Has anything at all been scientifically proven about AS?

Post Reply New Topic

Haven't you ever read Elaine Morgan? Go get a copy of The Descent Of Woman. We have subcutaneous fat instead of fur because at a crucial stage in our development, we were on our way to becoming something like a walrus.

Epidemic mange!

I have been trying to figure how the "Swamp Ape" fit in our line. Our closest relations have dog skin, loose and fur covered. Also all the fresh water mammmals have loose skin.
Only the marine mammals are like us.
So it seems there had to be a long period spent neck deep in salt water. As our limbs are not adapted to swimming, we retain more the features of a frog, can swim, but also can hop.

We differ little from the chimps, they also use tools, kill each other with sticks, use rocks to crack nuts.

Our differance, hairless, tight skin, fire.

The Swamp Ape has never been found, it was supposed to be a first ancestor from the time we split with chimps. It was proposed to fill the differance observed.

So once there was a troop of proto chimps living along the beach. It is a food rich area. Smelt spawning runs, turtle eggs, dead fish and seaweed. Chinese food.

The large cats also fed there, apes are cat food, so staying offshore neck deep was a good idea. It has it's problems, if you have ever tried having sex in salt water. Sex is a strong drive, but the cats are night hunters, which can ruin sex.

The answer was fire, which keeps the cats and the mosquitos away, steams oysters open, and is a good place to play beach blanket bingo. The party went on for many thousand years, colonies spread to all the good beachs, dancing around the fire gave birth to singing, keeping time with rocks and shells, like Southern California before WWII.

Somewhere far to the north an ice age came, the sea level dropped, there was less food, and finally the dropoff was reached, and a cliff stood between them and the water. The party ended, they had to go inland to seek food.

Seeing them, the chimps covered their children's eyes, and hurried away into the brush. They had changed, keeping their heads above water had lead to standing upright, and a way of dancing using the hips in a suggestive manner.

They were mostly hairless, living on fish and shell fish they developed smaller teeth, and came on land with a taste for a mostly meat diet. Chimp was good.

This happened five million years ago.

Blah, psychology is science.

It's looking at how objects interact with other objects and the environment. There's no grand difference to how a human interacts with another human than how a virus interacts with a human.

And science is psychology.

Because science is a construct of the human mind. No scientist is free from human psychology, ego, inhibitions, delusions, self-deceptions. Science can not be 'done' oustside of subjective human perceptions. As I heard a while ago, science does not produce a model of the universe. It creates a model of human beings modelling the universe.

Science is that which is true 100% of the time. Psychology gets as many hits as Astrology.

It has been show through fMRI that people with Asperger Syndrome process their emotions in different parts of the brain than NT´s.

Link to Autism Phenome Project:

http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/newsroom/r ... 0Facts.pdf

I was just thinking that, but you said it

If nothing at all has been scientifically proven, how do we know that it's neurological?

My autism is associated with brain and nervous system damage at birth due to severe aspyxiation. I may have also inherited it from my mother.

I got obsessed with the problems of mobile phone masts when someone wanted to put one up in a field behind my house. I quote your second statement because I would have thought it straightforward to prove whether there are or aren't health problems associated with the radiation from mobile phone masts. No such luck, though! Every study seems to contradict the other. About the best that could be said is that 99% of those funded by mobile phone related companies found no problems. For independant research, it was far less and this is where possible health problems are being found.

Eventually I gave up trying to figure out the truth. Every study seemed to have it's own viewpoint to prove. And this isn't just mobile phone technology though. Cancer increases mirror the increase of electromagnetic radiation in the environment, but a connection isn't allowed because we have so much invested in EMR technologies. Every human has a vested interest in their own particular interpretation of the truth. Maybe the original ideals of objective science have been corrupted by the businesses funding it.

From a politicians or businessmans point of view, we are not an appealing market. You can't get us to march in line. We don't waste our money on the fad-of-the-month every month.


I suppose every aspect of our behaviour is determined by something in our brains. Presumably, if somebody spends a couple of years learning something, say a foreign language, then surely there *must* be a neurological difference in their brain before- and after- they learnt that language. To me, the question is not so much whether it's neurological as to whether it's a neurological disorder or a difference.

I'm sure this has been linked to before, but it's funny (with a serious question lurking beneath), so here we go again: http://isnt.autistics.org/

The tipping point has been reached, I am doing my own Scientific Study. Unlike the others I will not start from the conclusion to be reached.

The whole idea of reaching a conclusion is doubful, the best we can do is patterns of data.

I see several problems with the field, first is the field, over the last fifty years we have produced many Degreed Scientific Researchers who's skills were limited to test taking, getting along with advisors, some sex trading, some blackmail, which has resulted in the over production of basically useless people who still think they should have a job.

Problem two is who funds research for what purpose. Scientific study shows a high correlation between funding and results. A study of the Benefits of Tetra Ethel Lead, funded by oil companies, would show an overall social improvment from curtailing excess intelligence, which makes for complacent and obedient workers. Those exposed have many less problems, and are highy unlikely to form a third political party.

The natural pruning of neural networks is enhanced by early exposure to TEL, and the condition of having an excess is called Autism. This Targeted Research Method can be used to prove anything, or at least slow down the lawsuits.

The major drug companies have just paid out $2,000,000,000 to settle claims that their drugs were pushed on shrinks for off label use, such as treating autism. They also admitted that the drugs do cause Diabeties, but they do have a profit center drug for treating the condition, for life.

They lost $2 Billion, but will make a lot more on follow up treatment. These are the drugs that are often mentioned here. As is, they bring in $10 billion a year on behavior control drugs designed for the 13 to 17 year old set. They fund a lot of studies about how their answer does have a problem.

One thing pointed out was weight gain, 20 pounds in the first twelve weeks, the study went no farther, but we can guess that people on these drugs will gain 75 pounds a year, which for the four years from 13 to 17 is 300 pounds. They will also become Diabetic. It does fit the rise of obese children, something that started when these drugs hit the market.

Anyhow, back to my study. I would be very suprised if it proved anything, I just like the patterns in things.

Science has a limited number of views, for some, anything called Scientific must be true, it works in marketing. Others who have lost faith in everything cling to it as the one truth in chaos. They seem the majority in the field who want their superior knowledge to be true for all time, they are not paid to keep up with change, and will do anything to keep their 1986 education from becoming obsolete. Retarding the advance of knowledge works for them.

As jobs are much less than the educated, most teach, universities claim to do research, and they try to limit entry into the field for job security will overcome anything else. Their track record is horrible, in measured results, Patents issued, they have most of the people, labs, funding, and none of the significant patents. This is most obvious in technology, where solo inventors in the garage with no education, self funded, do get the most interesting patents.

I am a doubter of science, I see the holes, I will study the problem.

paradigm shifts.
is science just a series of temporal subjectivities?

to date, depending on the age in which i may have been born....
i could have been "objectively" perceived as a mystic.
I could have been "objectively" perceived as a monastic,
I could have been "objectively" perceived as a witch.
I could have been "objectively" perceived as a genius.
I could have been 'objectively" perceived as a madwoman in need of permanent asylum containment.

this age? I am "objectively" perceived as an Asperger's or ASD woman who is a bit weird and strange and in need of 'treatment."

that's my two cents worth.
sorry if it offends anyone currently ensconced or submerged in the prevailing paradigm.