What if autism was contagious? What would you do?

Post Reply New Topic

If anyone coughs on me, do note that I will kill them.

Just because it affects 80 percent of those with an ASD doesn't mean it's a part of it, Zendell. And no one can be undiagnosed with an ASD under the present diagnostic conditions - unless they never had it to begin with. It is definitely seperate and to connect the two to be honest is quackery IMHO. No matter what the studies say. If anything it could be equally that Autistics may be more vulnerable to this issue - and no more than that.



The first sentence and the rest contradict each other. Yes they are indeed focusing on the latter - and therefore they are rejecting the genetic base outright. They can't have it both ways. If they were serious about the non genetic issues they would be focussing on the genetic studies first. They aren't. They are very much pro cure - as distinct from Autism Speaks who are pro eugenics. The quote you gave tells a stronger story along those lines than any form of real support for the genetic base.

And just to finish, there are NO true stories told about being cured of an ASD. As Aspie Dave rightly said, they are lying. Perhaps they don't realise that they are - but they are. If they were tested the genuine ASD people would still be on the Spectrum. The misdiagnosed would be told they never were on the Spectrum to begin with.

Researchers studying autism look at this stuff to find causes of autism symptoms. Scientific studies have shown that 87-90% have antibodies against undigested gluten and casein. It's not quackery. It's science and it you don't like science, I can't help you.



DAN! found that only about 10-20% of autism is genetic. The other 80-90% is likely caused by mercury, vaccines, viruses, and other environmental factors. It makes sense to study the causes of the majority especially since it's treatable and genetic disorders are more difficult to treat. You may think that the 80-90% diagnosed with ASDs are misdiagnosed, but no one else sees it that way. I doubt you could tell genetic autism from non-genetic autism so they have to be grouped together. The cause of your AS TLGP is probably a virus or some other environmental factor. Would your opinion change if it was proven you were AS due to a virus that could be cured?

Autism symptoms do not automatically equal Autism (or any other Spectrum disorder). To say it is? That's quackery, and science has nothing to do with that.



The last sentence is moot because it's wrong and will be proven so. DAN! relies on the quackery of Andrew Wakefield and the Geiers and should not be relied upon as a guide of any sort.

Any doctor or other qualified person WOULD be able to tell the difference between Autism and a condition that gives the symptoms but is not genetic.

My AS is genetic in origin, as is everyone else's who genuinely has it. It makes no sense whatsoever to pursue non genetic symptoms because it delays the true understanding that we need. And that is socially careless.

People like you delay the understanding with this curebie mentality. Stop. You are greying up an issue that needs a black and white view if we are to get anywhere - and as long as we don't the intolerance of the likes of Generation Rescue will continue to fester and such hate is painting us as completely without positives - and that is a crock of crap.

You can not prove what has been known to be fact since at least 1943, and at the most 2000BC to be wrong. True ASD's are genetic in origin.

That may be true but doctors are diagnosing people with autism without looking at other possible causes. Sometimes they can't because the other causes aren't known.



I'm not so sure about that. I've been misdiagnosed several times. I think one study showed that doctors misdiagnose (not autism but all medical conditions) an average of 40% of the time. Some people diagnosed with ASDs clearly have non-genetic causes of their symptoms but they can't be diagnosed with anything else because the other causes of their symptoms aren't known. I really don't see how a doctor can differentiate genetic and non-genetic causes of the exact same symptoms. It's impossible.



Some people have the exact same autistic traits as you due to a non-genetic cause and struggle with the exact same problems as you. Since they are all diagnosed with ASDs, it's not fair to deny them treatment. Many people diagnosed with ASDs suffer from depression and commit suicide. I thought about killing myself every year since I was 12 because I hate being autistic and felt hopeless. Last year was the first year I didn't think about it and the reason is because I found out my symptoms were treatable and that gives me hope.



I realize and agree with you that genetics result in autism. However, I believe there are non-genetic causes of the exact same autistic traits. It's impossible to prove that there aren't any other causes of autistic traits.

