Trying to find a cure is idiotic

Post Reply New Topic

Interesting, but this isn't something that someone needs to imagine as it happens in real life with regressive autism, when a child who begins to communicate normally, smiling and happy with their social environment, suddenly loses their ability to communicate as well as interest in social interaction with those that surround them, potentially expressing misery where there was once joy present, and behaviors like self injury, smearing and eating feces.

This is how some people feel, that the child's personality has changed dramatically and no longer is the same happy child, who was connecting with the world.

People do have a hard time living with this, and this has been the driving force of research toward a goal of cure for autism for decades.

While no one is going to force you when you reach adult age, as an individual, by law, into medical treatment that you do not desire, unless you are legally or medically judged as a physical threat to yourself or others, some of these children have already lost what you describe.

If you can see the validity of your statement that you make, it should make it easier to understand the initiatives of organizations like autism speaks that work hard to avoid this potential for other children as well as to improve the lives of those that currently struggle with these symptoms and associated co-morbid conditions.

What you describe is precisely the reason that the Autism Speaks founder initiated his effort, through the emotion over his grandson, that lost the ability to communicate with the world around him.

He did what he thought was the humane thing, not only to direct his resources and influence toward his grandson's issues, but to help many others like him.

The benefactor of the Simons Foundation, that funds three times as much research as Autism Speaks, annually, was much more successful than the founder of Autism Speaks, and can provide tens of millions of dollars for Autism research from his own resources, annually, as one individual with assets that exceed over 10 billion dollars. It's his money. If he wants to spend a half a billion dollars in one year to research a cure for autism, there is no one that is going to stop him. There are many others in the world, that have these resources and similar potential to provide similar efforts in the future.

Autism speaks has a powerful media presence as that is the area of expertise of the founder, who was the President of NBC, but the money they fund for autism research is only 4 percent of the 408 million dollars funded by other private and public organizations in the US.

A billionaire like Simons has the potential of contributing 400 million or more in one year, and Simons didn't have any children or grandchildren reported on the spectrum. He cared about other people as well as himself, his family and friends, as Autism research is only one area of philanthropy that Simons is involved in, donating hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

I hate this sort of mentality... I mean, most of the things of which we take for granted these days were once considered "impossible" by closed-minded people.

While I agree there probably won't be a "cure", I will keep an open mind and keep up with the research, I'm never going to throw up my hands and say, oh well, they tried for a little while.

If there was a cure for depression and schizophrenia, I'm sure more people would take it that not, I know I certainly would.
While these aren't diseases, they should be treated as an illness that needs to be controlled to a certain point, so those affected by them can function on a day to day basis.

I guess I just don't share the same mentality as a lot of autistic people. While I love my safe place, my own little world, I also want to be a part of the place outside of my comfort zone, because I don't want to be stuck in this damn hole for the rest of my life. If that means some day being able to take a "cure" or a really great treatment to help with my symptoms, I would probably do it. I am sick of being disabled by this, I have no social skills whatsoever and it is exhausting and often lonely.

Maybe we should start working on a cure for neurotypical-ism......

Sorry, it appears that didn't come through as dry wit, I was just kidding in that last paragraph about a diagnostic criteria for free will, and the measurement of observable criteria associated with it.

Free will is as real as the human decision making process. It's probably easier to measure observable behavior associated with the decision making process integral to what is described and defined as free will in individuals that lose their ability to make decisions, whether or not the cause is a result of genetics or environment and/or the failure to adapt to it.

Culture provides the cure for any potential for typical neurology from the time a child is born in Western Developed societies, until the time one sees the end of their days of life.

The process understood through science that occurs throughout the course of a lifetime associated with this atypical neurology unique to each human being is neuroplasticity.

All there is, is change. The order we see in life, or what some describe as normality or even "neurotypicalism" is part of the illusion our brains create for survival that results in the unique reality associated with each unique neurology, that in part, is a result of each unique experience of life and the process of neuroplasticity that continuously changes the neurology of the brain through the course of a lifetime.

