Could Asperger's be caused by external factors...

Post Reply New Topic

I'd have to weigh in more heavily for nature (genetics) over nurture (environment). My family had it's own monozygotic twin study: My father and uncle were identical twins. My dad was the much more well adjusted of the two, and a lot of our family thought of my dad as the good twin and my uncle as the bad twin. They both had an emotional development deficit, no close friends, and an interest in music. Whether they had AS I can't say, but they seemed to have some traits. My dad was sweet-natured and my uncle was cruel and contemptuous. My own theory is that due to their inborn emotional deficit, compounded by some severe childhood trauma, in outward appearance and temperament their decisions (whether conscious or subconscious) made them look to be the opposite of each other. They had a twin to observe and react to in an emotionally immature, black and white way (I'm not going to be like him! I'll do the opposite!). But if you looked past the surface, they were still incredibly similar.

Part of the difficulty in AS evaluation is that it is so subjective and depending on age, individual experience, temperament, and even stress levels while being evaluated, identical twins can appear to be very different. It also makes me think of Temple Grandin who as a child was labeled a Kanner's autistic but is now considered to have AS. The individual, for some reason, can fight to compensate for developmental deficits. That internal drive to struggle to change seems to me to be a more compelling question than if one twin reacts more strongly to a mercury-containing vaccine preservative than another.

The question of why there might (appear to) be more autistic spectrum disorders in 1st world countries is one I'd personally rather leave to the scientists. My armchair isn't big enough for that one.

Do we get extra points for long posts? Special interest alert! My apologies.

Z

No it doesn't happen because of the trigger. It happens because of the gene.



Now here is the confusion. EVentually everyone who carries the gene will be regarded as being on the Spectrum - or should be. There are many people who have some of the characteristics of the Spectrum but not enough to get a diagnosis. They are NT's at present, but when the DSM finally gets it right (and this is my opinion only) it will be easier to get a diagnosis. And guess what? Suddenly NT's just might be in the minority!



No, that's impossible unless there's something wrong with the vaccine - or it was administered while the child was ill (which a competent doctor should never ever do).



No - you back up.....

Let me see if I understand you. genes + trigger = autism. Since the genes come first, autism is genetic at it's root.

Here's my problem with it: Some people smoke 3 packs of cigarettes a day for 50 years and are very healthy and never get lung cancer. The reason? They don't have the genes for it. It's known that genetics plays a role in cancer. It takes genes + trigger = lung cancer. Based on your reasoning, lung cancer is genetic at it's root.

Summary
genes + trigger = autism
genes + trigger = lung cancer

What causes lung cancer? Most people blame the trigger (and say that cigarette smoking and radon are the top two causes) even though genes play a role. If autism is caused by a combination of genes + trigger, why blame the genes? Why not search for the environmental factors that trigger the genes that result in autism?

There are an infinite number of environmental factors which could possibly influence the development of autism, and I imagine it would be difficult (though not perhaps impossible) to sort them all out with any degree of certainty. I also tend to think that prenatal environmental factors play a greater role in brain development than post-natal factors. Prenatal rubella and exposure to alcohol have already been linked to autism. Research on homosexuality has indicated that genetics plus a certain atypical combination of certain hormones during gestation influence brain development to the point of "causing" homosexuality. I don't see why it couldn't work the same way with autism. Still, when we know that autism is at least 60% or so genetic in most cases, I don't entirely see the point of doing super-expensive research on other causes. What, exactly, will such research accomplish? Does anyone seriously believe that it's possible to reverse autism with our current technology?

There are already probably hundreds of people who claimed to have recovered from autism. There are several scientific studies showing that some treatments are effective in at least reducing some autism symptoms. The people who claim to have recovered used chelation, anti-fungals, anti-virals, antibiotics (Flagyl and Vancomycin), and probiotics to remove heavy metals such as mercury and treat possible infections.

If the research was focused on studying treatments that people have already found effective, it wouldn't be super expensive and it would greatly help thousands of people.

TLPG: The trigger doesn't do anything when it's pulled, if there's no bullet in the gun. The very existence of a trigger makes it a mutually exclusive element, and therefore, needs to be present in the cases where Autism is triggered by am external factor.

Not everyone who carries the gene will be autistic, and there are th NT carriers as well. They aren't considered on the spectrum if they're called NTs, now are they? And some of those people, likely a majority, aren't autistic, but simply have those characteristics, without neccesarily being autistic. Over diagnosis would be a MAJOR problem. Especially the way it's been gone about, as I've heard. Required minimum IQ, new criteria which could include anyone, and the fact that people are getting ahold of an as of yet incomplete diagnostc manual reeks to me of illegality. If it was supposed to be public while it was being written, there wouldn't be this apparent information leak.

It could be any one of an infinite number of factors, and not everything in a vaccine is dead bacteria. There's all kinds of additives, and any one of those being put directly into your system could cause it. Of course, this is all speculation, like all other speculation so far.

My bad. I must've missed a few words. I shouldn't write when I'm tired.

Zonder, you get bonus points.
A long post, and a good one.

srivv345, it's to further our understanding of the universe. Let me grab you a link to a handy chart.
http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/images/ ... charts.jpg

Science+Time=Knowledge

A big part is, that some won't accept that there may be more than one cause for Autism. They pick one idea, like Mercury or Genetics, and they follow the second chart. Finding out all the causes will expand what we know, and by expanding upon such information, we better understand Autism. Besides, then it will be far easier, and much more accurate, to diagnose people.

No, you got it wrong.