I don't understand why a person can't want acceptance and a cure. I hated being autistic and prayed to God quite often to be cured. At the same time, I strongly resisted people who refused to accept me and people who tried to force me to change. I think every autistic should be accepted but I also think it's important to search for treatments for those who want them. I hate to compare autism to AIDS but people with AIDS don't want to be stigmatized, they want to be accepted, and I'm sure they all want to be cured. Supporting a cure doesn't equal intolerance.

All I'm saying is there are other causes of the above symptoms besides genetics. I wish there was a test to differentiate between genetic and non-genetic causes of the above symptoms so they could use different labels such as autism for genetic causes and another name for non-genetic causes. If that could be done, I'm sure we would all agree that non-genetic causes should be treated while genetic people should be accepted as that's part of who they are.

I'm not sure if everyone realizes this but in order to qualify for an AS diagnosis, the following must be true: "The disturbance causes clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning." I think that means if you are just a little quirky or odd and have some problems socializing but other than that you are okay, then it means you don't have AS. There is a big difference between choosing to act different and not follow social rules versus being unable to act normal and socialize like everyone else. I think everyone should be able to choose how they want to live their lives. Treatment gives people a choice. It doesn't force anyone to change who they are so I don't see why anyone would object to it.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/overvi ... iteria.htm

OMGZ OMGZ

It's a battle of the

and



TLPG I understand where you're coming from. It's your windmill to tilt at if you wish. You'd have an easier time of converting the Pope to Orthodox Judaism that in talking sense to some people.... Religious fervor is religious fervor. Whether it's someone in a transcendent state of prayer, or a curebie nutter rattling on about how the Men In Black are putting radioactive mercury in our videogames to react with the microchips in our money and control our thoughts for Big Pharma.. or the Lizardmen, I lose track of which one is in season these days... Facts mean nothing when the magic internet can produce ANYTHING in an instant to counteract a logical argument. It's like trying to kickbox the wind... you can't win.

Semper Fi

I've never taken any drugs to treat any autistic symptoms, nor am I aware of any drugs that are very commonly used. Many autistics are on meds for other reasons (depression, OCD, what-have-you) but to my knowledge there typically are not many drugs prescribed specifically for autism. And anyways, those drugs you listed are owned by certain pharmaceutical companies and not others. Remember that under capitalism we have free competition. The drug companies that DON'T own the rights to that drug will have all the incentive in the world to come up with some biomedical "cure" for autism. Even if it's not extremely profitable, it could help to undermine their competition.

I do believe that autism is genetic but I am willing to change that view if I find some evidence that warrants it. I was simply expressing that most of the evidence I've seen blaming non-genetic causes seems to be poorly done. For example, when it is "proven" that mercury in the MMR vaccine causes autism but the MMR vaccine has never contained mercury. That goes beyond quackery to sheer nonsense. The genetic research I've seen thus far (such as linking it to certain chromosomes) also falls short of perfection and I would never present those studies as "proof" of my position. The gluten/casein thing you mentioned might be one thing I should take a closer look at. Feel free to post any new info you have on that, or even start a new thread for it. I know I would be interested in examining that in a little more depth.
Now I'm going to duplicate a quote from above for easy reference:

These kind of statements are a large part of why I can't take your argument seriously right here. Autistics are exposed to higher levels of mercury, yet have less mercury in their system, and this indicates that they have less ability to remove heavy metals from their system? Read that last sentence over again just to be sure you've got the meaning. Let it sink in for a moment. And then ask yourself: Are you really going to continue down this route, or are you going to stop and look for a better argument?

I just want to point out that its mercury in amalgams that I'm worried about and not mercury in video games. I'm not worried about thimerosal either.

Regardless of whether you believe the mercury in your amalgams is harmful, you shouldn't have them removed. While it's true that trace amounts of mercury leak over time, the amount that will be released into your body in the process of their removal will be more than would ever be released had they been left in (I was actually discussing this with my dad recently, he's a dentist).

zendell wrote:

google "sarcasm"

enjoy

If that's the case, we should take the sensational reports of autistics being cured following removal of amalgam as evidence that autism is caused by TOO LITTLE mercury in the brain! This coincides perfectly with the study that found lower levels of mercury in autistics, and the continued increase in the rate of autism after mercury was removed from vaccines! Clearly, autism is the result of lacking this essential compound in your body and we all need to begin emergency mercury ingestion therapy to cure ourselves of this horrible disease!
(note sarcasm throughout)
The point is that I took the same data as the mercury nutters and came to a precisely opposite conclusion using reasoning that was just as valid (if not more so). The mere fact that that is possible (and also surprisingly easy) should be enough to refute such nonsense. Mercury doesn't cause autism, folks. Get over it.

