Has anything at all been scientifically proven about AS?

Post Reply New Topic

I've seen this mentioned here before, but nobody ever says where they got such specific information. Can you refer me to some documentation? I'd like to read more.



As I understand it, there has never been any reputable, verifiable evidence that vaccines have anything to do with autism of any stripe. Other than Jenny McCarthy and a few other Media-Whore quacks, nobody with any respectable credentials actually promotes or accepts that theory.




'Immature' = less than fully formed; smaller than would be expected in one completely grown; childish or child-like

'Immature Development' = unable to function in all aspects as might be expected under typical circumstances.

Im pretty sure i got it from my mother's side (had an uncle who definitely had it but was never diagnosed prior to his death). Havent seen anything from my father's side. As for this topic in general, i believe that the gene responsible is designed to save us at birth. Started a discussion/poll about it, but it never went far . . . ><

The only thing that I can think of, is that we have more testosterone in our bodies, compared to everybody else our genders.

If you mean diagnosing it, yes; that's all there is to any mental disorder. I thought I read that they have been unable to show where, if anywhere, on the human genome the "autism gene" can be found, and there are tantalizing ideas but no proof that it is caused by a pathogen or something.

Considering how the brain is constantly changing and reforming over the course of a person's life -- considering especially how you have the thickest and branchiest neural patterns where the brain is used most, and thin spots elsewhere -- I would not be surprised to find, at the end of an autist's or Aspergery life, that some areas of the brain were too small and others too large. Hey, all we do all our lives is work too hard on some things (like memorizing baseball scores) and not at all on others (like critical thinking). But what about at the the beginning of the person's life? If you can do a brain scan in an autistic toddler and show me that the amygdala is too small or the hippocampus is big as a Volkswagen, then I think we will be on to something. For the same reason, I am skeptical about the autopsy results in schizophrenia patients, who typically forget to eat but smoke 5 packs of cigarettes a day, unfiltered, to cut down on their symptoms -- and have holes in their brains when they die.

Greentea wrote

Very good question, Greentea! I have scoured the internet looking for science-based conclusions related to autism. By that I mean concrete results published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. There are a number of studies, but none that I have seen have come up a single conclusion that applies to ALL autists. The studies related to the brain that I have read have determined that MOST autists have this or that. In other words not conclusive at all.

We need to keep in mind that tools to study the brain have only been available for the last ten years or so, and that great strides are being made. Maybe we will have answers soon.

Yes, we do KNOW that autism is LARGELY genetic, but that doesn't tell us anything about the condition.

If anyone can answer Greentea's question positively, pls provide a reference. Tks

I've found some information of it being on multiple chromosomes. Not sure where I recalled the 2, but the most recent I found was 2 genes on the 5th chromosome, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_a ... 88340.ece#
Tried the find the article in Nature, but don't have time, not going to be at work all day.

Thanks much for the link. Unfortunately once again, the study seems to be anything but conclusive:

"The DNA changes, which affect genes involved in early brain development, are together involved in up to 15 per cent of autism cases"

and

"These do not invariably cause the condition, but they are about 20 per cent more common in children with autism than they are in those who are unaffected."

See, to me that proves pretty clearly it's NOT genetic.

I also thought there was recent evidence that autistic people have a less developed mirror neuron system- (these are the so-called "empathy neurons", which also help with theory of mind). I read an interesting book about it, called "Mirroring People", by Marco Iacoboni. (After reading this book, I´m quite sure that my mirror neurons don´t work in the "typical" way, as much of it didn´t match with my personal experience). I´d like to read more about it in the future.

Sorry for any confusion if you didn't read the article. It is scientifically established that autism has a large inherited component. The study in question is attempting to identify specific affected genes, and has not done so, although I am sure that it advances knowledge. Even more interesting would be an understanding of specific neurological differences common to all autists.

Also remember that in the realm of the sciences, "proven" means "all the information we've found so far fits this theory." If information is found that doesn't fit, the scientist discards the theory and tries to come up with a new one that accounts for both the old and new info. (Einstein's Theory of Relativity came about because the orbit of Mercury didn't quite fit what Newtonian gravity said it should, for instance. The "new" theory fits all the data we've collected so far - unless someone finds evidence of a tardyon that manages to exceed lightspeed, in which case we'll need a new theory again...)

