What if autism was contagious? What would you do?

Post Reply New Topic

Your anecdotal evidence is unconvincing. I don't believe there are "treatable medical causes" of autism because such causes have been searched for quite desperately and not found. If there were medical causes that could be treated, don't you think the pharmaceutical companies would be rushing to cash in on those opportunities? I've read the various theories about heavy metals, autoimmune issues, etc ad naseum, that supposedly cause autism. Most if not all of such research is bunk. It generally relies purely on anecdotes which are more easily explained by the placebo effect than by anything else. Mercury was removed from the vaccines, and the rate of autism does not appear to have diminished as a result. Some studies have found autistics to have lower levels of mercury than most people. Therefore, the mercury-poisoning argument is dead. Infectious disease? Perhaps, though I would doubt it. Infectious disease has sharply declined in recent times, yet many insist that the rates of autism are skyrocketing. If infectious disease of any kind resulted in autism, these would be two highly contradictory trends.
As far as your ideas of "treating" certain autistic "symptoms" ... which autistic traits do you want to get rid of? Problems such as sensory integration disorder (which I suffer from) are centered in the thalamus. If you could find a way to "cure" those issues, I would certainly be grateful. But what causes my thalamus to fail at processing sensory information? If the answer had to do with mercury, that would be well-known by now because researchers would have found unusual accumulations of heavy metals in that region of the brain. They haven't. If it were some type of infection, I would have to hear about the precise disease mechanism and how it is that it affects that portion of my brain. A more likely explanation lies in neuroanatomy... my thalamus simply isn't hooked up right, or there is some defect in the thalamus itself, that causes it to be less capable of processing complex sensory input.
I am also open-minded to hearing about different causes for autism, but I have heard one too many crackpot mercury-poisoning theories to be willing to accept similar ideas without some pretty solid evidence. And in any case, I view the "cause" of autism as irrelevant- I am autistic, you are autistic, we have a certain set of talents and deficits, now let's deal with our difficulties while playing to our strengths. Even by referring to its cause, we are severely pathologizing autism because you only look for a cause of something if you want to prevent it. Autism- or at the very least Asperger's- is a difference rather than a disorder, and that stance is shared by every major researcher- Attwood, Baron-Cohen, Asperger himself, Wing, etc. Even Kanner considered his patients to be intelligent and perhaps capable of significant contributions.

I'd hide in a giant bamboo shoot.

All the more reason to seperate the symptoms, so once and for all Autism can be proven to be genetic in origin - and morons like the mercury militia can be silenced once and for all.



My view - and the chromosome studies back this up in their early form - is that there is a genetic base. I agree with the environmental triggers, but I believe them to be much more widespread than simple factors that you are alluding to. The basis of the environmental factor are the six senses (the sixth being instinct). Hence the sensory sensitivity normally associated with ASD's. It could be as simple as a getting sunburnt, or hearing an unpleasant noise at the wrong moment. The possibilities are so wide it would be impossible to control.



If lacking the DPP-IV enzyme is common amongst ASD's then maybe. But it's not. That's my whole point - you are again talking about something that is seperate to Autism. Now whilst that may have a genetic basis as well, it doesn't mean it's the same thing.



No I do not, because DAN! rejects outright the genetic basis and claim that Autism is a disease than can be cured. Which is complete and utter garbage. Autism Speaks are better - except that they support eugenics once the genetic basis is found.

Great avoid the lynch mobs only to be accidentally eaten by a Giant Panda Bear!

i'd be annoyed at all the crappy Law and Order type episodes that would pop up "based on a true story" where AS people would be put on trial for knowingly infecting others.

I think you're right. What bothers me is that when there is a study on genetics and autism, some people comment that correlation = causation but when it comes to a study looking at autism and an environmental factor, the same people will say that correlation is meaningless.

For example, one study found that a chromosome 16 abnormality correlated with autism. The interpretation was that the abnormality causes autism. Another study found a correlation between mercury and autism, and it was written off as meaningless with a comment on the correlation does not equal causation fallacy.

I would devote my life to exposing as many people to my AS as quickly as possible.

If it can be proven, being the key words there. And what if the "mercury militia" is right, and the majority of cases stem from chemical imbalances created by large excesses of ethyl mercury in the person's system? What then would AS be? Sure, silence the mercury theory supporters once and for all; As soon as it's proven, that is.

The chromosome studies are not sufficient proof; It's way too early to draw conclusions from the results. No proper researcher will draw any conclusions; The study is simply being sensationalized by the media. At the end of the day, it's four out of over seven hundred people, not even a full 1%. With numbers that low being a cause, then it would seem that only those four have Autism. Studies are easily twisted to mean whatever someone wants them to mean, which is why it's up to the science, not the average aspie, to determine what it means. And I believe I've asked this before, but are you an accredited scientist, with all their specialized training, complete education, and University degree? I think that answer is a no.

Well, tell me TLPG; What if you're not one of the ones who have AS because of genes? What's your opinion if you'd no longer have AS, but another diagnosis?

Zendell: Good point, there. Why the discrepancy? If they use something to prove their views, yet turn around on the same concept to dismiss the views of someone else, isn't that hypocritical? I for one think it's why other people, like parents of autistic children who want Autism cured, seem to have chips on their shoulders. I know of one who's got a huge chip on his shoulder.

