Page 1 of 2 [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

codarac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2006
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 780
Location: UK

19 Nov 2006, 6:21 pm

"A New Germ Theory": Is Autism the Result of Infection?
Monday, April 12, 1999

[Evolutionary Biology is a fascinating, if not controversial way at looking
at medical issues and beyond. "A New Germ Theory" is the title of an
in-depth article in the February 1999 of the Atlantic Monthly, written by
Judith Hooper. "Is Autism the Result of Infection?" is not directly
addressed, but is the big question begged here. Below is only a very small
excerpt of a three-part online article to give you a taste.]

As far as [Amherst's biology department Professor Paul Ewald] is concerned,
Darwin's legacy is the most interesting thing on the planet. The appeal of
evolutionary theory is that it is a grand unifying principle, linking all
organisms, from protozoa to Presidents, and yet its essence is simple and
transparent. "Darwin only had a couple of basic tenets," Ewald observed
recently in his office. "You have heritable variation, and you've got
differences in survival and reproduction among the variants. That's the
beauty of it. It has to be true -- it's like arithmetic. And if there is
life on other planets, natural selection has to be the fundamental
organizing principle there, too."

These Darwinian laws have led Ewald to a new theory: that diseases we have
long ascribed to genetic or environmental factors -- including some forms of
heart disease, cancer, and mental illness -- are in many cases actually
caused by infections.

For decades medical science was dominated by the doctrine of
"commensalism" -- the notion that the pathogen-host relationship inevitably
evolves toward peaceful coexistence, and the pathogen itself toward
mildness, because it is in the germ's interest to keep its host alive. This
sounds plausible, but it happens to be wrong. The Darwinian struggle of
people and germs is not necessarily so benign. Evolutionary change in germs
can go either way, as parasitologists and population geneticists have
realized -- toward mildness or toward virulence. It was Ewald's insight to
realize what we might do about it.

Manipulating the Enemy

Say you're a disease organism -- a rhinovirus, perhaps, the cause of one of
the many varieties of the common cold; or the mycobacterium that causes
tuberculosis; or perhaps the pathogen that immobilized Ewald with diarrhea.
Your best bet is to multiply inside your host as fast as you can. However,
if you produce too many copies of yourself, you'll risk killing or
immobilizing your host before you can spread. If you're the average airborne
respiratory virus, it's best if your host is well enough to go to work and
sneeze on people in the subway.

Now imagine that host mobility is unnecessary for transmission. If you're a
germ that can travel from person to person by way of a "vector," or carrier,
such as a mosquito or a tsetse fly, you can afford to become very harmful.
This is why, Ewald argues, insect-borne diseases such as yellow fever,
malaria, and sleeping sickness get so ugly. Cholera uses another kind of
vector for transmission: it is generally waterborne, traveling easily by way
of fecal matter shed into the water supply. And it, too, is very ugly.



Ewald put forward his virulence theories in Evolution of Infectious Disease.
Today his book is on the syllabus for just about every college course in
Darwinian medicine or its equivalent.

Recently, Ewald has adopted a new cause, far more radical but equally rooted
in evolution. Let's call it Germ Theory, Part II. It offers a new way to
think about the causes of some of humanity's chronic and most baffling
illnesses. Ewald's view, to put it simply, is that the culprits will often
turn out to be pathogens -- that the dictates of evolution virtually demand
that this be so.

The Case for Infection

... it appears that many diseases we didn't think were infectious may be caused by
infectious agents after all. Ewald observes, "By guiding researchers down one
path, Koch's postulates directed them away from alternate ones. Researchers
were guided away from diseases that might have been infectious but had
little chance of fulfilling the postulates." That is, just because we
couldn't readily discover their cause, we rather arbitrarily decided that
the so-called chronic diseases of the late twentieth century must be
hereditary or environmental or "multifactorial." And, Ewald contends, we
have frequently been wrong.

Germ Theory, Part II, as conceived by Ewald and his collaborator, Gregory M.
Cochran, flows from the timeless logic of evolutionary fitness. Coined by
Darwin to refer to the fit between an organism and its environment, the term
has come to mean the evolutionary success of an organism relative to
competing organisms. Genetic traits that may be unfavorable to an organism's
survival or reproduction do not persist in the gene pool for very long.
Natural selection, by its very definition, weeds them out in short order. By
this logic, any inherited disease or trait that has a serious impact on
fitness must fade over time, because the genes that spell out that disease
or trait will be passed on to fewer and fewer individuals in future
generations. Therefore, in considering common illnesses with severe fitness
costs, we may presume that they are unlikely to have a genetic cause. If we
cannot track them to some hostile environmental element (including
lifestyle), Ewald argues, then we must look elsewhere for the explanation.
"When diseases have been present in human populations for many generations
and still have a substantial negative impact on people's fitness," he says,
"they are likely to have infectious causes."

http://list.feat.org/wa.exe?A2=ind9904b ... ews&P=1182



lowfreq50
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 May 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,536
Location: Gainesville, Florida

19 Nov 2006, 6:46 pm

Not really. They were j/k



SteveK
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,899
Location: Chicago, IL

19 Nov 2006, 6:49 pm

I'm still waiting for SOMEONE to explain interspecies evolution to me in darwinian terms. When I ask something like how could a mammal have a bird, or 2 IDENTICAL members identical in every viable way but male/female occur within a brief lifespan, I am left with blank stares, people acting like I am stupid and giving me stupid answers, etc.... ONE idiot even said it was simply a change in hormones! What a DUMB "answer"!

