AS=chemical imbalance?

Post Reply New Topic

How much serotonine is a thought? Is there a specific balance of chemicals in my brain everytime I think of birds flying in a blue sky?

Neurons send signals between each others with these neurotransmittors, signals,
the global 'level', amount or balans of these chemicals is not what constitutes a thought (processing), but the when and where, in which 'circuit'.

It's not even partly a cause, there's nothing to be said about serotonine levels or any 'balance' and certainly not about



It's used and present elsewhere in your body, specifically in your guts and it's stored in the platelets in your blood.



I doubt he'd be referring to some specialized research that exists somewhere. It's not something that's commonly stated in relation to AS by the more known experts on ASD's.



It's false information, and either he knows it is that or he doesn't and believes it. In both cases he's not a doctor I'd want.

Icarus speaks the truth - I couldn't have put it better. So many people are too scared it seems, to say 'I don't know'. I don't know why - I'd have far more respect for someone who could stand up and admit their lack of knowledge than someone who spouts a load of bull without knowing what they're talking about. But perhaps that's just my black-and-white aspiedom coming through. I don't know.



I can add to the list of doctor's silly statements:

A few months ago I was down with the flu for two weeks, and when I returned to work still looking like death but feeling better (I could sit up, couldn't I?!) my boss drove me to the doctor's for 'drugs' I didn't want.

Doctor prescribed antibiotics without even looking at me. I asked why I was getting them for a viral infection, and she raised an eyebrow and said "Because they work". I then asked if she could give me some probiotics to rebalance my system afterwards, and she said "Probiotics are a load of new-age rubbish and do nothing, why would you want them?"

So - antibiotics cure viruses, and probiotics are new-age rubbish.

[Went to a homoeopath a week later who gave me some remedies as I was still barely able to sit up; within a day I was alive again.]

Zwerfbeertje,

It was one of the first findings in autistic individuals other than the behaviours; I'll find a quick qoute:

The last of your quotes is in relation to the information the OP provided, I doubt it's a direct quote from the doctor himself; one needs a more accurate description of what the doctor said. For example, a chemical imbalance prior to birth is one theory for the cause of autism; he could have easily meant this. There's just not enough information to make a judgement of the professional in question.

I understand this, Daniel; and perhaps there are mental hypochondriacs among us.

My point is that the flipside is also true; just because a professional says someone has a certain condition doesn't mean they have it.

Weren't you originally misdiagnosed, only to then self diagnose, and then attempt and succeed to get doctors to concur with your self diagnosis? Why didn't you just stick with the original diagnosis? If you did suspect that your original diagnosis was in error, or perhaps not the most precise diagnosis available, why did you self-diagnose before seeking the second opinion of a doctor? How might you have responded if your doctor had told you your self diagnosis is completely off? Would you have argued your case? Or just swallowed what you were told, and accept the notion that it is you who are in error, not your doctor?


I'm sure I can do this as well, to the point I could probably use knowledge of the DSM criteria to go to a mental health professional and get a wide variety of diagnoses. Could I find someone to diagnose me with AS? I'm certain I could. What about HFA? Yeah, probably. Schizophrenia? Hell, I'll just go to the same doc that diagnosed my sister with it. And if anyone tells me something I don't want to hear, that's exactly where a second, third, fifth, or tenth opinion becomes handy. All I need is one person to say, "Yep, it's official." and thus it is true.

But for my own part, I am forced to ask the question - what is the point? How would any official diagnosis change my life, make it better? Knowing the truth of things? No, there is no truth in psychiatry. Benefits, services, treatment, etc.? Don't need any of them; I'm successful and happy and doing just fine. I suppose that what is left is just a badge that says "It's official!" to give me some feeling of validation with respect to my obvious mental peculiarities. But, honestly, that validation is just not something I need or am interested in. I am how I am; I may have some neurological differences from standard humans; I certainly exhibit many of the symptoms of such conditions, and will not hesitate to suggest such conditions as reasonably qualified descriptions of facets of my own condition. But all medical mumbo jumbo aside, I'm perfectly happy with labels that do not involve mental health care professionals; labels like "eccentric", "weird" and, even "crazy". Where the medial labels become more use than general terms is depth of description; "eccentric" is rather vague compared to "Asperger's syndrome".

Now if there is some need for an official diagnosis beyond a pretty label-badge (and I think there often is), then I am for the notion of pursuing it. I did in my son's case; he needs special assistance due to his condition, therefore having an official diagnosis for him becomes a useful tool when dealing with his schooling and so forth. Of course, I realize my son's diagnosis may be in error also. He's diagnosed with severe autism; he only has about one-third of the symptoms, and has several other notable abnormalities that do not necessarily fall under a diagnosis of autism. Still, if it gets him the assistance in schooling that he needs, I'll take the "autism" diagnosis.


Just note that when you say they are right more times than they are not, you are engaging in the same conjecture that I was when I said that I suspect the opposite is closer to the truth. But even if you are correct, I begin to wonder what margin of error is unacceptable, and makes the entire psychiatric diagnosis machine untrustworthy. Let's say you're right and generally mental diagnoses are correct more times than they are not. An incorrect failure rate of 40% does not disagree with your at least 51/49 position; is that an acceptable margin of error? What about 20% incorrect? What about 10%? 1%?

Whatever the actual margin of error is, there is no absolute truth in the realm of psychiatric diagnoses. That is what I rail against; people get a diagnosis and sometimes make the mistake of assuming it is infallible; for my own part, I've known far too many people who have been misdiagnosed (particularly AS for schizophrenia) to be comfortable with the "right more times than they are not" position. I'm not against official diagnoses by professionals; I just maintain that they should be viewed with a suspect eye.