Gene = Autistic Spectrum
Gene + Trigger = Anywhere on the Spectrum (LFA, HFA, AS etc)



My mother in law didn't have the genes for it - yet her life was taken by cancer because of smoking. The cancer spread which is what killed her because the operation to remove a quarter of her lung was too late.

There are other examples of this as well. Want to explain that?

The minority who survive for so long under those circumstances must have strong hearts in order to keep going despite the invasion of the lungs - likely keeping the cancer causing nicotine at bay.

So your summary is right up the creek.

Joeker, when the gene is present - the gun is loaded. It's not empty. The gun is not there at all if there is no gene.

And you'll find that NT's who carry the gene in fact have some Autistic traits. They just don't have enough of them to be regarded as on the Spectrum - therefore (ergo) they are NT. Which in that case is actually a mistake.

So, your theory is that anyone with a certain gene will be autistic, and depending on what happens to trigger it, they'll land somewhere on the spectrum. Anyone with the gene will therefore be autistic, even without the trigger being pulled, despite being loaded? And there is no room for any other possibilities other than Autism being 100%, undeniably, without a doubt caused completely by genes.

The gun isn't always fired, though, which is why there are obviously carriers, especially if the gene is recessive, not dominant. And recessive genes don't affect a person, if there is a dominant gene.

Trust me, I aced every assignment, quiz, and test on genetics in both standard science, and the specialized science I took. I know genetics.

EDIT: After this post, I found this. Here's evidence from the same legal system that performed the Vaccine Trials. I guess this means that it's not such a crazy fringe belief after all.

Last edited by Joeker on 01 Mar 2008, 7:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

Some Mothers do have them!

Aspergers Sydrem is created wilfully by mother nature, in the same way that NTs are. Maybe there are environmental factors that encourage Aspergers, but you can say that about anything. Like a mother living in an area with high radiation tends to have more boy children does not mean that rediation creates boy children.

. NT nature is a violent and aggressive one and nation without enough aspies tend to lack the ingenuity and technology to win wars. If the Germans or the Japanese one the war their would be much more aspies around. Understand enough about Aspergers and you will understand nature intended for them

Of course, but not every parent does. I admit, there's a high percentage of Autistics who're likely that way through their genes. But for those who aren't?

I think our points of view may be a little too different to reconcile, so I'm going to agree to disagree, alright?

You can’t see the wood behind the trees

AYA AYA AYA ! !! !! !! !! !! CANT TAKE THIS NO MORE

NT’s ARE SOCIAL ORIENTED
ASPIES ARE SCIENCE ORIENTED

Naturedly it is a simple TRADE OFF. There are NTs that are very good at science just as there are fast 4x4 pickup trucks but if you trip down the pickup truck and make it look like a aerodynamic sports car it would go much faster.

THERE IS VERY LITTPE POINT IN DESCUSSION WHAT GENES OR CHEMICALS MAKE UP ASPERGERS. If the laws of nature decide to create NTs or Aspies it will do so regardless.

ASPERGERS IS A EVOLUTIONARY EVENTUALITY NOT A MUTATION.

Good point. Though of course, all of evolution is simple mutations, and it's the survival that passes along the genes if these genes better adapt the creature to survive. I guess it's fine to leave evolution to the natural order. Nothing wrong with that.

And your university qualifications on the subject are?

Well said, Chav. I'm finding more and more (with the odd exception) that the issue of not seeing the wood for the trees is a rather bad problem for teenagers. Of course, it's not a non existant factor in older Aspies also - and my own experience is just one of many. Funny thing. The problem is actually linked to a teen trait that is hardly Aspie - the thinking that teens engage in that they know everything. *smiles* Used to be like that when I was a teen as well. Stupid times - and something that seems to repeat itself across all cultures (Aspie AND NT).

University? Why bring qualifications in, except to distract? Was there anything wrong with the information I provided about genetics, anything specific? I thought not. It's science, not experience. I'm well-educated on, and easily grasp the concepts, terminology, and methodology of genetics. If I was not wrong, then there's no point in trying to academically disqualify me from stating my opinion; An educated opinion.

Perhaps you might want to learn about genetics before telling others they aren't qualified enough to.

I bring qualifications into it to demonstrate that your knowledge of genetics is at a basic level only (depending on what specifically that specialised science was). That's all school provides. True full knowledge of genetics is complicated - and even then no one knows everything on the subject as there are always new discoveries made. The ones in the best position are those with the full qualifications of a university degree.

School tests, quizzes and so forth are nothing when compared to that.

I happened to take Biology, which was based heavily in biology, and Psychology, which dealt heavily in psychology. Very thorough, very up-to-date, and taught by fantastic teachers. So trust me when I say I know a recessive gene from a dominant one.

If you understand something, you understand it. You don't need a fancy degree to have the knowledge and apply it. It really makes you more authorative on it, but it's not an end-all. They are wrong sometimes, just not too often. As well, I have made a valid argument, sound in it's basis. If your only argument is lack of qualification, you are essentially dismissing yourself as well.

The occurence of ASDs in children of parents which don't have symptoms of ASDs denotes the gene as recessive. The majority of scientific research on Autism and Genetics points to that conclusion. Thus carrying the gene does not denote status of ASD. Furthermore, in something as complex as the Autistic Spectrum the idea of a simple, singular cause is outrageous. That being said, it is scientifically accepted that Autism is predominantly genetic. However, that statement makes no reference to non-genetic causes, leading to an overly simplified belief that there can be only one cause. Other causes are not ruling out genetics, nor does geetics rule those other causes out, any more than smoking as a cause for cancer rules out a genetic predisposition for cancer.

And those school units may be nothing compared to a full university degree, but they still hold some value, or else public education would be nothing but a waste of potential. And they're certainly more valuable than not.