What do you think on my theory of what "autism" is

Post Reply New Topic

basically I believe that the effects of three separate, albeit often (though certainly not always) linked things are being lumped together as "symptoms" of "autism" (and most importantly remembering that "autism" is described as a "disorder" - "disorder" being short for "development disorder", "development disorder" being short for "brain development disorder"). They are as follows: -


1. A rare variation in genes regulating brain growth and neurological functioning. This is often beneficial (or at least isn't relatively negative) to varying degrees, perhaps depending on the specific rare gene type/variation present as well as the other more common gene versions they are working with. This means that things like advanced logical reasoning, being highly literal, having a high IQ etc are sometimes thought of as "symptoms" of "autism", along with a "lack of connection" (to people with more common neurologies - yes, give these things proper context please!) Also other "non-negative" gene types which go hand-in-hand with these e.g. why do so many autistics have heightened senses? - hearing, touch etc

2. A rare variation in genes, also regulating brain growth and neurological functioning. These genes or their variations/their relative functioning are/is however "negative"*** (perceived as a "negative" gene variation/mutation/or functioning (a clash – (i.e. the neanderthal theory) as their rarity/amount of variation/trial in evolution, or effect of environmental damage etc etc) with the other gene types present), perhaps they are mutated genes and are not functioning "properly", perhaps they are not innately "negative" and are just rare variations which aren't working together well with other gene versions present. This is why things like a highly stunted brain development and "learning difficulties" are sometimes classed as "symptoms" of "autism". Also often classed as symptoms of autism, and often going hand-in-hand with this is the effects of other "negative" genes, or variations which aren't innately negative but aren't functioning well with what they have to work together with, or perhaps seen as negative depending on the same type of continuous variation present e.g. some autistics have painful sensory issues.

3. Environmental brain damage. Many people diagnosed with autism for example had oxygen starved brains at birth as their umbilical chord suffocated them. Many have been diagnosed with autism after receiving vaccinations such as the MMR. Many autistics have been found to have deficient detoxifying genes such as the MTHFR gene, and hence have been found to have high levels of heavy metals in their systems which have subsequently caused brain damage. (this may also tie into number 2 as neurological gene mutation caused by damage from environmental sources - are many neurological genes damaged early on? Or perhaps tied into all of them as environment causing new gene variation, even positive?)


Now I believe that these things may all occur more or less separately, or may occur together to varying percentages. e.g: -

Example 1 (based on a real life example I'm aware of): A mother has a son who is very advanced and smart for his age, he's two years old and is speaking a lot. She takes him to get an MMR jab. The same day the child stops speaking, becomes very different, doesn't like to be touched. She takes the child to the doctor. The doctor tells her that "the MMR jab caused autism".

Now I believe that perhaps the child was already autistic before the MMR, hence the advanced development, that perhaps his different (and beneficial) neurological gene variations went hand-in-hand with a/some detoxifying gene variation/defective detoxifying genes which did not function as desired when he received the MMR vaccination, this vaccination caused poisoning and brain damage. The effect of which is lumped together with the effect of his autistic genes and called "symptoms of autism".

Another alternative is that the child had dormant rare gene variations which were activated by the environmental source

And the final alternative is that the child did not have what I think of as "autistic" genes, the child had only defective detoxifying genes and the symptoms of poisoning and brain damage caused by this are solely being called "autism" - The question here is are these "autistics" which have been shown to have defective detoxifying genes "autistic" purely because of environmental damage making their brain different, or do different neurological gene variations, to variable extents, often go hand-in-hand with different detoxifying gene variations? Is there often a combination of a brain which has naturally grown differently and been damaged by environmental sources as well? And importantly which way round does this happen? - Which happens first?

[And regarding toxins still for a moment, (and I remind you again that not all "autistics" are vulnerable to toxins at all, but a good number are), another thing which should be looked into is male vs female detoxification - are females more immune to toxins? Clearly this could be due to selection choosing genes which detoxify (and their associated gene types) over ones which don't, for the purpose of creating a more hospitable environment for a foetus/pre-natal growing baby. Is this one of the factors in why there are more male "autistics" than female "autistics"?]

