Grrrr, vaccine ARE connected with autism. >.< That's a

Post Reply New Topic

Actually, I DO see it happening. When I hear from parents of younger children how paranoid they are about discovering their darling may be autistic, I KNOW the same thing that happens with Downs can happen with AS. And, as with Downs, I highly doubt that any prenatal test will be able to tell you how severely affected the child will be, only that the child will be affected. Will people abort? Abosolutely. These decisions are made so quietly and so privately that public opinion on the assets of the higher funcitoning on the spectrum will make little to no difference. A parent that is scared is scared - no more, no less - and will act accordingly. And parents ARE scared. It is very sad to see. I have discussed the prenatal testing already available for other diseases many times with many people, and I am in the minority, I am well aware, when I say I will skip the testing because there is nothing useful I can do with the information, since I would never abort. Most would abort, if the test results were less than perfect. That IS why prenatal testing is done, 90% of the time. Only rarely I have heard someone say that they only want to do the test to "be prepared." You have to remember that testing isn't without risk, even if that risk is very very small, so people generally don't do it unless they are planning to act on the information. Most people meeting the guidelines do it. Here the doctors all recommend it if you are of a certain age (I declined). This isn't a false fear. As a parent who lives in the world of other parents, and is in tune with how they think, I know that the fears expressed in this thread, of what a prenatal test would mean, are real.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 16 Mar 2008, 7:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That's the problem, LeKiwi, the focus IS on those family members.



Are you deliberately being obtuse? The problem is that the primary focus is NOT on the autie and the aspie, but on the family. That IS the bad thing.



There's where you're wrong. We've all tried to explain this to you and frankly, you are ignoring what we are trying to tell you. Cure DOES equal genocide.



If you feel flamed, I'm not surprised. Your statements are deservous of flaming. I've been exceedingly polite and fwiw, yours is the only opinion in here that seems to be "different".

Let's try a different tact here, see if you can't recognize reason when it hits you in the head.

You claim to be autistic, yet you're big enough to allow that were there a cure, taking it or not should be up to the parents of the autistic. Ok. Let's pretend.

You've finally become pregnant with this non-existent child of yours. They do an amniocentesis and tell you your child has the genes.

What do you intend to do with this information?

And therein lies the problem.

Since everyone here knows that the effects and affects of everything from full blown autism through to super high functioning Asperger's such as I have are alterable in intensity through various therapies and dietary changes and that other symptoms can be helped and improved upon; what reason can you possibly require to know PRIOR to your baby's birth that he or she has these genes?

Let's take it a step further, let's pretend that environmental factors really might have some sort of influence (Something that every fibre of science and reality actually rejects), but we are pretending after all...

So... if as you suggest there is some sort of environmental aspect that actually does cause autism... Why do you need to do an amniocentesis, because it won't change anything.

The ONLY reason for interfering with the child in the womb is one of two reasons:

1. To alter the genes in the growing foetus, which as already pointed out could cause all sorts of other hideous disasters after the fact -- Assuming the foetus survives the intrusion, what are you creating rather than deal with autism?

and

2. To give you the ability to choose to abort the foetus rather than deal with autism.

See, what is truly horrific about this whole fantastic shangrila of yours is that even if the foetus DOES test positive, until he or she is about 2 years old, you nor science nor anyone else failing a G-d you may or may not believe in, has any way of knowing how afflicted the child will be.

I would test just as positive as Alex, Alex would test just as positive as you and you would test just as positive as Amanda.

And the worst part of all of that is that parents will effectively use this information to blindly destroy what they fear; not what they know. That is the difference between ASD and Down Syndrome.

DS affects one chromosome, ASD affects 46.

You decide... now... Abortion or eugenics or are you going to take your chances with the environment.

EVERY autie and aspie in here has already decided... We'd rather take our chances on the environment.

AND thus, as a direct extension of that decision, we want MORE money spent on figuring out how to improve our quality of life than on figuring out how to change it before it starts or at the very worst to eliminate our opportunity to have one.

There really is nothing else to even think about.

So... what's your decision?

I wouldn't bother with an amnio unless there was real reason to. If my child is born autistic then that's just something I accept and will deal with if and when it happens. I have a lot of Asperger's in my family and a couple of lower functioning autistics - there's a real genetic trend in our lot - so that's just something that I'll deal with at the time and support them as best I possibly can. I don't mind if my child is on the spectrum or not; it's still my child, and with my family history it's just a 'risk' we all run simply by falling pregnant. The only reason I'd have an abortion would be because I'm not at a stage where I could realistically bring a child up, or for health reasons (ie if my health was in serious jeapardy), not because of who or 'what' that child is. So the whole scenario isn't particularly relevent to me. If you'd read what I'm saying with a reasonable mindset instead of being so intent on flaming everything I say you'd have noticed that.

