Trying to find a cure is idiotic

Post Reply New Topic

All Autism Spectrum disorders are currently defined as neurological disorders. If one is diagnosed with an Autism Spectrum Disorder, technically they have a neurological disorder.

The technical point on disorder is not even in question, as every diagnostic classification has determined that all diagnosed forms of Autism are neurological disorders. While all Autism Spectrum Disorders are defined as inherent limits of brain function, per US code, that in virtually all cases meet the definition of disability, there was some ambiguity as to whether or not Aspergers Syndrome was included in the legal definition of Autism, in US code.

The ASAN Self-Advocacy organization took the time and effort to directly ask this question to the EEOC, the government agency that enforces the ADA, American's with Disabilities act, and the EEOC clarified that Aspergers and all other Autism Spectrum Disorders fit under the umbrella of the legal term Autism in US code. If one does not live in the US, this not an applicable point.

Whether or not one considers themselves disabled, or disordered on a personal basis is by personal choice. As a person can choose to disagree with a diagnosis, or the whole process of classification associated with it. But, never the less, per medical classification, when one is professionally diagnosed with an ASD, they are technically diagnosed with a disorder, and in the case of Autism Spectrum Disorders, in virtually every case, per US Code, individuals diagnosed with ASD's, can be legally assessed as having a legal disability, meeting the definition of disability per ADA requirements.

I don't think anyone here is arguing against how anyone should view themself, or that anyone should be cured against their will, if such a cure is made available in the future. However, these views should not be projected onto everyone else on the spectrum, as each case/person is unique, with their own separate viewpoints, symptoms, needs, and wants.

But, there is no ambiguity in the DSM5 definition of Autism Spectrum Disorder, that Autism Spectrum Disorder is a serious debilitating condition, as to meet the criteria there must be clinical evidence that the symptoms work together to significantly impair and limit one in everyday life functioning. There is no rule in there though, that restricts how an individual personally views themselves as having a disorder or a disability, even if by medical classification, and by law they are classified as such.

On a personal level I would rather someone refer to me as having a disorder rather than a misfit, because of the pejorative use of the word misfit I perceive, but per my perspective I have lived most of my life trying to fit in well enough to survive, hoping others would allow me to continue to be part of the much larger game of life. But that's not enough, because one also has to be perceived as different enough in a positive manner to succeed in the competition of life. It is a harsh reality, but as far as I can see that is how life works, and I don't see that changing, outside of what is required by the law, as people play by the rules that are determined by the majority, not the individual.

The only thing that protects individuals on the spectrum in the US is the ADA; laws applicable to social welfare, family, and individual effort. Beyond that one is looking at the personal morals of how each individual determines they are going to treat others. Much of it is fostered by the culture, and US culture is moving further and further toward me instead of we.

The advocacy organizations that are working toward inclusive efforts of employment for those on the spectrum, may make the difference eventually for whom can find success in gaining subsistence in life. And that is part of the overall "cure" ideology of some of these advocacy organizations. Stem cell treatment per my last post, even if successful would only likely impact a small percentage of individuals on the spectrum. There are many more needs that are being considered and addressed in these advocacy organizations that also support "a cure" for autism.

People on the spectrum are going to need all the help they can receive in the future, from government and private organizations seeking to address the needs of individuals across the spectrum.

There is no physical cure for that which is purely psychological; only reprogramming.

There is no scientific evidence that psychology exists without biological/physical determinants, whether of inherent nature, or adaptation to the environment. In other words, beyond our imagination, and inclusive of our imagination, currently per the evidence that exists, there is no software only hardware.

A current suggested potential treatment which is actually a potential prevention suggested by the Intense World Theory of Autism, by the Markram's as interviewed here on this site, is for a young child screened for autism to be limited to exposure of TV, computers, and surprises to avoid the potential of sensory integration difficulties. This theory, in part, came from the cure model of Autism, as the original research with mice, was in part funded by the NAAR organization that merged with Autism Speaks.

Avoiding potential debilitating symptoms in some sub-groups of autism, through preventative measures, that may come to be better understood as a result of research, is as good as cure, for the potential effect in a person's life, in avoiding the debilitating symptoms.

The phrase "a cure" in neurological disorders/disease, is extremely complex in nature, and potentially different in both scope and specificity, in what one might find, depending on the neurological disorder/disease in question, and/or the specific form of the neurological disorder/disease.

Can you prove 1. that we have free will
Free will is a persistent illusion, it doesn't excist you know.
It does not excist because people keep repeating it.

Okay: I make a cure for neurotypicals, with let say IQ under 140. And when they take the "cure" (which is just a ridiculous idea of low minded people) they could have an IQ of over 140!! ! Common everyone take it!! ! (of course people will take it if they believe they'll be more intelligent, but do you know what? intelligence is just a cultural thing what could change everytime, and if you didn't act like a fool who think intelligence is a real measurable thing or autism is a real measurable thing you could maybe conclude that the statements you're making are just stupud.)
(small detail: 1. IQ is cultural 2. "Disorder" is cultural)

This thread seems to be going downhill fast. Or is it just me?