There are similarities in autistics however on the other hand the "autistic spectrum" is ridiculously large. I believe that perhaps either 1 and 2 (from my previously stated three things being classed as autism) are linked and that 3 is entirely separate, or that combinations between all three are common (this needs to be researched!) e.g. - Someone could be mostly/entirely number 1 meaning they have rare gene variations which cause a different brain growth and neurological development and they have not have suffered any environmental damage - it seems there's nothing wrong with this person at all - in fact they are often a lot smarter - but they are different and don't relate as well to "neurotypicals" - people with neurological gene versions which are more common. Because of their differences they may be classed as having "Asperger's Syndrome" or a "HFA disorder" and thought of as having some kind of negative condition/illness. Another person could have malfunctioning detoxifying genes (or another effect e.g. oxygen starvation) but common neurological genes - they could be classed as autistic for suffering brain damage from toxins/heavy metals/lack of oxygen to the brain etc etc. Someone could have no problem with detoxifying genes, but have a mixture of "beneficial" and "negative/mutated" genes/gene variations (or perhaps gene variations which aren't innately negative but are conflicting with others and aren't functioning properly). I do think it's possible they could often go hand-in-hand to varying degrees though, and varying degrees means for example - if many autistics are more vulnerable to things such as toxins, it may not be so significant or cause brain damage, it may only be a slightly larger vulnerability and simply being shown as things like asthma or slight food intolerances etc - just how many autistics are diagnosed with other "conditions"? (and surely a vulnerability to one area is also often a vulnerability to other areas as well) Mental and/or physical. [Of course, there is a lot more to speculate (I won't go too far here) with regard to the effect of our toxic environment, or with other things being linked to what is being perceived as autism - A lot of research would have to be done into this to bring the truth to the surface.]

I believe that when a "specialist" diagnoses someone as being "autistic", according to their vague criteria (basically withdrawal/self-absorption and a different neurological development compared to the more common standard "milestones" is quite a way there - along with a large list of "traits" to choose just a few from for each "diagnosis"), they could be diagnosing someone who has environmental brain damage as being "autistic", or someone who has gene variations which cause a brain to grow differently, though not negatively, as "autistic", or someone who has "negatively mutated" or not innately negative but "conflicting" (especially, but not limited to, neurological) genes/gene variations as being "autistic", or even someone with any combination of the above to varying percentages as "autistic". And then they try to place this person on "the autistic spectrum".


So I think that's where the conflict comes from. "Autism" is a term being used to describe a ridiculous amount of different effects from both genetic and environmental sources. When I say that I'm autistic and I'm not ill, what I'm basically saying is that I'm mostly number 1 (from my previously stated three things above), that it's very important people realise the fact we all have variation within our genes, that there are common versions of genes and rarer versions of genes, and that this variety is never stationary - it's constantly evolving, that we all have genes which regulate brain growth and functioning and that these genes do have rare variations as well. A different development in this area should not necessarily be seen as negative - people, in general are very conformist and can be very intolerant of differences. Number 1 is currently being seen as a bad thing but it isn't - diversity, selection and evolution in this way are part of our design - the fact however that this society does not cater so well towards this type of person can indeed leave many looking impaired, many of these people aren't being allowed to flourish, are being held back, even degraded and convinced they're "wrong". Things do need to change very much, these people need to be better accommodated and their neurologies need to be respected, when properly nurtured and allowed to function properly this type of mind could do wonderful things. But I see now that another person could be mostly, or perhaps entirely, number 3, yes that is something very bad! And it seems there are definitely people who have some of number 1 but also some of number 2, perhaps there are also combinations between 1, 2 and 3 - the effects of number 1 being lumped together as part of the effect of "a bad thing". But they shouldn't all be given the same label of "autism".