Again, I'm not at all saying that all autism is triggered by the environment/external factors at all - the vast majority is genetic. All I'm saying is there is no reason why there cannot be other factors influencing it in some individuals too, whether that be an inability to chelate various metals or a mitochondrial disorder as in the now infamous case of the young girl recently, or a genetic predisposition to an environmental trigger that may not affect most people but in some cases will trigger autism... By point-blank refusing to even consider that this could be an issue and there could be a reason for the thousands and thousands of children who HAVE apparently been affected by these things in some way could be missing a hugely important point that could potentially help many of these children cope with their condition and alleviate symptoms. To ignore possibilities is a dangerous thing when we're dealing with a condition whose causes are still largely unknown. Leave no stone unturned and all that.

I'm also not saying the focus should primarily be on helping the families of autistics, of course it shouldn't, but they DO deserve some level of help and the focus should never leave them entirely - and in many ways not helping them means not helping the autistic individual involved either. The fact remains many parents struggle to raise a 'normal' child. I have friends who are teachers that are faced with influxes of full classes of five year olds who don't know their colours, how to count to ten, how to write their name... So how can you expect these parents to then raise a child with additional needs such as those that come with autism without any help or support? And how can you expect that child to flourish in an environment where the parents are struggling with their siblings, let alone the affected child? Helping the families in many cases is going to mean helping the child as well - you cannot separate the two.

LeKiwi, if you're so convinced that I'm flaming you, why don't you simply answer the question?

If as you suggest autism MAY be environmental, then why support EUGENICS? Why interfere in the womb at all?

I don't support eugenics; what gave you that idea?

The problem seems to be, LeKiwi, that you make both the above statements, but fail to make the logical deduction - that any cure would, of necessity, address the genes. That implies gene manipulation (which I'm not against, as a general principle, though I would be against it in this instance) or eugenics (which I am against).

Perhaps. I guess it depends on your definition of cure - I'm not keen on the idea of genetic manipulation, and I'm against eugenics, but surely there's a way of at least alleviating some of the symptoms for those who want it, without having to interfere with the genes themselves? I read not so long ago - though unfortunately can't remember where, I'll have a look tonight and see if I can find something - about research suggesting certain genes can be effectively 'switched on' and 'switched off' by various environmental and/or emotional causes, and that there is research being done into how that works and how often that does play a part. Basically it was saying that they now suspect genes can be 'switched on' throughout life by various factors that may have remained 'dormant' otherwise. Again, can't remember where I was reading it or how reliable the source was, but it stuck in my mind as something quite interesting to keep an eye on. I'm heading out soon but will see if I can find it again later.

HAHA just noticed your signature, Lau -

Ummm, you did; because autism has already been proven genetic; we've told you this repeatedly... yet, you still cling desperately to the idea that there is a cure.

Why would I think you don't support eugenics?

I don't think A always has to equal B. I realize that Kiwi sometimes sounds inconsistent, but some of that seems to be selecting the wrong terminology. Sometimes you have to look for the intent, instead of only at the exact wording. This whole discussion is about stuff that gets very complex, there are many moving parts, and environment can be a factor in aggrevating the condition or cormids. Science has yet to prove that it is or isn't, either way, but most scientists seem to believe it plays a role, albeit with genetics at the core.

Pepperfire, what I'm saying is that we don't know what the exact cause is. The environment could well play a role in it; genetics doesn't mean that's it, stop looking for answers. I'm not clinging desperately to anything - I've already said I don't want a cure myself at all. But why does that mean those who DO want one can't have that option? I'm no more representative of ASers than anyone else on the spectrum - who am I to deny those who want a cure? Who are you to deny them that either? The fact remains nobody knows the exact cause. Yes, genetics plays a major role. But that doesn't mean it's the ONLY thing playing a role.

I still fail to see where you get the idea I'm into eugenics from...

DW seems to understand what I'm saying; you just seem more intent on flaming any opinion that, according to your interpretation, isn't the same as yours.

Well, DW, the thing is, that it is very complex. We've attempted to explain what science has proven vs what science has disproven, and yet, we still get comments like "it's genetic, yes, but there's bound to be a cure"... All the while ignoring that there is no way to "cure" genetics through any other fashion than Eugenics. We've had to point out the response that "Autism Speaks doesn't support Eugenics", with a link to AS' CAN page that quite clearly states that they do support eugenics.

Whether or not environmental factors are going to aggravate certain aspects of autism is moot. The fact is that the child is autism had nothing to do with that particular aggravation.

Ergo, if you still believe that although it is genetic (as science has proven), but want to believe that environmental factors can "aggravate" the issue, then we agree, but you know as well as I do, that even if you stop that environmental factor, you can't change the fact that the "patient" in question is autistic. Extrapolate that to B and lo and behold, the only way to "cure" the autism is eugenics.

It's easy to go from A to B, in fact, it strikes me as quite logical.

Given that... We all know that the only reason to interfere with the foetus in the womb then is either to alter the genes, which could cause all sorts of different problems beyond the autism, or worse, to give the parents a defineable baseline from which to say "this child will be born with autism", thus giving them the choice to abort.