Hmm, I am actually quite outspokenly anti-cure, yet I find myself agreeing more with The SunAlsoRises than with paxfilosoof.
I wonder why that is...

Oh right.


Ah.


Uh-huh.

And then, there's this:

vs. this:


Like I said, I'm not wild about the whole 'cure' idea. Both SunAlsoRises and aghogday have made very enlightening posts about the misconceptions surrounding the research into a 'cure' for autistic disorders, though. Re-read those posts, and much of what you're saying in your latest post is rendered moot. Since we're far beyond the discussion on whether disorders are a cultural construct or not.

Culture is not possible without communication, and language is an integral part of communication. Language/written language are human constructs derived from the process of abstraction, and shared as collective intelligence.

The term abstraction is a human construct of abstraction as well as the terms/phrase IQ, Disorder, and Free Will.

All human concepts are limited by the human construct of abstraction. Free will starts and ends as an abstract concept in the mind of human beings; it is an abstraction that as defined exists within the parameters of human experience and the decision making process that is understood through research to be based mostly on emotion/feelings. Free will/choice is as real as perceived experience and emotions; the abstractions of language/written communication make what is described as the abstract concept, free will, more complex than what might be described as an abstract concept of free will for a primate without complex language/written communication.

Much of what we understand as the abstraction of language is figurative in expression, and does not lend itself to literal interpretation, for intended communication. That's not surprising considering that research suggests most of our decisions are based on emotion first, then the abstraction described as logic, that work together and comprise the abstract concept of free will.

The human construct, free will, is not like the constructs of the sun or the moon which are more concretely defined through the process of abstraction, and free will varies among human beings depending on their experience, capacity for emotion/feelings, as well what is described as the abstract concept of logic.

But ironically individuals that lose their ability to experience emotion, through physical injury or illness associated with centers of the brain that control emotion, are studied as not being able to make decisions as simple as what color socks to wear. So, it appears that free will may be limited more by one's lack of ability to experience emotion, than the abstraction that is described as logic.

So it could be that those that doubt free will, with reduced ability to experience and understand emotion, experience less of what is described as the abstract concept of free will.

And if so, at some point, depending on the unique human experience and stresses of culture, healthy well adjusted primates may experience more free will than some human beings, but without the complex abstraction of human language/written communication to describe that experience.

That is an example of the power of the human construct of abstraction, for human speculation, that is at the base of modern science, in the development of the hypothesis. All abstract concepts that lead to what is understood as more concrete observations of the human experience.

A cure as a goal in science, based on abstract concepts/hypotheses like the stem cell research that is being conducted with individuals diagnosed with ASD's is as valid as any scientific hypothesis that can be tested through the process of the scientific method.

One can suggest the process of science is ridiculous, including hypotheses associated with a cure for autism, if one doesn't agree with the science, but the results of science can make a positive difference, in people's lives. Some people are more skeptical of science than others, in fact some people still don't believe humans have stepped foot on the moon. But, those that have a good handle on understanding the power of human emotion, have a common sense that tells them that there were too many people involved to keep any potential of a conspiracy like that silent. Others needed proof to alleviate perceived doubts, and were provided that.

It is part of the issue here as over 1800 research scientists from 40 countries would not likely be collaborating and working toward the general goal of a potential cure for autism, if they reasonably believed there was a 0% probability that the symptoms could not be prevented, treated or resolved to reduce significant impairments in at least some cases among those affected with what is defined as ASD's, potentially leading to some who no longer are observed as having a disorder, moving them in the realm of what is described as the broader autism phenotype, in a descriptive category that a significant number of the research scientists may be part of.

There are hypotheses being tested now for the potential of a cure for some subgroups of autism, specifically the stem cell research. The search for a cure for autism, is a serious pursuit. Highly unlikely that 1800 people would be involved in research and collaborating together if it was reasonably considered a waste of time or effort.

Free will remains as an abstract concept, that is not concrete in nature as it is a subjective human experience and process that differs between individuals. The evidence that exists suggests that the experience of what is described as free will is not the same for everyone.

A cure, for some cases of ASD's could be measured through the scientific method, if achieved, as ASD's are human constructs designed, described, and defined to be measured through observable criteria.

The personal subjective experience of what an individual describes as Autism, cannot be concretely measured as constant across the spectrum.

Free will could be empirically measured if it was a human construct of observable criteria for behavior, like the diagnostic criteria for ASD's. Who knows, if one develops a criteria for the human construct/abstraction of free will an observed lack of free will, might be cured as well, through the scientific method. There are already some hypotheses of what the causal factors are behind it.

