficulties, I think the world would be a much worse place without the contribution that AS people have made.

Well, autism is a gift for some of us, but not me. I am not a successful Aspie. I wish I could be cured.

You want to be well adjusted to a sick world?

What type of autism are they talking about?

Also, autism is characterised by symptoms, not cause... it's entirely possible for two people on the spectrum to have completely difference causes behind their autism.

It's almost certain that it has a strong genetic component, but whether that is triggered by the environment or not is another matter, as is whether some cases are triggered fully by environment.

There's also that the boundaries between autism and not are naturally very, very fuzzy...

This study has shown far stronger correlation to Autism. In fact no study to date has found a very strong genetic component to autism. This study also represents one of the possible causes of Autism, not the only cause. This is the very first study to show something having a strong connection to autism. Please read the actual article and get your facts corrected.

You can't just handwave away 77% of autistic people.

Please, read what I've said before replying to it. I never claimed autism has a single cause, I said it probably doesn't.

It seems to be that most women who have the antibodies will not have a child with autism.

Talking about autism and genetics... boosh!

You should learn to read. I never said you said it did. You were talking nonsense without ever reading the study. No were did it claim autism has a single cause.

Please read what you posted., It doesn't claim what you think it does at all. No were does it say any autism gene exist, or that any gene is likely to exist. This excludes the very few on the spectrum with known conditions such as rett. You seem to have a knack for misrepresenting people, and studies.

FYI a gene that causes women to produce antibodies, that result in autism of their children. Would be both heritable, and fit with the results of the study you posted. Here it isn't a gene in the child causing autism, it is a gene in the mother it self.

This would also explain why not a single gene has been to be even remotely strongly associated with Autism.

...because the fact that Mendel couldn't point to a single gene in his peas disproves Mendelian inheritance.

Something showing stronger concordance in monozygotic twins than in dizygotic twins *is* strong evidence in favour of a genetic component. Though, I wouldn't expect someone who is scientifically illiterate to be able to understand that...

You are the one who is scientifically illiterate. I never said genes have no affect. You have no idea what the twin study actually means. If you look closely some of the studies only found 36% heritable.

FYI you shouldn't use Mendel as an example, because::

1. Mendel lied, and doctored the results of his study. This has been proven.

2. During Mendel time we couldn't identify genes, now we can. We have studied countless genes and have found nothing so far.

Actually I am now positive you are illiterate in general.

Here the latest study shows genes likely do not play as large of role as you claim.

http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2011/july/autism.html

Considering that 20 years ago, it wasn't a hugely known diagnosis and there weren't that many specialists in the field for it, it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that we hear of more cases these days than back then. To the frontal appearance and for those who study no medicine or scientific methodology it would seem to "increase" over the years because of it becoming a widely known phenomenon, when in reality it's simply the discovery of more [existing] cases that gives that illusion.
These kinds of statistics are born out of speculative observation over time, and are likely not accurate to the degree that people want to believe. It's all relative to who scientists observe and over what period of time, under what conditions, out of how many people, etc. So, while it is possible that one study can show a 1/150 ratio, another could just as easily show 1/600 or even 1/10 for groups that are studied (if the conditions were right, respectively). In the end there is only speculative data on numbers that is then attributed to a highly speculative possibility, so I would put very little real credit in those kinds of statistics.

In the end, even if the theory of slight auto-immune response (and yes, it is auto-immune) from the mother was what causes it, there's nothing that can be done about it. Any kind of immunosuppresants you give the mother to counter this possibility would pass into the fetus, and just as easily cause an immune system deficiancy (which I will remind people of the fact that something like that would kill a newborn, just from basic infection alone).

"Congratulations, we prevented a possible autistic trait in your child, but unfortunately they will have to live in a sterilized enviornment because the meds we gave you 7 months ago, killed off their immune system before it could fully develop, in fact we're not even sure if they'll survive the night."

Yeah, really nice trade-off.

This could possibly lead to way of detecting a group at very high risk of developing autism, if those can lead to test that say this fetus has an 80% chance of developing autism, it can be aborted, before the damage is born.

How dare you try to dictate the value of life. By stating what you just did, you've reaffirmed the "damaged" outlook, and frankly I can think of nothing more pitiful than those who actually believe that crap. So people on the spectrum can't function the same as "normal" people, so what? Just because the quality of life for those on the spectrum doesn't meet your expectations, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be given a chance at life.
Science doesn't give anyone the right to determine who lives or who doesn't, least of all in the manner of "quality of life".

People like you think you can dictate what should be allowed to exist, based on nothing more than personal bias and you try to justify it as being "for their own good", who are you to determine what's in an unborn's best interest? Or anyones but yours, for that matter? The arrogance of such people is unbelievable! Such an outlook makes me sick. I think it's equally as sick, that people who have committed horrible crimes and deserve the death penalty are treated with more regard for life than we are.

I'm leaving, I can't even stomach speaking to anyone with such an arrogant and selfish view.

I disagree with the OP about people on the spectrum not being born. I believe in the sanctity of life from conception until natural death. I feel that all human life should be protected, including the lives of everybody who's on the Autistic Spectrum. I also don't suffer from AS, I suffer from the attitudes of the uneducated public who are rooting for Jenny McCarthy, and Autism Speaks.