17 Jan 2008, 4:24 pm
17 Jan 2008, 4:31 pm
Liverbird
Supporting Member
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,119
Location: My heart belongs to Anfield
17 Jan 2008, 10:28 pm
Brittany2907
The ultimate storm is eternally on it's
Joined: 9 Jun 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,718
Location: New Zealand
17 Jan 2008, 11:20 pm
What would I do?...Well, it depends on what way it was contagious. Would it be strictly contagious through body-to-body contact with another person...or airbourne as well?
If it were contagious only through touching another person, I would hug my grandmother 
...and many others.
If it were airbourne...well I wouldn't have to do anything to get it to spread, it would do that all on it's own.
Obviously, I wouldn't want everyone in the world to be autistic...I mean, there NEEDS to be diversity.
18 Jan 2008, 3:58 am
Liverbird wrote:
I would bottle it and create a catchy jingle for it.
Use your imagination and the slinky song. If you need help here's a link that will bring up a pop box with the original tune and words....
Slinky
"What makes you stim all crazy and fast
and makes an echolalic sound?
A spectrum, a spectrum,
a disorder on the spectrum.
Everyone knows it's Autism.
It's autism, it's autism,
For fun it's wonderful to stim.
It's fun for a girl and a boy."
Then everyone would want it because it comes in a cool bottle and has a cool song.
Use your imagination and the slinky song. If you need help here's a link that will bring up a pop box with the original tune and words....
Slinky
"What makes you stim all crazy and fast
and makes an echolalic sound?
A spectrum, a spectrum,
a disorder on the spectrum.
Everyone knows it's Autism.
It's autism, it's autism,
For fun it's wonderful to stim.
It's fun for a girl and a boy."
Then everyone would want it because it comes in a cool bottle and has a cool song.
Lol, omgosh i actually sang that song like slinky and it works haha, niccce job, you can be the next weird al lol!
_________________
Being Normal Is Vastly Overrated
18 Jan 2008, 6:04 am
zendell wrote:
TLPG wrote:
zendell wrote:
What do you mean that's not autism??? The children were diagnosed with autism because they fulfilled the criteria for it. Then, several years later they were tested and it was found that Mycoplasma fermentans was the likely cause.
Therefore, they were never Autistic and the DX should have been changed. If it wasn't then someone wasn't doing their job. The instant another condition is found, that takes priority and the fulfillment of Spectrum criteria is usurped.
I suppose an elderly person with dementia is on the Spectrum? Well? The traits would be fulfilled! Remember, Autism was first known as youth dementia!
Honestly!
If "The instant another condition is found, that takes priority and the fulfillment of Spectrum criteria is usurped," then none of us would be considered autistic after all the causes are found.
Not if the "cause" is genetic in origin!
I should say; WHEN
18 Jan 2008, 6:06 am
18 Jan 2008, 7:36 am
aspergers contageous what would we do??
we would all be smart
who could dig the holes??
ha lol... hmm....
everyone would be rite...
I would spread it eh 
mwahaha lol
18 Jan 2008, 8:05 am
18 Jan 2008, 12:44 pm
TLPG wrote:
zendell wrote:
TLPG wrote:
zendell wrote:
What do you mean that's not autism??? The children were diagnosed with autism because they fulfilled the criteria for it. Then, several years later they were tested and it was found that Mycoplasma fermentans was the likely cause.
Therefore, they were never Autistic and the DX should have been changed. If it wasn't then someone wasn't doing their job. The instant another condition is found, that takes priority and the fulfillment of Spectrum criteria is usurped.
I suppose an elderly person with dementia is on the Spectrum? Well? The traits would be fulfilled! Remember, Autism was first known as youth dementia!
Honestly!
If "The instant another condition is found, that takes priority and the fulfillment of Spectrum criteria is usurped," then none of us would be considered autistic after all the causes are found.
Not if the "cause" is genetic in origin!
I should say; WHEN
Let me see if I understand. You have AS. If the cause of you being AS was found to be something non-genetic then it means you were misdiagnosed and don't have AS but something else instead. If the cause of you being AS was found to be genetic, then you would still keep the AS diagnosis. Did I get that right?
What I don't understand is why you would view genetic and non-genetic causes differently. For example, if it was proven that two causes of AS were mercury and chromosome 16 abnormality, then why would the diagnosis be changed with only one of the causes? Why not change both diagnoses to mercury poisoning and chromosome 16 abnormality.
I'm not trying to argue or convince you that the cause isn't genetic. I just want to understand why you feel genetic and non-genetic causes should be treated differently.
18 Jan 2008, 3:35 pm
18 Jan 2008, 3:59 pm
zendell wrote:
TLPG wrote:
zendell wrote:
TLPG wrote:
zendell wrote:
What do you mean that's not autism??? The children were diagnosed with autism because they fulfilled the criteria for it. Then, several years later they were tested and it was found that Mycoplasma fermentans was the likely cause.
Therefore, they were never Autistic and the DX should have been changed. If it wasn't then someone wasn't doing their job. The instant another condition is found, that takes priority and the fulfillment of Spectrum criteria is usurped.
