Why cures, when ASD is a highly inheritable condition?

Post Reply New Topic

ASD is one of the most highly inheritable disorders that there is. Genetics plays a greater role in ASD then in other traits like intelligence or height. If this is so, why do so many people believe that by changing the enviornment, you can "cure" ASD? This sort of thinking doesn't seem to be logical.

Here is an example of a "cure" site from the web.
http://www.danconference.com/mission.html
-----
-----

DAN!™ (Defeat Autism Now!™)
is dedicated to educating parents and clinicians regarding
biomedically-based research, appropriate testing
and safe and effective interventions for autism.

Don't ask me. There's very little about the curebies that's logical.

One thought I would have is that even though there is a strong genetic component, the degree of ASD does vary. In our family situation those in the last generation have a strain of anxiety and obsessive compulsive tendencies running through the family. How that played out is that there are a number of pretty uptight individuals with extremely clean houses and cars. In the next generation how it's played out is that there are two (out of 6) explosive cousins with very severe anxiety issues plus a whole host of other issues that can make functioning out in the world very challenging.

Perhaps it was because the genetic component is so obvious in this family that "cure" never even crossed my mind. But given the increasing intensity I have wondered if there wasn't an environmental factor also contributing as a trigger in some way.

I wonder if cure is more prevalent in people who believe their children have been totally effected by something environmental like vaccines.

It's because we want everyone to be normal...and boring.

Drug companies don't want to find a cure, they want to find a treatment (you can sell a cure once, but you can sell a treatment forever). Treatments are just as useful for inherited conditions as they are for non-inherited ones.

The mode of inheritance may be genetic, but the nature vs. nurture argument for ASD's probably belongs elsewhere, and besides, I don't know enough to comment intelligently.

My understanding, from a conferance I went to in October, is that there is a genetic disposition for being on the spectrum. You need some sort of enviromental trigger to "turn" on the autism parts. That is why there is a spectrum.... because it is contingent on how much and when the fetus/child was exposed.

On the Cnd news, a few weeks ago, there was a study saying that industrial toxins are part of the cause of adhd, autism, and some other labels...

Maybe they go together?

So therefore, one could argue that a cure is needed as it is exposure to toxins in part... but I would assume that would only lessen how the autism may look -- because of the genetics.

Anyways, I'm certainly not the expert. I don't claim to understand. I'm not voicing an opinion, just passing on the info I learned and a little speculation. Hope my logic is fluid and it all interconnects!
Panthosette

The science is still out if genetics is the total and only cause of autism and that the environment does not play a role. Parents are playing this card on the hopes that:

1) Their child can be made "normal"
2) There is someone with deep pockets the parents can go after for treatment (ABA and such)

Until the science is up to the point where we can say without debate that ASDs are caused by genetic or environment or both, there will be a group of people who will look for a cure. Now, even though their purpose may be questionable, it may be worthwhile to let them spend their money to determine what causes ASDs. My only fear is that if it is genetic, they will come up with a genetic test and forced sterilization/abortion for those with ASDs.

Curbies can all go to hell, as far as I'm concerned!

That's a bit harsh... they have good intentions, after all... or at least that's how they see it.

While you can't cure a genetic disorder, there is a way that is 100% proven to remove the problems that AS presents to us in our everyday lives. In essence, it is a cure for all the symptoms.

The method used to solve the problems is called Early Intensive Behavioral Intervention (EIBI). It is the only 100% PROVEN way to fix the symptoms of someone diagnosed with Autism at a young age (The younger this is given to a child the better). EIBI reinforces ways of thinking that enable a person with AS (or any other syndrome on the ADS) to be able to socialise and work in a world of NTs (sometimes to even greater effeciency than the NTs themselves).

A few downsides to EIBI are 1) Lack of certified professionals to do the intervention 2) It can cost the parents of a child well over $150,000 in 2 years of treatment (Normally how long treatment is needed).

Currently the research on Autism shows that EVERYONE has some form of it (which is why there are those who have gone through with EIBI can become even better at navigating social landscapes than a NT person). People diagnosed with anything on the spectrum just happen to have it worse than the rest of the world.

It seems DAN is much like the group POAC (Parents of Autistic Children) which goes around educating adults on proven treatments and ways to help parents and others cope with those of us who have Autism. I highly doubt DAN is out to "cure" Autism. When it comes to genetics, there is no such thing as a cure.

I would also like to add as an amendment to my post above that there are also reasons why excessive TV and Video Game use by NTs can lead to the symptoms of autism. We come up to the Nature vs. Nurture issue which still is a hot topic in todays world. By nature everyone has Autism to a degree however it is by Nurture that those considered as NTs can become Autistic with symptoms harsh enough to obtain a diagnosis.

It is now general knowledge that children who spend hours on end watching television have degrading social skills and shorter attention spans. NTs who watch too much television not only lose out on these social skills but their NT peers notice the change. These children soon start to get the same problems many with AS have (bullying and intimidation all out of the pack nature of human social activity of which we are not apart of). As time goes on these children lose all sense of social skills and have in essence become Autistic (in the high functioning forms most of the time).

Could it be that Autism is created by and made worse by the NTs themselves? It's quite possible though it is unrefuteable that because of genetics there will always be people like us that never even had the advantage of being an NT in the first place.

