A 'cure' is impossible...

Post Reply New Topic

..and I will show why.

You can't cure something you don't know exists, not really. Well you can, but it's a stab in the dark, so it's a valid assumption that anyone who is 'cured' would be diagnosed. However... a lot of people seem to hold the diea that once an Aspie, always an Aspie. The logical conclusion to draw from that is that a cure is impossible. Why? Because that person who is 'cured' would have been diagnosed as an Aspie, and once an Aspie...

...always one.

While I agree that there is no cure for AS, your argument is, er, somewhat bad.

"You can't cure something you don't know exists, not really. Well you can, but it's a stab in the dark, so it's a valid assumption that anyone who is 'cured' would be diagnosed."

Is being diagnosed a prerequisite to knowing it exists? There seems to be many aspies on here who aren't diagnosed for a multitude of reasons.

"However... a lot of people seem to hold the diea that once an Aspie, always an Aspie."

That's an Argumentum ad Populum, and there is also very many people who are of the opinion that AS can be cured.

Also, I have to question your reasoning that being diagnosed with AS makes one 'become' an Aspie.

An Aspie cure is like....
Curing a tree from being wooden.

The "once an Aspie, always an Aspie" argument only goes now that there isn't a cure. It is used to discredit people who claim a behavioral "cure" (ie. turning autistics in to robots) exists.

But I agree that a cure is pretty much impossible at this point because one doesn't know yet what autism/AS is, exactly.

Would like some answer too, for you don't become aspie you are born aspie for it due to genetical annomaly (and by annomaly I just mean out of the norm), which cause brain to fonction in an other pattern then usual.

So only "cure" for asperger would be intra-utero genetical modification (which is out of reach right now and for asperger I would be one of the defendant against it, even through I know the to be born child would have a bad social life but he would also be the best bet for innovation in his specific domain interest if it can lead to a job, for we make some of the best specialist in society, too bad our social trouble make it hard for us to be recognise)

Only other way is to try to cope with cognitive work where we are lacking (But if you ask me lot of NT would also require such cognitive work also, just not toward the same aim then us AS) and natural fade of some trouble has we age (used to take everything by the word when I was a kid)

I like that image (or at least it is an image in my head =p)

One thing we could consider, before modern understanding/vaccinations for smallpox came out, some ancients made mediocre smallpox vaccinations by accident. They would use scabs from victims and make someone slightly sick to prevent it, without even knowing what smallpox was (many thought it was evil spirits) or even what the vaccination principle was. If there's an underlying condition causing AS/HFA, then it's theoretically possible someone could do something about it without even knowing what exactly is going on. If it's just a label for a set of behaviors without any underlying "condition", well then the same thing could theoretically happen.

Some may say we could find a cure for those who like sports, are heterosexual, want human interaction, etc.

At least we would hope, with the projection of how Science/Technology changes over time.

Yes some say but it is not logic, cannot compare a genetical anomaly "cure" with virus or bacteria caused disease vaccination, for genetical anomaly is something present in every cell of your body, you cannot "cure" what you are only try to improve (or worsen, if that happen to be more your style)


So like I said earlier only actual cure is early life development genetics modification, but before we can even think of that someone need to figure out what the gene that cause asperger and other kind of autism, also need someone to do a successful genetics modication on a more observable clinical condition then autism.


So if your logic seeking a cure for autistic anomaly is a waste of resource right now, but I admit putting resource on finding the gene that causing autistic condition and research on medical genetics modification wouldn't be a waste through. But all those are long term goal, which may never lead to any viable result and if we ever find one it will not be available to those already born until we find a way to mutate the genetic code of a living been without causing serious health injury.

So to me the logic solution for a "cure" is simply the one that work and his cognitive education. Cannot actually "cure" but sure is the safest bet to see some improvement in the condition.

Something to consider is not all who have an identical twin with autism have it themselves, even if it's very strongly correlated. So there's much talk that it's an interaction of genetics with environment, plus fetal conditions.

What if they were to try a non-genetic route?

Even if we discount a "side-stepping genetics cure", there is already some technology where they insert a harmless virus in a patient with a genetic disorder. The virus inserts the missing gene throughout enough cells in the patient to make a difference. It's not for autism (we don't know enough about what's going on yet), but it's used for a few conditions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_therapy Some scary things may come about.

One thought, if you pull out the cord to a radio, it turns off. That doesn't mean the plug is what actually causes the sound, although there is a domino cause-effect involved. Even if they alter a gene not directly responsible, but it indirectly affects, they could theoretically do something without knowing what's going on and still technically cure. Or through good guessing, they could get the correct gene, and still not fully understand the condition (if it is a condition).

I admit I didn't know much of those gene therapy outside what show in fiction, but after reading I admit we still don't know if it is possible to modify nervous system cell without any damage, but with the latest step made in 2007 seem like we are able to modify cell that regenerate without side effect. Admit I can see it has a possible way to threat recurrent psychological trouble which are due to abnormal hormonal gland activity. Seem like to also discovered a way to do insertion of the therapy into the brain, but still doesn't show if possible to modify genetic code of brain related cell without causing other trauma. But I admit they have more progress on gene therapy then I would have thought by now.

I admit right now it seem like a good thing to invest in, but before any autism progress can made with it, we need to know how well it can affect actual brain genetic disease, for modifying genetic code of brain cell could be affecting the whole body since it the central computer, while therapy until now only were used on regional cell disease or blood stream cell to help fight disease.

Just because it is unknown and goes by no name does mean that it does not exist.

Pluto existed even when people did not know about it and thought such a planet did not exist. And they discovered it, too.

And just think of America. Does it exist? Someone discovered it though they didn't know it was there, then went to announce it existence to Europeans a couple of centuries ago, but I've never been there consciously, so maybe America doesn't exist.

The point I'm trying to make is that the the postion of 'once an Aspie, always an Aspie' is incompatible with worrying about a cure.

That saying make no logical sense anyway for it is statically know that for some AS it just fade away has they age (that mostly from childhood to adult, don't remember finding study about it fading once you adult), cognitive education can also make it seem to be less present to the NT (did some, it seem to help a bit with the NT but if I could act naturally without been judged I would return to the old way right away)

Some people on this forum still take the position 'once an Aspie, always an Aspie'. I was just pointing out that such an idea is logically opposed to the concept of a 'cure'. If premise A is true, premise B can't be, so it is impossible (without doublethink) to support both premises.