No. It's more profitable to treat the symptoms. Risperdal was recently approved by the FDA to "treat" autism. I read that Zyprexia, another anti-psychotic, it next. Many with ASDs take anti-depressants to cope with loneliness and anti-anxiety meds to deal with other problems related to autism. Treating the causes would get rid of these profitable long-term treatments.


You are convinced autism is genetic. I don't think anything will change your mind.


The one study that found lower levels of mercury in autistics also found that the autistics were exposed to higher levels of mercury. This indicates an inability to get rid of mercury. There's evidence autistics have a reduced ability (which may be genetic) to get rid of heavy metals. . As a result, mercury, lead, and aluminum can build up and have synergistic effects. Further research is needed before mercury can be ruled out.


Acute infectious disease has declined. However, chronic health problems have skyrocketed along with autism. Research is finding that chronic infections may be the cause of these rapidly increasing chronic diseases. One theory is that vaccines shift the immune system to Th2 which reduces the ability to fight infections and increases autoimmune problems. One study found these chronic autoimmune conditions are more common in mothers' of autistics and they are associated with the same genes as autism. Research is finding links between CFS/FM and autism. Both are unexplained, occur in the same families, and are increasing. My dad has CFS. My aunt has FM. They developed sensory integration problems and multiple chemical sensitivities as a result of it. Both of these problems are quite common in CFS and autism. I have both autism and CFS.


I believe in treating the autistic symptoms that also occur in NTs. I don't think AS people should be forced to suffer from the same symptoms that NTs are successfully treating.

Sensory integration disorder isn't unique to autism. I think about 50% with CFS/FM developed it as adults (with symptoms of hypersensitivity to light, sound, touch). I can't tell you that mega-doses of vitamin B6, magnesium, and zinc are able to treat it because there aren't any good studies on it and I know you don't believe in anecdotes.



I can't agree because biomedical treatments are far more effective for me than anything else I could have done. That's why I think everyone needs to know about them. There are thousands of anecdotes of people recovering from autism and CFS by removing dental amalgams and doing chelation. I doubt you could ever convince them their symptoms were genetic and untreatable and that the chelation which resulted in a full recovery was just a placebo effect.

zendell wrote:

So? There are thousands... if not TENS of thousands of anecdotes of people who go to a faith healer and walk, or talk or have their cancer cured..... If that's all the proof you need, go ahead. I went to a real doctor in a real hospital with a real staff and REAL goddamned drugs to be treated for cancer... not some guy in a bad polyester suit with a toupee that looks like a dead squirrel.

To each his own.

Anecdotes prove one thing. People talk. Actually, one thing you can be guaranteed of, people spout total BS, ME INCLUDED (beat you to it!! ! ). Sometimes intentionally, sometimes NOT. So what. Next time they find a tumor in me I'm STILL not going to go see Billy Bob Bullshizzartist I don't care HOW many damned TV cameras he has in his church...

If you rediagnose every non-genetic cause of ASD symptoms, then autism will be, by definition, genetic. I agree with you that people with AS due to a normal genetic variation should be accepted. I believe that easily treatable non-genetic causes of symptoms should be treated which you seem to agree with since you don't consider them autistic.



You may see it as separate from autism. However, research has shown that is affects about 80% of people diagnosed with ASDs. It's impossible to differentiate the 80% who have problems with the enzyme from the 20% who don't have this problem. Odds are, it affects you TLPG so maybe you're not really AS after all. Also, it doesn't explain all the symptoms. I think only less than 10% who go on the diet recover enough to be officially undiagnosed of autism.



DAN! believes that some of the causes are genetic. DAN! is focusing on treating the non-genetic causes of symptoms of people diagnosed with ASDs. That shouldn't be a problem because according to you they're not autistic.

DAN! and genetics paper - http://www.autism.com/ari/editorials/ed_genetics.htm

Here's what DAN! think about causes:

If that's true that these people were cured, then it should convince you to believe in God. However, there is a big difference between anecdotes from people who were probably paid by the faith healer to make up bogus stories about being cured versus anecdotes from people who don't have a motive to lie. I don't believe anecdotes that are part of advertisements because I think they're fake. I don't believe the Benny Hinn testimonials either. However, when hundreds of people write letters to the FDA begging them to evaluate and ban amalgams after removing them cured an incurable disease they suffered from then I think they're important. Especially since there is scientific research behind it. I won't try to convince you. You'll have to wait until an organization you trust (such as NIH, FDA, CDC, etc) warns you decades from now if they ever warn you at all.

I said they had "anecdotes" that they'd been cured.... perhaps I need to be blunt. THEY LIED.

I understood. That's why I said they were probably paid by the faith healer to make up bogus stories. I hope you are able to see the difference between lying and honest personal experiences of treatments that worked.

zendell wrote:

ROFLMFAO

I just have the feeling you actually wrote that and MEANT it.... I shouldn't be surprised... look who got elected in my country....

People LIE... as easily as breathing. NT's do it ALL the time. Even some Aspie's.

Go date for awhile.... you'll learn.... lmfao

makes you think...

maybe spread it around