Concerned about consequences of current bad research

Post Reply New Topic

Okay, here's the situation as I see it. Let me know if you think it's a cause for concern.

Back in 2008 a research group began work on the hypothesis that a mother's antibodies cause autism by attacking and thereby, changing a neurotypical fetus into an autistic fetus.

So, to test this, they took 4 rhesus monkeys, and tried to cause autism by introducing 1gG class antibodies into the placental environment.
They then said that the baby monkeys were autistic, based on 2 observable types of behavior: whole body stereotypies, and hyperactivity.

Then the group, headed by Judy van de Water, out of UCCDavis, followed mothers with "hyper-autoimmune" responses who also had autistic kids, and found that during the next pregnancy the mother's antibodies attacked her fetus.

They then published the research saying that 12% of cases of autism are caused by the mother's body attacking her fetus.

Do you see the slip, (2 by my count) in logic?

1. Why assume that the fetus begins neurotypical? Is anyone looking at the father's genetic history?
2. Why assume that the combo. of stereotypies and hyperactivity is the same as autism? Sounds more like ADHD to me.
3. And while we're at it, doesn't this fly in the face of what is known about the nature of antibodies?

As humans we tend to sugar-coat all natural processes to make them more palatable to ourselves. Popular culture encourages us to view antibodies as protecting the body. Autistic fetuses are not known to place the mother's body in any kind of danger greater than a neurotypical fetus might. I see antibodies as being more like reef sharks. They are quite simply out to eat that which is not identifiable as "like self".

While it may turn out to be true, that a neurotypical mother's antibodies sometimes create autism, it certainly hasn't been proved by this study.

I read the summary of this research in the online issue of Science Daily dated Oct. 11, 2011. I hoped that it would not engender more research without further primary premise review.
Yesterday, I opened my newly arrived copy of Autism Spectrum Quarterly (a parents's mag.), and found an unquestioning summary of the same work. Presented, as the reader might likely assume,as if it were a newly discovered fact.

Imagine being the mother of a severely challenged autistic kid, and reading in your supportive autism mag. that some fancy, very expensive science research is now suggesting, that your body may have attacked your neurotypical baby and turned it into an autistic baby/child/adult. Pretty sure I don't need to point out that from many a neurotypical reader's perspective; this suggests a loss in value, both current and potential. More importantly it assigns cause and potential blame without proof.

What happened to do no harm?

Your thoughts?

Do you mean, the baby had a negative rhesus and the mother a positive one? Is that why the antibodies attacked?
I think I read once on here a poll, asking if autistic people had a higher rate of neg rh, and it seemed to conclude we did....It was very unscientific though.

ah sorry about the confusion, between
Rhesus monkeys and rH (rhesus blood group) factor.

The summaries I've read had no mention of specific rh blood factor variable. Not saying it's not in the full results.

They seem to be giving cause to the mother's "hyperresponsive" autoimmune response to blood proteins in the brain of the fetus, (and only in the brain.) Thus changing the baby from "normal" to autistic. What I was saying, apparently badly, was that we can't (they can't) assume the fetus is not already autistic ei. at conception, and the mother's antibodies being otherwise, then perceive the fetus as neurally not like her, rh factor or not. The antibodies might possibly be doing some kind of damage, but the nature of that damage, if it exist, is unknown. Seems to me a huge unsupportable assumption to say that we know that the consequence of this autoimmune event is a change from neurotypical to autistic.

I don't often take a NT parental perspective on this stuff, (just ask either of my parents) But this study just struck me as one faulty assumption after another. Entirely possible that I'm wrong.

But you raise a good point about blood proteins.

Countless studies have demonstrated that autism "runs in the family". Very often the autistic traits can be tracked in the father's family, which makes the theory of antibodies completely pointless.

Long years it has been assumed that autism is much less common girls and that they were given a certain protection (sorry, can't recall the details right now) by their fathers' genes. Meanwhile it turned out, however, that girls are much more frequently misdiagnosed than boys, e.g. with depression.

Educated morons

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLrnkK2YEcE[/youtube]

I stopped right where it said:

WTF?

Just think about the process humans go through to obtain a diagnosis. I want to know how they got the monkies to fill out all those forms.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1PiiugqtjI&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PLAF362E17AF511637[/youtube]

Thanks for the validation! It's good to hear that I'm not the only one who thinks this is nuts.

There is a lot of research out there that is a little on the dubious side and it is always passed off as fact when it is in fact just a theory.

It often happens. I wonder if animals can be autistic... how can we diagnose autism in animals? It sounds like nonsense.

That research team is absolutely Quackers.

My mother'santibodies actually did attack my red blood cells. She was Rh negative, I was something else. I had to have a blood transfusion in the womb.

She seems to be ADHD and my dad had some ASD symptoms.
I seem to be the most affected one out of all my siblings that went through the same situation though. I'm the youngest as well and the more times my mum got pregnant the more at risk her babies were. I was meant to be born stillborn.

I don't think it's a central cause of autism but helped in the development. I also think there are many causes to autism and many types of autism. There's currently research going into the latter.

Sounds like a rough start pensieve.

Do you know for certain that you were not both autistic and RH positive at say, conception?

I could never know that for sure.
My siblings have autistic traits but not enough to be diagnosed and the symptoms don't interfere in their lives. they work and have friends and are in or have had relationships. They are as social and NT as they come.
I think without the complications I had I wouldn't have been as affected. I think there may be more than autism and ADHD going on in my brain. I've always been physically weak, even now when I exercise and eat healthy.

I think the few rogue animal males like the recently famous in NZ dolphin named 'Moko' may be an example of an autistic animal. He appeared solitary always alone... but socialised extensively in a non peer manner with humans

Exactly pensieve! You couldn't know it. I couldn't know it. The researchers couldn't know it.
But in their study, they said they did know.

Sorry to hear about your complications.
If your siblings have autistic traits and symptoms, they're not "as NT as they come". Social maybe, but that needless to say, is not the same thing.

But if you're less social than your siblings, you're probably more reflective, as your screen name suggests.