I understand what you're saying. Do you agree when such a thing would excist?(measurement of free will) just curious

Unfortunately there has been research and efforts at cures that have tainted the overall research effort toward this "goal of a cure".

I'm not so sure that some would be as displeased if they actually perused the details of some of the research with real potential benefits to those on the spectrum.

The semantics issue over the "goal of a cure", is a divisive issue among individuals voicing an opinion on the internet, in the Autism Community. However, eradicating the word cure out of the marketing aspect of autism research, which has been an opinion voiced strongly for close to a decade now, is not going to change the direction or content of the research that is being done.

I think it would be nice if all the organizations could quit using the word, to attempt to please the voices of dissent, but considering free speech, a definitive cure for autism, might be a more likely scenario.

I've heard they have developed a vaccine, that if you give to black kids, they turn white!

Ask your doctor if this vaccine is right for you!

Last edited by Surfman on 27 Aug 2012, 7:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

I understand that the Autistic and Neurotypical spectrums are not perfect. However, the thing that confuses me here is that I presumed that there would be advantages and disadvantages on both sides. Has there been any research done on comparing neural configurations?

Neurotypicals like fried chicken and basketball, while aspies like libraries and computers

I maintain my idea. I'd love not to have asd. If they reach a cure or whatever, I'm all for it.

For those of you proud of being aspergers, aspies, autistic... More power to you, I truly wish you well. It's just I don't share your enthusiasm.

I say yes to any research related to treating symptoms or reaching cures to the causes of autism.

Be well.

"Cure" and "awareness" have become the tag words du jour, but I think the key word is metaphor here. If the "cure" ventures into the realm of eugenics then people would be right to be up in arms. If we could replace that very emotionally laden word with support or benefit, I think we would see a lot less division here.

Well, isn't that odd? TheSunAlsoRises continues to defend his argument while providing no response to my own!

Come and take me on, TheSunAlsoRises. Or reveal your opinion as categorically wrong!

Autism Speaks is under pressure not to use the word "cure" by a few of their supporters, in recognition that they understand that some people in the Autism Community view the term offensively, on a very personal level. The new President of Autism Speaks, appears open to the potential of re-framing the goal of research away from the word cure if another option can be agreed upon that is going to please the self-advocacy groups that have been asking for this change.

But, while we may see the larger advocacy organizations, do this to avoid personal offense to those in the autism community voicing this dissent, it is unlikely that highly visible news organizations like ABC news, Fox News, etc. are going to make this change as the word "cure" still is a common word of hope among the masses, that gains attention in a headline, like the article Fox News recently did on a "Cure" for autism through stem cell research a few days ago. The actual researchers give more attention to potential improvements in symptoms, in their description of this new research. But "Cure" makes a bigger headline for the new organizations.

Autism Speaks already does this on the research part of their website, where cure is limited to short blurbs of marketing efforts, and the general mission statement. I suspect if the current general mission statement of Autism Speaks is changed to reflect the current specific mission statement of their research division, that does not address the specific word cure, that this organization can reasonably avoid using the specific word cure in the future.

But, the actual mission to reduce the struggles of those on the spectrum with ASD's, that has always been a part of that organization's "cure ideology" will likely remain the same. The organization has already specifically identified that it is not funding research for the development of a prenatal test, if people don't want to believe that, the research grants Autism Speaks funds are an open book to peruse on their website.

There are no projects identified, associated with any "eugenics" efforts or a prenatal test for autism, in the Autism Speaks research portfolio. The organization has only funded, in part, research associated with the development of post natal tests for early diagnosis and early intervention, which don't show much more than the potential for fragile X syndrome, which while it is the most significant genetic factor associated with ASD's, only about 2 to 6 percent of the cases of ASD's reported in the US are associated with fragile X syndrome.

The other genetic markers provide no greater potential association than about 1 percent. Screening for fragile X syndrome, is already, historically, been a routine suggested test when a young child is diagnosed with an ASD, so this postnatal test while valuable for screening for early intervention, is not much different, per tests associated with fragile X syndrome and Autism that were already being done to screen for fragile X syndrome, for earlier intervention into that condition.

There is a potential "microarray" prenatal test being developed, outside of the funding of Autism Research organizations, that requires the procedure of amniocentesis to test for over 150 genetic anomalies, which include the low percentage probabilities associated with Fragile X syndrome and ASD's, and other minor associated genetic anomalies. But, it's highly unlikely that anyone is going to risk amniocentesis for this test seeking a specific answer for autism, when the highest probabilities shown will likely only be a few percentage points of risk. It will be for those people that want to understand their risk for all 150 genetic anomalies, which in my opinion the knowledge of a few percentage points of risks for scores of potential genetic anomalies might cause stress during a pregnancy that might be better avoided. Not likely many people would opt for it, if it becomes a choice, in my opinion, unless they had good reason to believe their child might have a potentially dangerous anomaly, through family genetic history, etc.