Interview with Peter Bell of Autism Speaks

Post Reply New Topic

What age? Last I knew, killing babies was only legal if they are unborn babies. There are no autistic unborn babies. Unborn babies cannot be autistic. Read the diagnostic criteria. It cannot apply to unborn babies.

You are the one claiming things to be true. Burden of proof is on you.

I'm saying, there is no evidence of the claims you are making. And, yes, although you haven't bothered to post evidence, I've seen some of the supposed evidence for these kind of statements. It doesn't back them up.

Since one can't prove a negative, I can't prove I'm right. But I can assert that the evidence for what you claim just isn't there. There's no evidence of anyone trying to legalize infanticide. If that's what you are claiming, where's the evidence? If by "autistic babies" you mean unborn babies, then, well, though I'm no psychiatrist, I can read and understand the diagnostic criteria to know there are no autistic unborn babies.

I think scare tactics -- saying things that sound scary, but come from a twisting of the facts -- hurt rather than help the cause of helping autistic people, adults and children. Thus I choose to call you on your twisted statements.

Yeah, the real truth isn't quite as dramatic. But you'll get more people to listen if you stick to it.

You say this like its a bad thing.



Yeah I have two kids. My baby just turned 10. She is gorgeous. She is not Autistic. No more nappies and so for me though. Happy with these two. Very happy. They are great kids and love their Dad.


Anyhow let's see what Mysty is saying now. Something about "unborn not being Autistic".....ugh.



OK Mysty let's ....rather than trying to make a point through semantics, (Yes that is exactly what you are doing when you are trying to say that unborn children can not be Autistic and has exactly the same merit as Schrödinger's Cat) let's try to make serious counters to the opposing point of view if in fact you disagree with it.

There has to be a point where it is actually NOT needing the burden of proof, before anything is done. Is this not an incredible concept and we do not actually need to prove anything nor is the not having proof a bad thing, nor us "twisting facts. Confused? I thought you may be so I will give you an analogy to help express my point.

You have in on good authority as a delivery store clerk that a group of people that live just out of town have been having delivered to their home the following.

Various sized beakers and tongs
fuming red nitric acid, of 98% pure concentration.
fuming sulfuric acid (99% h2so4)
Bicarbonated Soda
Pyrodex
Commercial grade fertisiler
Ball bearings
A clock
Batteries

Now the burden of proof is on YOU? No not at all.
OK it is pretty bloody obvious that this is bomb making material. What if they already had couple of the ingredients or got it from elsewhere? What if all of what you had, was well grounded suspicion? Making the "responsible" decision to use your information to inform authorities of a suspicion that they are using the materials for bad ends, needs not actual proof. In fact waiting for undenial proof is considered bad form and outright irresponsible.

In context though what wrong has actually occurred from the group of possible bomb-makers though? Why in this instance is the believe of threat a reasonable suspicion and not in this instance?

I am sorry but what you are asking for not only ought not be entertained but ought not be taken the least bit seriously. This is a serious discussion and coming in and calling well made points BS, arguing semantics and demanding proof where it is not necessary is quite bizarre.

I am not saying you ought to not join in. I kinda think though that these types of counters are not really putting across your points of view very strongly.

As to the scare tactics. Not at all. As DW (who's point you seem to support) says "Not saying that your fears are unfounded". Dead right they are not. If it were merely scare tactics. For what effect? For what benefit? What personal satisfaction? What twisting of facts are YOU referring to?

Again I ask you to revisit what I, Magneto and you in fact have said and see what you may or may not be saying.

If autism is genetic, the unborn baby can have the genes without having developed the behaviour yet.
Like you wouldn't call a baby mute, because it can't talk yet, or you won't call it lame, because it doesn't walk yet.
I think the people who want to make abortion of autistic unborn babies possible, try to look for the autistic gene.

Exactly.
Well this is highly embarrassing you said what I was trying to say with approximately a bazillion less words

But it's not genetic. Yes, genetics are a factor. Adults, and children (non babies) can have the genes without having autism. It's not as simple as an autistic gene, or even "this set of genes means you will have autism". There's no basis in the present for saying someone is autistic based only on their DNA, and there's good reason to think there never will be. Only that the genes mean a high risk for autism. It's realistic to be concerned about people aborting babies with a autism-associated genetic profile. But say that, rather than the exaggerated B.S.