That's the chief difference between a science and a faith; if you find information that contradicts your faith, you can simply ignore it, or claim that it was made that way to "test" you. Science has to account for all the available data, not just the parts they like.

re: vaccines and autism

I read a book before I was ever aware of Jenny McCarthy and her stance on this. The way I understood it is in some children, a particular set of preconditions will, with the trigger of the MMR, manifest in a condition that mimics autism. I wish I could remember the name of it. I don't remember if this was related to mercury or not. I do know that they said restricting kids from even minute amounts of wheat or dairy would relieve the symptoms. But like I said, not true autism.

I don't know much about Jenny's theory except that people on a thread about her said something about, what was it, trimisol or something. Anyway, I've only heard theories about mercury and autism, and mercury in vaccinations (normal flu vaccines carry 25 mcgs I think).

Anyway, I say that because it seems like a theory that is getting popular for whatever reason, and I think we have as much science backing that up as we have anything else at this point. All I know is that mercury and aluminum are not good for the brain, autism is brain related, and mercury and aluminum are found in vaccines. I'm to a point where I don't buy it, but I won't discard it either.

The reason I won't discard it is that someone once told me that genetics don't cause it, but make it possible. Something else has to trigger the genetic input. I'm not sure how right that is, but viruses work that way (like why some people get sick and others do no). Like viruses aren't the illness, but it triggers the illness. Cancer supposedly works that way too. I don't know. It's just what I hear and how my brain thinks.

I think this is the video Morgana and I have watched (linked from a different thread on this forum) before...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3204/01.html

I also saw something on tv about imitation portions of the brain not operating the same for autism. They just had a video of something and asked people to imitate while hooked up to some machine... EEG? Whatever watches the brain and shows like a heat sensitive color (like red, yellow, and orange that military uses to find people) where there is brain activity. Anyway, the portion of the brain they said was located in the back of the head, and it had more activity with people who didn't have autism than people who did. I think it wasn't a group study as much as a few case studies (like a very small sample), and I think all their studies were of children.

Can you guys tell I suck at trivia because I seem to understand the process and get lost on the vocabulary words?

Oh, yeah, it's definitely multiple genes; more specifically, the combinations of multiple genes.

Autism spectrum disorders have a very high heritability, in the 90 percent range; you determine that by checking twins versus siblings versus half-siblings and doing some math. (Heritability: How much of any given case can be put down to genetics.) However, specific autism spectrum disorders have a lower heritability, around fifty or sixty percent; so that you'll find different sorts of autism in the same family. In general, if your identical twin has, specifically, Autistic Disorder and you don't, most likely you will have Asperger's or PDD-NOS instead. There are not very many sets of identical twins with one child on the spectrum and the other not; and in that very small set, the other twin tends to have some other diagnosis, such as ADHD, NVLD, sensory-integration disorder, etc.

So far we know that autism is genetic, and that its expression can be affected by the environment. What we don't know is exactly which environmental factors--though because of the macroscopic physical differences in the brain, those environmental factors most likely play their role during the early part of pregnancy. It may have to do with the way genes switch themselves and each other on and off, in response to the environment; it may have to do with the specific combinations of genes in any given person. Could just be that if you get enough of the right genes, you end up autistic.

Not that autism couldn't be "caused" by environment, if the right environmental factors can turn on the relevant genes; but if it is, then whatever it is that turns on those genes must be almost ubiquitous and practically impossible to avoid, because if you've got the genes, you almost always get autism too.

So why do some people in a family get it and some don't? I only remember dominant vs recessive genes (i.e. brown eyes vs blue eyes). Skin tone is that way too. Like my husband's Puerto Rican. He's very light compared to his family. Some of his cousins are so dark people don't realize they are hispanic, but his immediate family is more mid-tones. Like with my kids, my youngest/middle (I have a baby on the way, so she won't be the youngest for long) daughter takes a lot after the Indian side of my husband's family. She looks exactly like his mother when she was a baby. My oldest daughter takes after me, but she seems to have inherited my husband's fabulous immune system. I take a lot more after my father, and my sister like her mother, but I have autsim that I get from my mother's side, and my sister and mother do not have it, but my sister's oldest son does too.

Twins work that way too. Like they say it skips a generation or something. I don't know. Obviously most of my knowledge is not that scientific, but I wouldn't mind if you were able to spit out a genetics 101 for dummies right quick... based on the idea that you seem to have done quite a bit of research on the subject already.