Here's a video which displays this madness perfectly - the woman says how her son's autism was "almost completely cured" after she changed his diet, found he had high levels of metals in his system and detoxified him - It's just unbelievable to me that she's saying removing these toxins "cured autism" - clearly she cured his poisoning (poisoning he was vulnerable to as research (plus the countless evidence from actual autistics) of these detoxifying genes in autistics shows), and was left with a much healthier and "properly functioning" autistic? Who now functioning properly just so happens to be in the 98th% for English... Now it also appears like maybe it could be a bit of a hoax, that people are lying about these miraculous recoveries to try to make money from this “biomedical treatment”. But still, research/evidence shows that many autistics are more vulnerable to toxins, and I don’t doubt that removing toxins in someone would be beneficial, if not a “miraculous recovery from autism”. The question is still whether this environmental "autism" is linked to the other genetic "autisms". I believe that with the similarities between autistics (plus previously mentioned points) it could well be. Watch the video and decide what's going on for yourself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yn4SBNSkg4

(there are soo many more examples just like this by the way, of vaccines “causing autism”, of autistics being found to have high levels of toxins, of food intolerances, other allergies, of detoxification “improving autism”, of other sources of environmental damage esp. to the brain)


You see... now currently people - organisations which collect money and employ genetic research - are not considering these kind of things for some reason, they are still simply saying things like "our goal is to find a cure for autism" and "scientists have pinpointed some of the autism risk genes"... people are having debates about pre-scanning technology for autism and whether abortion is ethical. But they can't even pinpoint the genes properly, they are confused, they say things like "autism is a complex genetic difference with possible environmental factors". Looking at the current research it's obvious to me that these things, although linked, are separate. Now I'm not a scientist, and what I've said is all speculation based on what I've seen, but I think there are some truths in here and things which should be researched. I do think there is almost undeniable evidence that the term "autism" is covering too many different things. I don’t think it’s unreasonable at all to say there’s strong evidence that "autism" is actually a label covering not only a range of variations within different genes but also of the effects of environmental brain damage, all of which may occur together or separately. This explains the ridiculous scale of "the autistic spectrum", why there is strong evidence that "autism" is genetic, but also why there are many people who say that their brain was oxygen starved causing "autism", that an MMR jab gave their child "autism", why a lot of autistics do not have the expected mutation, or variation, in genes which have been isolated as being autistic genes etc. And it's worrying to me the way the people who speak about autism, and who wish to find a "cure", completely disregard separating and linking things like this together, before going on to question and research them in an impartial and open-minded way. How obvious it is that genetic variation and environmental damage are two entirely different things - why are they saying they're the same thing? I don't think that saying something like "autism is a disorder" and then showing pictures to babies and gauging their response is worth so much compared to other things which could be said and research which could be done. I can easily see homo sapiens committing pre-natal genocide and severely impairing, if not accidentally extincting! themselves by wiping out a lot of genetic variation they haven't researched thoroughly, but think is bad.



*** continued from point 2 - ( These genes or their variations/their relative functioning are/is however "negative"***) Personally I disagree that we should be judged by the standard of "the majority is correct" or "is the correct way to be". I don't think there's anything wrong with a brain growing differently, even if it leads to "learning difficulties", as long as this difference isn't caused by damage, as long as the person isn't suffering. I mean I'm not so smart but the average neurotypical person does have learning difficulties compared to me, the thing is they don't suffer for it at all though. People need to accept that a part of evolution is relative "trial and error" and that all of our genes, including neurological ones, are never stationary. "Error" of course being relative to the "goals" of evolution - something separate to what we may see as "good" or "bad", and the term "suffering" is used rather stupidly in my opinion, for some reason "suffers from" is a very popular precursor to a number of things but it often isn't very accurate or appropriate to use, as in the generalisation of all autistics suffering from their neurology, if someone is different but not suffering - let them be. That's my opinion. Don't try to change them to conform to the ideal standard, it's a pathetic one-dimensional value system, and if a neurotypical person thinks that an IQ below 70 is "wrong" then why can't someone with an IQ of 160 say that anything below 140 is "wrong" and needs to be cured? We're all in this together and we're all capable of looking after each other and understanding each other's differences, of allowing each other to just be what we are and making sure we're all happy. If someone has the mental age and IQ of a 2 year old their whole life and they spend their entire life in their underwear watching the Telletubies, but they just so happen to be the happiest person in the world, is that a bad thing or a good thing? Or someone with an IQ of 100 who works in a meaningless job, has a mortgage, car, wife, 2-3 children then dies... is that the ideal standard? Is that so much better? Is that what we're all "supposed" to be doing?