I don't think it's only genetic either. Therefore I wrote "if" it is, and that "I think" they are looking for a gene (just according to what I have heard). It wasn't meant to be exaggerated.

It occurs to me... different people have different background knowledge and assumptions, and these conversations can be very iffy, confusing, if those aren't worked out.

Could be. Of course that is not the case in this instance as contained in this thread is all assumptions on a platter.

Furthermore we KNOW there is a genetic link. This is known and I don't think you would deny this. Is there any known environmental cause? Any? There isn't is there?
There is genetic and we both agree on this huh?

So it is not saying that it is any leap of faith to take the logical conclusion to believe that it is in fact HIGHLY likely that the evidence of particular sets of genes or so will give rise to the assumption that a person will be born with Autism and as i mentioned they may well throw the baby out with the bathwater in determining this. I mention that I did not think that they would get it down to a fine art before just letting the expectant parent know that according to their test that the yet unborn baby would likely have Autism

So you are not saying my assertions or Magneto's are wrong. You are not saying that the existence of known genetic coding and enzymes currently being analysed and recorded in the Autism Speak Genetic Tissue banks are not infact being used to further find out when a child is Autistic for ages under two...hell Dr Geraldine Dawson has admitted that.

You said "It's realistic to be concerned about people aborting babies with a autism-associated genetic profile." Sure is.

What exactly you are disagreeing with but it is a fairly concrete and definitive statement again and again that what I am saying is BS so...as it is so concrete, show me concrete grounds that you are right? Should be easy.

Nevermind.

For the record, and I don't have the greatest memory in the world, it is my understanding the leading theories say it IS genetic, some combination of perhaps 26 genes, and that the environmental factors are more like an enhancing effect, or a severity effect, although some theories put them as triggers. I wonder if the difference in understanding here comes from what "genetic" means, as 1 or 2 marker genes v. a combination of multiple genes - I've always understood it to be the later, and that makes much more sense based on what we do know from anecdotes.

Based on my family history and that of most of the parents posting here, the genetic component, assuming a combination of multiple genes, is pretty clear. In my conversations with school officials and other professionals, it is generally understood that the genetic component is likely very strong, as they all know how common it is to diagnose a child and have the parent realize they, too, are on the spectrum.

I do think there is an environmental component, but more as an effect on severity and co-morbids than a trigger. But that part is what no one knows for sure yet, it is just a theory. But ... to me, the anecdotal evidence falls on my side of that view.

So ... it sounds to me, Mysty, like you're not convinced the genetics mean anything without an environmental trigger? I guess I don't agree that the evidence points that way.

And it does make a difference as to how we view the idea of a pre-natal test.

My daughter, probably NT, is 9.

And we're too old to have anymore.

Is that "Nevermind" as in "I can call what you say BS but if put on the spot can't show how it is?" Sounds it. But OK I won't mind.

I am 39. Not too old. Hell I know a lot of guys my age and older...but I have been through it twice and that was a loooonnggg time ago. I am passed wanting to have more children. I will revel in what I have.

No, it's nevermind as in, it's pointless to have a discussion with you. You agree with my statement about assumptions and background knowledge, wrongly claim that's not the case here, and then go on to post stuff that's based on lots of assumptions, and I include in that, understanding of background knowledge.

OK so as I say making a clear point ought not be hard for you.
So semantics aside, what have you got to show my assertions and fears as unfounded.
As I say it would be awesome if you were to prove me wrong in my looking at the big picture and you have calling it BS so there must be something kind of big here...bigger than semantics. I am ready for it. Braced. Let me have it. I may sleep better for it

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it's not genetics alone. That based on what I know about genetics, as well as what I've read about autism and genetics. Everything I've read connecting autism and genes, the data suggests that there is not a simple connection where having certain genes, that alone, causes autism, but rather, genetics are one factor, that interacts with other factors. Which is generally how genetics works. It's the case with intelligence, height, and many other things. It's not genetics with an environmental trigger. It's genetics and environment interrelating in a complex pattern.

But, see, you all aren't going to get what I'm saying from my short little post. My little summary isn't enough to explain my viewpoint, which comes from a lot more reading than a few paragraphs.