Side note: I prefer being an Aspie Less stress because i'm not in the huge game of social chess all those silly NT's are in!

Murdal, I'm certain early intervention can have an effect, as I was once an ABA therapist myself. But it ain't the whole enchilada. There are certain milestones to development which cannot be hurried beyond a certain point. And the same goes for ASD kids, except that their milestones tend to vary more and from one individual ASDer to another.

You can't force a child to learn language. If they have the capacity and the motivation, they will engage. But not before then.

Nuture can play a definite role in shaping, but if the Nature isn't there to fascilitate it, it won't happen.

And there are debates about how much early intervention can really do. It's difficult to say whether an autistic child gained language at that rate they did and fluency because of the method or because they were simply developing as they would have naturally.

There's plenty of adult HFAs who had language delay and no speech therapies and are talking in spite of it. So for these therapies to compare mute autistics to autistic kids who get speech therapy and eventually gain fluency is like comparing apples and oranges. It's difficult at the age of 3 to predict how fluent any particular child will become with language. So comparing individuals is not the greatest science.

I'm not putting down the usefulness of early intervention. But I have a problem giving a one and a half year old a 40 hour work week in behavioral and occupational therapies. There must be a limit. Autistic children are still children afterall.

Of course early intervention isn't the whole picture however it can do quite a bit. I went through early intervention programs when I was young (I was very fortunate) though I was in elementry school when recieving it. Everyone is different and the work to be done in comparing people and offering help is quite hard because you need to make the best theoretical guess on how to handle the situation with each and every person. Some kids might need that 40 hour a day intensive intervention, others might not. Gotta love speculation

In regards to EIBI - how ethical is it to try and force someone to be as NT as possible - and what means are used to accomplish that. ABA has also claimed to be the only proven method to make someone on the spectrum indistinguishable from their peers - however there have been many critics of their interpretation of their facts. For instance - how do you measure success? Academically or test scores and how and where does happiness factor into the equation. Also - some programs (like ABA) in which they were so successful relied on the use of aversives. Since abandoning aversives (supposedly) they have not been able to easily duplicate the initial results they like to tout.

Secondly - groups like DAN are certainly out for a "cure". Many do not accept any genetic tendencies towards autism and blame it entirely on mercury poisoning and now environmental toxins in general since the mercury stuff has not panned out in studies like they expected. They also encourage parents to turn their autistic children into lab rats by suggesting highly questionable alternative treatments which they advertsie at their conferences. Thing like saunas may just cost parents lots of money but other things like Lupron and chelation are unproven and dangerous. They also paint pictures of "normal" children stuck in cocoons of autism. Another aspect that this is counterproductive too - besides costs and dangerous therapies - is that some parents spend alot of emotional energy investing in cures instead of helping their child reach their maximum potential. Then when their kids do not improve as greatly as they had expected - and they have spent in some cases thousands of dollars - they become depressed. So this "cure" business (and it IS a business) is nothing to trivialize. And sadly - some in these groups have no problem looking into the ultimate cure - by prenatal testing.

And as far as television goes - if making eye contact is uncomfortable then would it be out of the question to hypothesize that kids on the spectrum prefer to look at TV than socialize? I have noticed that if you are on the computer (or playing video gams for instance) than unwanted anxiety or obsessive/OCD type behaviors are sidelined because you can focus your attention entirely on what you are doing. I find when I am more anxious I have a tendency to do this more. So I think some of this is backwards that it CAUSES this behavior in those on the spectrum or does it serve a purpose that those on the spectrum are more likely to gravitate towards. I also did not have any computer games as a kid (and TV shows were not what they are today with lots of variety for kids) - yet I had very poor social skills.

I am not against therapy per se, but when it starts on a foundation of a cure or with being as NT as possible as a goal then that has the potential for long term emotional issues if someone on the spectrum starts acting autistic again.

Unfortunately, most early intervention programs in existence atm are one-size-fits-all. This was one reason I was utterly dissatisfied with ABA after having had to follow its "rules". It does a poor job of accomodating the child but instead forces the child to accomodate to it. The clients I saw ALL had at least 40 hour work weeks. This is standard for ABA nowadays.

There is a lot left to be desired from EI programs at the moment. I hope that will change with time.

I am 43.My parents knew nothing about AS when I was adopted at 5.They did their best to turn me into a normal kid.They did teach me some social rules...as all parents do with all kids.What they couldnt do,is change what I liked or make me prefer spending time with peers that I generally found more boring confusing and obnoxious then exploring the woods,collecting rocks,reading.What they did achieve in their attempts to make me conform to their social "ideal",was a child who walked on egg shells for fear of doing or saying the wrong thing.It did not effect my sense of self,I thought I was a good person,just different.It did make me realize that others thought I was defective and in need to change to be loved.

As far as TV exacerbating autism,I dont think so.(I didnt have video games)Most TV reinforces NT values.Commercials promote consumerism and beautiful people with social skills abound.Slang and superficial conversations abound.I watched TV when I had nothing to read or it was to dark to go into the woods.I would prefer it to socializing because it was less stressful but I didnt avoid people to watch TV.Half the time I was in front of a tv,I was in my own internal world and not really paying attention.