Think of it! A mammal has a bird, and that bird can't reproduce without a similar bird of the opposite sex! A donkey and a horse might have POSSIBLY come from the same ancester, but if it was a male donkey and a female horse, or vice/versa, the species would have died out. The hormone differences aren't that simple. Giving a human female fetus male hormones won't give you a male(Apparantly it WILL work in some species, but humans are one where it doesn't work), and that is assuming the hormone already exists and can act on those tissues.

And with all that, it STILL doesn't explain all the variances, some of which are incompatible. GRANTED, those are MICROevolution, demonstrable, etc.... but they greatly increase the amount of time needed for evolution, and upset accepted timetables even more.

SO, darwins theory isn't quite as simple as it sounds.

BTW this isn't an argument for/against god/darwin, just food for thought. Time and logic without real thought are ALL too easy an excuse.

Steve



SteveK
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,899
Location: Chicago, IL

19 Nov 2006, 6:52 pm

BTW as to infection causing autism. It IS possible. There ARE examples of similar things. But WHY does it stop? WHY has it not been noticed? WHY does it not affect more kids? WHY do so many come to term? Why are some SO similar? The most likely cause for a mutation due to infection is the interruption of some process at a certain stage.

Steve



Griff
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,312

19 Nov 2006, 7:30 pm

Evolution? Controversial? Where? Up Pat Robertson's butt?

I really think that runaway adaptation probably has the stronger likelihood. Mild autism is not necessarily detrimental in a culture that relies upon wise men and shamans, perhaps evidenced by the suggestion in folklore that such individuals were reclusive and secretive. Some autist's knack for puzzles might have originally unlocked the secrets of sophisticated tool use or prediction of the seasons. I think that most adaptations are apt to carry a penalty of some kind, merely as a result of no adaptation being willfully directed or devised. The mental deficiency that results in such extreme cases as we have diagnosed would be it.



Griff
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,312

19 Nov 2006, 7:49 pm

Stevie, boy, if you're curious about evolution, read about it. The literature on it is widely available, and the findings on the subject are well-documented. Early mammals and the saurian precursors to birds both developed from a highly primitive reptile. In fact, a single species of primitive reptile. All of its relatives and their descendents went extinct, their lineage forever lost to the bitter ages. Mind you, this is all a process that took place over millions of years. A lot can happen in that time.



walk-in-the-rain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 928

19 Nov 2006, 7:51 pm

Griff wrote:
Evolution? Controversial? Where? Up Pat Robertson's butt?


The theory of evolution is not wrapped up in a neat tidy little box - otherwise there wouldn't be so many scientists looking to improve the theory and offer their own interpretations. But typical spin to imply that anyone who looks under the surface and wants a concrete explanantion must somehow be a Pat Robertson type.



Griff
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,312

19 Nov 2006, 8:03 pm

walk-in-the-rain wrote:
The theory of evolution is not wrapped up in a neat tidy little box
Of course not. It's a science still in its infancy. You're not paying me enough to tutor you in the ins and outs of evolution, though.



walk-in-the-rain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 928

19 Nov 2006, 8:04 pm

Griff wrote:
walk-in-the-rain wrote:
The theory of evolution is not wrapped up in a neat tidy little box
Of course not. It's a science still in its infancy. You're not paying me enough to tutor you in the ins and outs of evolution, though.


DOn't recall asking you to tutor me in anything. I am perfectly capable of reading scientific and medical journals and don't need you to interpret them for me.



Xenon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,476
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

19 Nov 2006, 8:08 pm

SteveK wrote:
I'm still waiting for SOMEONE to explain interspecies evolution to me in darwinian terms. When I ask something like how could a mammal have a bird, or 2 IDENTICAL members identical in every viable way but male/female occur within a brief lifespan, I am left with blank stares, people acting like I am stupid and giving me stupid answers, etc.... ONE idiot even said it was simply a change in hormones! What a DUMB "answer"!


Well, you know what they say... ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer. No one ever claimed that birds evolved from mammals (or vice versa).


_________________
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." -- Emo Philips


Griff
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,312

19 Nov 2006, 8:40 pm

walk-in-the-rain wrote:
DOn't recall asking you to tutor me in anything. I am perfectly capable of reading scientific and medical journals and don't need you to interpret them for me.
Then don't stir a fuss.