Even in one individual the neurology one had yesterday isn't quite the same as the neurology one has the next day, or even in the next moment of existence. The human brain provides the illusion of what some perceive as a continuum of predicted experience, that is never fully the present moment.

The byproducts of modern culture that range from living in man-made structures, driving in the same vehicles for years on the same roads, capturing memories in photographs and videos, to listening to the same song or watching the same re-run of a TV show, or a movie, among many other factors, provides a potential experience of perceived order and consistency that would not be possible if one lived as other animals do in the wild. Those byproducts of modern culture, are in part, and through the process of neuroplasticity, creating human beings that are effectively significantly different in neurology from any perception of a norm in behavior that could have been observed 50 years ago.

There has never been typical neurology among human beings as every human experience is different resulting in "neurodiversity", differing neurologies, or atypical neurology that are all terms/phrases that describe the diversity of human neurology.

The criteria of autism spectrum disorders do not directly measure the cognitive process or neurology associated with atypical neurology; the criteria measures observable human behavior, which can be described as impaired or atypical behavior. Science provides evidence that neurology changes over the course of a lifetime, through the process of neuroplasticity, so it is a given that behavioral impairments are a result of differing neurology, whether in part they are a result of genetics, environment, epigenetics, or the process of neuroplasticity.

As far as the term neurotypical in reference to the commonly understood definition of a person whom is non-autistic, it does not have much effective meaning in real life, except for those identified, specifically reporting they have not been diagnosed with an ASD, as it is close to impossible to determine for sure, whether or not one is diagnosed on the spectrum, from casual observation.

Last edited by aghogday on 28 Aug 2012, 2:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

This is an excellent point, and I think that if people (autistic and non-autistic) understood this, then their views on the necessity for social conformity would change.

There will never be a cure for Aspergers Syndrome due the fact its genetic and when once the brain is wired the way it is it cannot be undone without causing severe damage to the brain which only makes things worse!! One can adapt to the point where he/she is indistinguishible from NTs but it takes years of practice fitting in and the AS still remains!

Because it's DEFINED as a disorder. It's always been a disorder. The fact that some people want to change the definition from "disorder" to "just a difference" is beside the point.

If you are not "impaired," you do not meet the diagnostic criteria. This will be made even more clear with the upcoming revision of the DSM-5.



Yes, seeing as how AS is much more than just "social problems, I am still "disordered" when alone.



As is is much more than "social stuff."



The criteria says nothing about "hermits" or "caves."





Funny thing is, those of us with impairments are willing to risk it in order so that we might actually be able to semi-function in society.

Well, yeah, I'm just going by the "justification" section of the official DSM-5 website.

Part of the reason they're changing it is too many people are starting to use "Aspergers" as a personality type.



Thank you, and I agree.

I welcome the inclusion of "Social Communication Disorder" as an alternative to lumping everyone who "feels awkward" around people under "autism."

Disorder is relative. All differences could also be defined as disorders.



I am using DSM-5. I am impaired. However, I don't view myself as defective. There is a difference. I don't see myself as failing to be the way I am supposed to be, but as being different in a way that makes life harder for me. I choose to view myself as having value as I am rather than being a mistake. I struggle with things others don't, but that doesn't make me defective. I'm not disordered (in a philosophical sense), I just am what I am.



Of course you are the same person when you are alone, and if you call that "disordered", you are "disordered", but I'm talking about what causes us suffering. It is entirely possible to meet the criteria for ASD and not have it be a source of suffering when you are alone. If that is not the case for you, that's you, but it isn't a requirement.



http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/P ... spx?rid=94
A - Is "social stuff".
B - I have the required "at least two" and do not find it to be exclusively a source of suffering, therefore I do not consider it "disordered". My special interests and routines are often a source of enjoyment for me. I have some sensory issues but as a whole package I'd rather have the type of perception I have, with the good and bad. Yes, I understand this is not the case for everyone, but it doesn't mean I don't meet the criteria or am a poser.
C - symptoms present from childhood
D - Obviously the above, if strong enough, will limit and impair everyday functioning in mainstream society. It does for me, undeniably. That's why I am here. Whether it would impair functioning in a different environment is another matter, and moot until such an environment actually exists.