To research this more, well I can try to look into toxins via polls like this - http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp4353950 ... t=#4353950

However I can't do much to look into them further, or much about genetic research other than speculate on research that's already been done... Unless someone wants to fund a laboratory for me?

Last edited by arnoldism on 30 Jan 2012, 11:13 am, edited 3 times in total.

What do I think?

It's an hypothesis - not a theory.

Hypotheses are testable ideas that have yet to have their potential validity demonstrated.

Theories are ideas that have been tested and repeatedly demonstrated to be valid ... until a better theory comes along.

ok thanks

Something you need to remind the Fundementalist Christian types, I think! ROFLMAO
Very well put.

Matt
As for his hypothesis? Time will tell..

Actually I think you're incorrect, I looked up the word theory in my dictionary when I got home. According to Jennifer (that is what I have named my dictionary, she is unwell by the way as she's in two halves now and has lost a couple of pages around the M section and sadly all of X Y and Z as well as the very end of W) you are correct that one of the definitions of theory is a set of scientific principals which have been demonstrated to be true, and perhaps this is the most apt definition to be limited to in anything scientific, however theory can also simply mean the same as hypothesis or speculate, Jennifer actually kindly explained to me five separate definitions of the word. So I now sir revoke my thanks and bid you good day.

thank you for the view on: to wide diagnostic criteria

paxfilosoof

I'm going to study it by myself. I don't think many people here on the forums are actually doing this.

I don't really buy any theory that lists MMR or heavy metals as a cause of autism. I realise this is a touchy subject, but there is plenty of solid scientific evidence that shows no link between vaccines and autistm.

Jason.

It's actually well known that some people have brain damage and after it show some signs which we could be classified as autism.
That is the point, the criteria to diagnose someone with 'autism' or 'asperger syndrome' are very wide.

I've met many people with asperger syndrome and autism and I can easily say which people are the same 'specie' and which one are just
people who really suffer from autism or asperger...

I don't really think that if you have what I call real asperger or autism you can feel yourself defective.
I'm 100% sure I do not have defective brain or something, I have a beautiful brain which is very good in experience the world. And I can work with my brains, somethimes I need to be alone to let my brains rest, but overall I'm an expert in experience the world.
I see much more than the average person, much deeper. And personally I think it's a good thing.

It's not a cause of autism, autism/asperger is a variation in the human specie.
But maybe it can have bad effects on some autistics

As a whole, I dislike theories that contain the word "damage".

I do not accept the notion that every deviation from a conventional "norm" should automatically be considered a defect.

The study of autism and other neuropsychiatric disorders is science. Therefore, the true scientific definition of "theory" and "hypothesis" must apply. Any speculation about any cause of any neuropsych disorder is, at this point in time, merely a hypothesis. It's just that certain hypotheses have more evidence than others. The Big Bang creating the universe is a theory. Evolution is a theory. Autism being caused by "x" is still a hypothesis. And if you want to get really technical, even theories aren't the best. Laws beat theories. Gravity, thermodynamics, Newton's Laws of Motion- these are backed by so much evidence that they are, essentially, "proven."

Law > Theory > Long-Standing Hypothesis (like a "cause" of something) > One- or Two-Tailed Hypothesis for Single Experiment

Is there any evidence of this? I do have a brain condition; but there is no evidence (nor has it been suggested) that my Autism was caused by this.



I don't think that proves anything. I'm sure at a certain age, the differences between the child with ASD and the non-ASD child start to become clear.