SteveK
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,899
Location: Chicago, IL

19 Nov 2006, 8:41 pm

Griff,

They don't even MENTION what I am talking about! I HAVE had classes on evolution in school. I have ALSO seen PRO evolution films, documentaries, etc.... NOPE, it has NEVER been discussed, and I have NEVER seen ANY documentation, and NOBODY wants to even discuss it! They all say as here OBVIOUSLY EVENTUALLY the creature will evove and, if more successful, it will survive! Outside of support for the concept of:

1. It happened.
2. It could have happened.
3. Stronger survive.
4. Genes can be inherited.

They say NOTHING!! !! ! What they DON'T say is:

1. What REAL proof do they have? Piltdown and neandertal, for example have been disputed, etc.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man In looking at the neandertal, it does seem better than most, yet that is more a microevoluton anyway, and some of the differences were smaller in other races, etc... Heck, the idea of an "occipital bun" and "larger brain" sounded familiar. 8-/
2. Who cares? The question is DID IT!
3. Not if they don't have offspring!
4. NOT if there isn't reproduction which, in most cases, requires a compatible species.

OK Xenon,

How did ANY sexual creature develop from an asexual one? They DO claim that. OK, my mammal(obviously they were the latest) to some other was crazy, but hey, what's the difference?

BTW Didn't I say I am agnostic? I'm not a pat robertson follower. I haven't even seen his face in YEARS! I don't even think I can get the 700 club here. I haven't been to a christian website in years. I haven't even been to a church in years. I haven't even heard any antievolution thing in years. BESIDES, I don't believe over HALF of what I hear!

Steve



krex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,471
Location: Village of the Damned

19 Nov 2006, 9:02 pm

Thanks for sharing that Codarac....sorry the thread got so off track so soon....thats got to be a record,even for WP.


My boyfriend has MS and there is also a theory that an individual can have MS but it doesnt cause difficulties UNTIL it is "activated" by some external virus type action.MS can also has cogntive issues,some overlapping As traits.I have read a little about the theory that there is a "autoimmune" connection to autism.Perhaps there is a connection?

Is this theory saying that the autism gene is being "turned on" by a virus inutero or after?I use to work home health care for a mother of two twin boys.She had a virus during gestation and one boy was severly effected(had to be fed,no muscle tone,no language,etc) but the other son appeared to have no visable disability.They were 7 years old at the time.This seemed to point to one child having a different gene vulnerability.

Pardon my ignorance,I am far from informed about this topic,but curouse to hear from others about this.


_________________
Just because one plane is flying out of formation, doesn't mean the formation is on course....R.D.Lang

Visit my wool sculpture blog
http://eyesoftime.blogspot.com/


SteveK
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,899
Location: Chicago, IL

19 Nov 2006, 9:30 pm

They think autism may be caused by an autoimmune disorder? I doubt it. With MS, it makes sense! The problem can destroy myelin, and BINGO, MS!! ! SIMPLE! To create autism, destruction of myelin(Wouldn't present any typical autistic symptoms over the long term), neurons(leads to DEATH), or glial cells(leads to DEATH) or axons(leads to DEATH) or neuropil(leads to DEATH) wouldn't cut it! Whats left? Granted, there could be a developed allergy like symptom that could concievably create some autistic like behaviour(Ticks, sensitivity, large brain size, tantrums, I guess it COULD explain some stims), but that wouldn't explain most of the people here or AS. BTW I have no known allergies. One doctor DID say I was alergic to down and peanuts, but I have always LOVED peanuts, and have no problem with down, so I always considered him a quack. BTW I have OTHER reasons for thinking he's a quack also.

Steve



Griff
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,312

19 Nov 2006, 9:32 pm

SteveK wrote:
Piltdown and neandertal, for example have been disputed
Hmm? Piltdown was almost immediately declared a hoax, and, though neanderthals may have existed alongside our ancestors, they seem to have gone extinct before they could add much of their genome to ours. Apparently, the last pocket population of neanderthal lived at around the tip of the Iberian peninsula, hemmed in by a competing culture in which they were unlikely to be widely accepted.

Don't expect anything explained to you in Darwinian terms, by the way. Darwin's theories had their day, but evolutionary theory has changed since. Evidently, though, chromosomal mutations can occur, as evidenced by the fact of our nearest relative having one more chromosome pair than ourselves. I don't have the slightest idea how, but the evidence clearly supports the fact that this actually does occur.



SteveK
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,899
Location: Chicago, IL

20 Nov 2006, 12:39 am

Griff,

WOW, so darwin has gone the way of the dinosaur!? Sorry, but I couldn't resist!

As for neandertal, they seem to indicate the DNA structure is similar, and they want to compare it by 2008. We'll see what happens. The larger brain and occipiital bun, in case you hadn't noticed are use to describe some sorts of autism! Who knows!? Maybe neandertal is an older version of a current race, and had autistic traits, or maybe the autism is based on a certain chromosome pattern of which it is a part. There ARE similar differences.

Who's to say ANY culture truly shuns another. The jewish people in the old testament were told not to have relations with certain creatures, but they DID. Supposedly, noahs flood then happened, and the jews were told not to have relations with others, and they did. As for the chrustians, don't get me started! LUDICROUS things are happening now! It seems like every race/culture is having relations with every other one. Who is to say that neandertal didn't get its genes into our gene pool? HECK, maybe they are more similar to that hybrid supposedly created before noah!

Steve