That's my point. "Limit and impair everyday functioning" - well, everyday functioning involves "social stuff". Everyday functioning in an NT world is impaired by not being an NT. That is obvious. Everyday functioning as a fish is impaired by not having gills.



I have impairments, as I told you already, and you have no reason to continue to refuse to take my word for it. I used to take Zoloft and I stopped because I was not willing to endure the side effects I had. I don't know how it balances out for you. People have different symptoms and different reactions to drugs, but that is a particularly dangerous one and I hope you aren't basing your decision on this idea that your brain is "scientifically wrong". I understand that you might have symptoms that would cause suffering you couldn't otherwise avoid, and that's reason enough, but you can't simply label those who don't as fakes. I'm willing to bet that you suffer from things in your environment too, including the behavior of NTs around you, and would benefit from a more AS-tolerant society as well. You seem to assume neurodiversity advocates want to limit your choices, but it looks like you're the one asking that we alter ourselves in any way we can rather than asking for the least bit of accommodation, because if we do we clearly aren't suffering enough.

Well, I, for one, am fine with being called autistic. Even if people think it means ret*d, it's better than what they think now.

Having a disorder doesn't mean that someone is defective, and someone acknowledging that they have a disorder doesn't mean they believe they are defective.

The word implies it. Just like "overweight" implies there is a correct weight you are over, "disorder" implies there is a correct order that you lack, and XFilesGeek also used the word "incorrect", which says the same thing.

Maybe it seems like a subtle distinction, but I to me it makes a big difference. Sure, in a relative sense you can say someone has a "disorder" because they have reduced ability to do specific things, but I don't believe that it is in an absolute sense. It is a very important distinction for me. The same differences that impair me in some things enhance other abilities, as far as I can tell. Maybe not, but it certainly seems that way. That is not a refusal to acknowledge something. I am what I am, and it isn't always easy, I just refuse to see that thing as inherently bad.

I think I've explained myself pretty thoroughly though so if people still misunderstand me I guess it just has to be that way.

The entire concept of "mental disorders" is exclusively targeted at people who experience significant impairments in their everyday life.

That was it's original intention. It was never meant to define "personality types" or "personality differences." "Aspergers Disorder" is specifically defined as a set of impairments, and a DISORDER. "Labels" mean things because we say they do, and they have objective existence because we say they do. A monkey is not an ape, and an ape is not a monkey by the objective set of objective criteria that humans invented to define such things. The fact that this arbitrary classification system wouldn't "exist" if humans suddenly disappeared is irrelevant.



I am "disordered," "impaired," and "disabled."

I am not "defective."

If you continue to attach negative connotations to "disorder," that is your choice, but it's not mine.



I'm not sure what "suffering" has to do with it, but what causes me "suffering" is much more than just "social stuff."



Yes. Autism Spectrum Disorders are much more than just "social stuff."

You might want to note that they're also adding a severity scale that requires one to be "impaired" in order to be diagnosed.

Also from the official DSM-5 website:



Hence, not a "personality type," which the DSM-5 will clarify.



Autism is "impairing" by much more than just "social stuff." If all of your troubles come down to "social stuff," then congratulations on being an NT.



I'm not going to dignify this with any further response.



AS is a disorder with a specific set of impairments. If you do not have these impairments, you do not meet the criteria for AS.



I'm not asking you to "alter" anything.

I don't think that not being able to nuture yourself because of autism is a "personality trait".
Executive dysfunction is not a personality trait.
Sensory issues impairing you to engage socially are not a personality trait.
Sensory issues inhibiting to provide nutrition for yourself are not a personality trait.
This is reality for some individuals with autism.
Adding to this it does not have any connection with living in an "nt"-world.
If an autistic person cannot provide him- or herself with nutrition, there is no what so ever connection to "living in an "nt"-world".
In severe cases it is more than benefical that there are "nt"s taking care.
I don't understand a lot of the argumentation, but I guess it depends on the severity of autism, maybe including additive comorbidities.

Bingo!!