Oh, I can and do take issue with the diagnostic criteria if I think they may be in error. For example, I used to have a rather large problem with (my own notion of) the DSM-IV saying that AS and any of the schizophrenia's cannot be co-morbid - it's one of the other, and schizophrenia wins if there is a conflict. [You recently corrected my misperception of this by posting a bit of the DSM that stated these conditions can be co-morbid, provided AS was around first.]

My point is not that descriptions of diagnosable conditions are useless; rather, my point is that like diagnoses themselves, diagnostic criteria are simply a set of educated guesses in areas that we clearly do not have a complete understanding of. Like diagnoses, diagnostic criteria are not absolute truth, and they are not infallible. And if we are going to engage in the guessing game of diagnoses and diagnostic criteria, I am inclined to get in on that guessing action myself; I am certainly not infallible myself, but I do have faith in my own ability to guess about things, and my own motivations for being inclined to do so.

I have a goodly amount of respect for your opinion on these things, Daniel; I'm not trying to argue right or wrong here; just exploring the subject whilst injecting my own unique take on things.

"Rather than love, than money, than faith, than fame, than fairness... give me truth." - Christopher McCandless

Good fortune,

- Icarus is a monopole loadstone...

The accuracy of diagnoses of certain conditions seems to support my broad statement that professionals are more often right than they are wrong; autism is picked up in nearly all cases, Asperger's in about half of all cases [in school age children]. That's 75% accuracy for ASDs (the figures for illnesses that rely on physical evidence rise dramatically, i.e., simple blood work). The accuracy of diagnosing adults with Asperger's disorder falls when there's a lack of self-awareness into the condition, rather than inexperience by the clinician--I thought I was good at socializing for example, I just didn't want to do it I told the professionals who misdiagnosed me (which is true, but it's when one has trouble with such that's at the heart of an ASD rather than the desire for such).

The why of diagnosis is for the simple fact that most people who have an ASD need social services and/or allowances made in academic or vocational pursuits. The "official" label gives these people the help they need; as you said for your son. Even individuals with Asperger's need the same services as those with autism frequently.

Above all, the official label verifies that one is indeed correct in their own self-diagnosis; people diagnose themselves with a condition as they're looking for a reason why they have trouble in certain areas, no matter what condition. When professionals who see many individuals with the condition you so happen to believe you have verify it, you can then take the best course of treatment that suits you.

Mhh, 23 children, 1961 and they've still not found anything solid except the correlation?


1) serotonine is present in the blood in platelets, higher amount then usual found could be due to
2) global concentration levels of neurotransmitters do not matter do neural networks don't function on global levels of neurotransmitters, but on transmission of signals between neurons. For all we know higher global levels of these are due to nothing but higher activity.
3) serotonine and other neurotransmitters normally do not exchange between blood and brain.

The term 'chemical imbalance' is was coined for marketing anti-depressants to US customers, it has little scientific use, but has seen some mis-use as a lay-explanation of mental illnesses. About the cause of autism, nothing is known, a doctor using this marketing term is thus either selling something or giving a fake and very incorrect explanation of the cause of autism.

There's a lot known about the cause of autism, the problem is there are too many causes to identify a specific cause. Hence, we have this umbrella term called autism that explains certain behaviors exhibited without a clear physcial finding other than "funny" brains on neuroimagining studies compared to the normal population. Plus other misc. findings like the chemical imbalance above.

Speaking purely anecdotal here (it's also objective because there's a study on such); SSRIs reduce the severity of obsessive interests in those with autism, some of which are clearly severe (I wouldn't be posting here if it wasn't for the SSRI I'm on for example as before that I couldn't think of or do anything else but my narrow interest).

I'll post a snippet:

A "chemical imbalance" could be treated with psychoactive drugs. And while brain chemistry is certainly part of autism, it's not the whole thing. If it was merely a chemical imbalance, then there would already be drugs that could suppress most autistic symptom.

And of course I find it fully possible that certain high-functioning forms of autism could very well end up being the next stage of human evolution. The digital world requires people with stronger logical abilities then previous eras did.

As a scientist, I do actually say 'I dont know' quite a lot. I never got the ability to talk bulls**t about something I dont actually know anything about like some scientists have. I guess for doctors it might be harder though.

My own experiences with the psychiatric health system has been basically that they dont know. The first time I was severely depressed 12 years ago they told me that it was possible that I had some (clearly atypical) form of schizophrenia but that I was too young to diagnose (obviously AS wasnt well known then). Recently I asked my psychiatrist here in France after my second major depressive episode what the diagnosis was and he told me that the important thing was that I got better - so Im guessing that he doesnt know either (no I havent told him about suspected AS, he wont understand as it isnt diagnosed much in France, but I like him despite this and dont want to spoil the relationship, and I have got better from the depression, which was after all the important thing).

There are lots of theories to do with 'chemical' imbalances that are not necessarily unfounded, such as melatonin levels. Daniel got it right there are structural differences, but also chemical difference as a result. The brain functions on chemical signals so of course the way anyone is because of brain chemistry.

Anyway it is all biochemical. Our brain has organic compounds. In the simplest terms brain is protein.

This evolution thing is a nice idea, but how is it going to work? Either we have to survive better in the world than NTs, or (more importantly) reproduce more, in order to become more frequent in numbers. Neither is likely, particularly for lower functioning autism. Perhaps it will become 'sexy' to be highly logical and into computers etc, but I dont see that happening yet. If it were true, aspies would have no trouble with dating at all

There are no given evolutionary stages it could go any way. Evolution has a random element to it, unless you think it is predetermined. There is no reason to assume that one characteristic (present) make up will predominantly survive. It concerns every little detail on the molecular level. That is what makes it take a long time. It is not surprising the simpler organisms tend to have shorter and faster lifetimes and evolve faster.