I would probably just think to myself something along the lines of oh well... and I would be indifferent if I catch or didn't catch it.

I'm glad to hear you're open-minded. I agree with you that much of the evidence and studies finding non-genetic causes aren't of the highest quality. The problem is that there is too little funding going into researching non-genetic causes of autism. Good quality studies are too expensive given the limited funds. However, there are some studies that strongly indicate possible non-genetic causes. I posted them and I was ridiculed because no one could explain them. One study looked at Gulf War vets suffering from Gulf War Syndrome and found that over 50% of their children were diagnosed with autism. They also found that 53% of their spouses developed CFS. They found Mycoplasma fermentans in the Gulf War vets and their autistic children and CFS spouses but not in unaffected family members. I'd really like to hear someone explain that. http://www.gulfwarvets.com/chronic_infections.htm



If someone becomes autistic after the MMR vaccine and then cures it with a homeopathic thimerosal nosode, I think it pretty much proves that thimerosal secretly inserted in the vaccine causes autism. lol just joking. I used to think it contained it but I later found out it doesn't. The several studies that couldn't find a link convinced me that thimerosal doesn't significantly contribute to autism.



There are dozens of studies on it. I preferred to just try it to see if it works and it did. I had very low sensitivity to pain and muscle weakness at least since I was a kid and now I don't have it. I don't need the diet anymore because probiotics cured whatever inhibited the enzyme that digests gluten and casein. I can post the probiotic study if you want to read it.



The way you put it, it seems like autistics have a superior ability to get rid of mercury. However, mercury in the body can't be tested. The mercury tests only show how much mercury a person is getting rid of. The mercury levels of non-autistic children correlated with exposure. The higher their exposure, the higher the mercury level in their hair. The autistic children, however, had higher exposure but less mercury in the hair. It's clear their is an altered ability to get rid of mercury. Another study found higher levels of mercury in baby teeth, an accurate measure of mercury exposure. Combine these together plus notice the similarities between mercury and autism and it seems clear.

Mercury & autism:
Higher exposure + higher mercury in baby teeth indicates autistics are exposed and retain more mercury than non-autistics. Why would that be if mercury isn't involved? The reduced ability to get rid of it results in even more mercury retained in the body. Hundreds of anecdotal reports showing chelation effective indicates mercury is involved. There are no scientific studies showing that mercury isn't involved. There is no scientific evidence showing that chelation is ineffective. Until there is good science to suggest otherwise, I will believe mercury is a factor.

I'm agreeing with the researchers in the mercury study and I think they know best - http://www.mgoldmandds.com/autism.htm

I plan to get my amalgams removed soon because, despite the ADA lies, studies have shown that amalgams release an average of 10-12 mcg/day, an amount that exceeds EPA and other governmental limits for safety. According to the WHO, exposure to mercury from amalgams exceeds exposure from all other sources of mercury combined (seafood, air, water, etc). There are holistic dentists who can remove the amalgams safely without exposing their patients to mercury vapors from them. It's been proven in scientific studies that mercury only goes up when they are incorrectly removed by typical dentists.

First off, the plural of anecdote is not "data." I don't care how many anecdotes you find about chelation, I'll find just as many dealing with demon possession and successful witch trials. Find something better than anecdotes or go on to a different topic. Now, that dentist you linked to... I'm really not sure why. Am I supposed to be impressed? He's a dentist, not a toxicologist. He has no training in molecular biology or neurobiology, or any other relevant field for that matter. What education he has was completed well before our biological knowledge was developed to any appreciable extent, and anything he learned in biology class as an undergraduate has probably been supplanted by more accurate information by now. Also, the capital letters, underlining, and occasional use of purple text really helped to demonstrate his vast expertise in autism.