Although the question has been asked; "why bother to interfere with the womb unless your intent is to either interfere with the genes or worse choose to abort", the response is to continue research as is, without regard to the fact that the ONLY possible reasons for interfering IN the womb can be these two options.

What other reason can there be?

I've decided that I'm going to cease speaking with you. You don't care to answer my question and you continue to accuse me of flaming you. So... you win.

For the record though, LeKiwi, if I were to flame you, you'd know it.

Pepperfire, I think that often those speaking of a "cure," are really looking to remove the obvious and negative impairments, more than to change a brain wiring. If someone with a nonverbal child could treat him and have that child, instead, be more like my son, they would probably consider their child "cured," because, as a matter of contrast, the change would be so extreme, they would feel they had reversed the autism and simply ended up with a guirky child who thinks a little differently.

I've read parents who feel that chelation "cured" their children, or that diet changes "cured" their child. Of course, the essential brain wiring was not changed. But the changes were dramatic enough for the parent to feel that the afflication they couldn't live with was gone and, thus, "cured" (it is up for debate if the treatment they believe brought it about really is what created the benefit, of course - separate issue). Not everyone uses the term with the same precision. Once identified, assuming they can be identified, all potential environmental aggrevations will be on the table to be "cured," ie removed, to leave you just with the child you were supposed to have. Who may still be autistic, but has been "cured" of what didn't need to be there.

Yes, many are looking to identify the genes with the goal of being able to abort. I've been around the block enough to know that many well-meaning people will feel that "it isn't fair" to bring a child into this world who is "bound to suffer," or will feel that "I wish I could handle it, but I know I won't be able to." That is the only reason I can see to search for a prenatal test specifically, and I am morally opposed to it.

But the term "cure" is broader than prenatal testing, in the reality of how it is used. The NT world is not as concerned with precision as most Aspies are; it is concerned with the general sense behind terminology. Cure is a positive word, succint, with strong implications, so they use it, even when they really mean "remove various related conditions that make life miserable." That many ALSO use the word "cure" to refer to prenatal testing, which you and I agree will lead to eugenics, does not mean that the former do not exist. They DO, and they are probably the majority. You are applying a standard to the term that not everyone who uses it ascribes to. You need to allow for that, regardless of the fact that when looked at precisely you are right. The intent in how a term used, the concept that the speaker hopes to convey, is every bit as important to conversation as precise meaning.

Yes. I totally approve of that. But a "cure" doesn't imply that. The word "treatment" is more appropriate. And in any case, it is not the autism that is being treated, it is the symptoms that would be addressed, as you say. Even then, strictly speaking, not so much the symptoms, as comorbid conditions, which certainly do seem to crop up along with autism, but also occur when autism is certainly not a diagnosis.


I think the switching on/off of genes is very much a misreading of the situation. Genes are doing that all the time. We each only have the one pattern of genes, repeated in every cell in our body. While you are growing a leg, the cells in that leg have their "I'm a leg growth cell" genes turned on (loosely speaking). A brain has cells busily operating with their "brain cell" genes turned on while it grows. Each region in the brain will have variations of that pattern turned on to grow that specific bit. However, beyond a certain low level of development, the genes cease to have any specific effect on how each lump of brain tissue develops. Eventually, the development becomes an "emergent" pattern. Somewhere after that, I personally think, comes the (very slightly) distinct organisation of the brain which is recognised as autism.

Switching on/off genes seems far too gross an approach to address anything as subtle as autism, itself. I could imagine it being used to correct some diseases that were clearly producing a gross physical defect. E.g. in the Mexican family with a number of members that have faces covered in hair (I forget the term for the disorder - it's not lycanthropy!), I could imagine a huge amount of research finally managing to identify how to turn on the appropriate "don't grow hair here" gene - maybe. Even with such a simple problem, identification of the appropriate mechanism would be awesomely difficult.

An analogy... maybe.... snowflakes.

Each snowflake has a different pattern to every other. However, grossly speaking, you will recognise a snowflake as a snowflake, without any trouble. It's one of those glittery, six-sided pattern things. It's actually just formed from frozen water, and water itself is just two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom, and has no idea that it should form hexagons.

I don't think we are really this different, but think of autists as the five-sided (or maybe seven-sided) snowflakes.

Further, Spider-Man and similar comic-book characters aside, changing the genome does not change the already-developed being. You could reach into my genetic structure and change the Y chromosome to an X, but that would not make me female - I've already grown the primary and secondary sexual characteristics of a male. Similarly, if you were to find a way to simultaneously change every single one of the many, many genetic differences that add up to autism, and apply that "cure" to me, it would not change my brain - the cells are already in place. It's too late to "switch" the genes off and on. This would have to be accomplished in utero, at the very latest - meddling with the parental germ plasm would be a more effective method, I would think.