Autism Prevention- closer than we may think?

Post Reply New Topic

Was watching this YouTube video by Simon Baron Cohen, in regards to extreme male brain theory.

He explains how science has struggled to find an autism gene in the majority of cases, leaving around 70% of ASD cases unexplained by just genetics alone.

In it he provides very compelling
evidence that “non genetic autism” which is probably the majority is caused by out of control male hormone testosterone in the womb. Sometimes caused by Polycistic overy syndrome or other reasons.

Now it’s not in my view beyond science to eventually produce a drug or therapy to regulate testosterone in pregnancy in the same way insulin is regulated in diabetes treatment.

I think that will happen in the not too distant future, where non genetic autism is preventable.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WjTR-VJNm3w

Yes ... let us assure that all future generations will be born as neurotypical zombies.

Never does he claim that this is the entire "cause" of "non genetic autism," but only that there is a correlation, and that a high prenatal testosterone level may be one of the factors resulting in autism.


If Simon Baron-Cohen's theory is correct, this kind of "cure"/"prevention" would be VERY bad for society as a whole. It would also suppress the development of people, both autistic and otherwise, who are talented at "systematization."

Hopefully, fiddling with prenatal sex hormone levels will never be seen as ethical.

See also: Testing the Empathizing–Systemizing theory of sexdifferences and the Extreme Male Brain theory ofautism in half a million people by David M. Greenberga, Varun Warriera, Carrie Allisona, and Simon Baron-Cohena, Autism Research Centre, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 8AH, UK. Edited by Leda Cosmides, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, and accepted by Editorial Board Member Michael S. Gazzaniga September 27, 2018 (received for review June 27, 2018). [Thanks to Jiheisho for calling my attention to this paper here.]

Baron-Cohen comes up with a lot of thought-bubbles on autism which have very little, if any, evidence behind them.

From what I've read on the topic, autism does have a strong genetic component, it's just that in many cases there are numerous genes involved, so nobody has been able to pin down exactly which combinations thereof increase risk by what amount.

Environmental factors are also involved, but again, there are many environmental factors at play, such as various toxin exposures, maternal stress or illness, and so on.

It seems extremely unlikely that a single factor such as testosterone levels in the womb would account for the majority of autism cases. I'm not buying it.

Edited to add: it was a very interesting presentation by Baron Cohen though. Glad I watched that.

It’s certainly not the whole story of “non genetic autism” but it may explain a lot.

Unregulated hormones may cause autism in many cases but normal hormones still produce NT children who are still good at “ Systemizing”, if that wasn’t the case we would have no NTs in science or technology like SBC himself.

Of course advocates would hate the idea of preventing autism but the fact is autism is officially a varying disorder and disability.

In the end the weight of the NT world which is the 99% would prevail over any objections raised.

Why would they have all this research if they never intend to do anything with it?

They have no qualms about recommending folic acid to prevent Down syndrome and allowing the abortion of pregnancies identified as such.

In the US medical laws are more relaxed so would be introduced slowly privately then the rest of the world would catch up.

Of course I am more personally interested in the idea of treatment and cures but understand they will probably want to prevent more than anything.

According to SBC's data, not only many autistic children but also many NT children with strong "systemetizing" ability were exposed to high levels of testosterone in the womb. So, yes, if fiddling with prenatal sex hormone levels were to be allowed, it would greatly harm society as a whole.

Exactly

What we need is neurodiversity and acceptance of autistic minds as equal to neurotypical ones.

Not a robotic hive mind.

There was nothing wrong with my brain til I was in my 20s. I was born autistic.

Yes maybe but obviously those NT children exposed to “high testosterone” that were good at systemising never ended up disabled.

They never ended up with problems with their brain to ruin their lives.

So if there is a link between unregulated hormones in the womb and autism it’s probably not beyond science in the future to see what’s going wrong and provide intervention to stop children ending up disabled with no speech, poor communication skills and a whole lot else without preventing children being good at systemising.

No relationship between autistic traits and salivary testosterone concentrations in men from the general population

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6002020/

That's for adult men. Simon Baron-Cohen's hypothesis has to do with prenatal concentrations of sex hormones.

Officially, maybe, but the officials who declare it as such are probably not autistic. Sure, there are very severe forms of autism that make quality of life extremely difficult and painful, but given that wide range of variation, it seems a bit reductive to call it, as a whole, a disability. Left-handedness and homosexuality were also considered afflictions for a time.



...Exactly. I mean, we agree this is not great, right?



The amount of research that is done simply for research’s sake is boggling. Research is just answering a question. It doesn’t have to have an end goal aside from understanding.



I am not stoked on this parallel. Anti-vaxxers have a lot to say about prenatal autism prevention and that all reads as selfish fearmongering. While I don’t believe that people with Down syndrome don’t have a right to live, the two diagnoses aren’t similar enough for that comparison to really work.

Who says autism needs to be prevented?

I already have Aspergers so prevention is not of great interest to me.

It was however an interesting video and it’s not hard to come to the conclusion that if what SBC says about hormones in pregnancy behind the cause of some ASD’s is true or partly true, then it’s probably not beyond science to come up with some intervention.

As far as why they would want to prevent Autism I think the answer is obvious.

Autism is a disability in many cases. Even in myself with mild symptoms and able to live independently and work it’s still caused major life problems and stress and I would be rather rid of it.

I’ve seen the consequences in those more severely effected and it’s nothing less than tragic. Those severely effected usually die before age 40 usually from epilepsy or accidents. Even those with Aspergers have a 9 x chance of suicide and no it’s not all NTs and the fault of society.

Severe autism is much worse than Down syndrome in fact it’s possibly worse than severe Down syndrome because the brains of those with Down syndrome are calmer.

Most loving and decent parents would not want their child to be disabled in any capacity. They would have to be sick or out of their mind to want their child to be disabled including having a brain function deficit.

As far as science is concerned they are probably more interested in prevention than anything else. That’s what the whole “early intervention” thing is all about. Taking advantage of brain plasticity to reduce or stop autism. Whether this works is another thing.

As far as I'm concerned, this is how some readers interprets the post:
Why all the trouble (science, upbringing, advocacy, acceptance, etc.) when you (the society, parents and caregivers doing all the hardwork) can just kill them (autistics)?

Just a heads up in case someone barges.

I don’t think anyone wants to kill anyone I’m not taking a position on abortion even though prob 99% of abortions are probably NT babies.

I think their ideal position would simply to stop the autism not the pregnancy via interventions in the womb.

Advocates get mixed up between unwanted conditions and unwanted people.

To them they are autism so to prevent it is to prevent them.

They are unable to separate themselves from their condition in the same way someone who was born blind would recognize that being blind is an unwanted condition but they themselves still have value even at the most basic level in the legal sense as anyone else in society.

Well, I'm just warning you.

Good luck convincing said advocates. Worry not, I'm not one of them nor am worried at the whole idea though for different reasons.