I suppose an elderly person with dementia is on the Spectrum? Well? The traits would be fulfilled! Remember, Autism was first known as youth dementia!
Honestly!
If "The instant another condition is found, that takes priority and the fulfillment of Spectrum criteria is usurped," then none of us would be considered autistic after all the causes are found.
Not if the "cause" is genetic in origin!
I should say; WHEN
Let me see if I understand. You have AS. If the cause of you being AS was found to be something non-genetic then it means you were misdiagnosed and don't have AS but something else instead. If the cause of you being AS was found to be genetic, then you would still keep the AS diagnosis. Did I get that right?
Yes you did.
zendell wrote:
What I don't understand is why you would view genetic and non-genetic causes differently. For example, if it was proven that two causes of AS were mercury and chromosome 16 abnormality, then why would the diagnosis be changed with only one of the causes? Why not change both diagnoses to mercury poisoning and chromosome 16 abnormality.
Because you have to consider what the effect is of chromosome 16 by itself. If we are talking mercury poisoning, that's what we call it. It's already called that, and NOT AS (or any other Spectrum disorder). And "chromosome 16 abnormality" would only be known as AS if there were no other factors involved. But somehow I think - at present - that the answer may lie in a combination of C16 and C7. At least that's the way I read the studies on both. It does after all have a long way to go.
zendell wrote:
I'm not trying to argue or convince you that the cause isn't genetic. I just want to understand why you feel genetic and non-genetic causes should be treated differently.
Put it this way. A non genetic cause would contribute to brain damage. A genetic cause would contribute to brain difference. No sign of damage as such. When we understand the brain better we'll see the difference. Sort of like the difference between (for a white person), dark skin that is unblemished (genetic) and white skin that is cut up (non genetic). Perhaps not the best analogy - but that's the best I can come up with off the top of my head.
18 Jan 2008, 4:28 pm
I'd start to spread it cheerfully as long as it wouldn't be sexually transmitted. I'd like to infect some VERY NT people I know so as to check - as an experiment - what changes in their behaviour would be observed then 
19 Jan 2008, 6:50 am
BABIES are sexually transmitted! 
19 Jan 2008, 7:52 am
TLPG wrote:
zendell wrote:
TLPG wrote:
zendell wrote:
TLPG wrote:
zendell wrote:
What do you mean that's not autism??? The children were diagnosed with autism because they fulfilled the criteria for it. Then, several years later they were tested and it was found that Mycoplasma fermentans was the likely cause.
Therefore, they were never Autistic and the DX should have been changed. If it wasn't then someone wasn't doing their job. The instant another condition is found, that takes priority and the fulfillment of Spectrum criteria is usurped.
I suppose an elderly person with dementia is on the Spectrum? Well? The traits would be fulfilled! Remember, Autism was first known as youth dementia!
Honestly!
If "The instant another condition is found, that takes priority and the fulfillment of Spectrum criteria is usurped," then none of us would be considered autistic after all the causes are found.
Not if the "cause" is genetic in origin!
I should say; WHEN
Let me see if I understand. You have AS. If the cause of you being AS was found to be something non-genetic then it means you were misdiagnosed and don't have AS but something else instead. If the cause of you being AS was found to be genetic, then you would still keep the AS diagnosis. Did I get that right?
Yes you did.
zendell wrote:
What I don't understand is why you would view genetic and non-genetic causes differently. For example, if it was proven that two causes of AS were mercury and chromosome 16 abnormality, then why would the diagnosis be changed with only one of the causes? Why not change both diagnoses to mercury poisoning and chromosome 16 abnormality.
Because you have to consider what the effect is of chromosome 16 by itself. If we are talking mercury poisoning, that's what we call it. It's already called that, and NOT AS (or any other Spectrum disorder). And "chromosome 16 abnormality" would only be known as AS if there were no other factors involved. But somehow I think - at present - that the answer may lie in a combination of C16 and C7. At least that's the way I read the studies on both. It does after all have a long way to go.
zendell wrote:
I'm not trying to argue or convince you that the cause isn't genetic. I just want to understand why you feel genetic and non-genetic causes should be treated differently.
Put it this way. A non genetic cause would contribute to brain damage. A genetic cause would contribute to brain difference. No sign of damage as such. When we understand the brain better we'll see the difference. Sort of like the difference between (for a white person), dark skin that is unblemished (genetic) and white skin that is cut up (non genetic). Perhaps not the best analogy - but that's the best I can come up with off the top of my head.
Pretty simplistic outlook. Not very open-minded. I think Zendell is a little more happier than you with probing the what-ifs. Hell it "may" be genetic it may not. We don't know.
19 Jan 2008, 8:17 am
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Did your Autism get better with age? |
06 Jun 2025, 2:11 pm |
| Having Autism |
26 Apr 2025, 6:00 am |
| Autism or selflessness |
02 Jun 2025, 9:58 am |
| Can autism be diagnosed at any age? |
15 May 2025, 10:33 am |
