groundbreaking autism research

[mygifts1306]

on the causes of autism and apparantely it can be treated, anyone read it.

[baddad]

Nope! - can you give us a bit of a clue (maybe a link or something)as these kinds of stories tend to pop up quite regularly in the news... One recent one was about MRI scans, and there are lots centred on behaviour managements strategies, dietary intervention etc etc. Dunno if any of those ring any bells?

 

L&P

 

BD

[mygifts1306]

neurogenetist Dr John Shoffner, i will try to google it, http://www.wsbtv.com/news/ 27191878/detail.html thats the article, probably not true. I am not good at pasting links,my friend mentioned it today on the phone, its a genetic link that they found, i got it via email on the mums circle, thought u guys would know.

Edited March 22, 2011 by mygifts1306

[GaryS]

I think the "cure" is referring to Mitochondrial Disease. Unlikely I think.

 

This is the link

[mygifts1306]

I think the "cure" is referring to Mitochondrial Disease. Unlikely I think.

 

This is the link

 

maybe i misunderstood it, cheers

[GaryS]

maybe i misunderstood it, cheers

 

 

It wasn't very clear

[baddad]

Sounds more like a simple case of misdiagnosis and/or a shift in perspective and expectations on the part of the parent. Both are increasingly common in the states, with diagnosis being overturned a few years down the road and the likes of DAN parading indoctrinated, normalised children briefly onto a stage so they can read prepared speeches from an autocue to the punters in the audience.

 

I think the claims of a 'cure' or treatment are all wind and water (must have been a slow news day!) and I don't think there's anything specifically new about the research (hard to tell from such a 'nothing of nothing' reporting style), but I think many, many parents - including those who, like Tyler's mother, believe vaccines are implicated - will recognise and associate with the viral infection/fever thing.

 

The downside of a recognisable 'feature' like that is that it creates a ton of smoke for very little fire - i.e. the big cloud is enough to attract lots of attention and people cueing up to fan the flames (usually by throwing money onto the pyre), but ultimately it just fizzles out leaving people feeling cold and miserable and even more disheartened.

 

The reality is, though, the 'fever' has always been there in the background - right back to the days when everybody in the medical establishment accepted that measles, mumps and rubella were all potential 'triggers'.

 

L&P

 

BD

[GaryS]

 

The reality is, though, the 'fever' has always been there in the background - right back to the days when everybody in the medical establishment accepted that measles, mumps and rubella were all potential 'triggers'.

 

L&P

 

BD

 

 

Er.. not me mate, but then I was an Immunologist.

[baddad]

See Wing, L. and early editions of 'The Autistic Spectrum', along with most other professional writing prior to the great MMR debate...

dunno about immunologists, but maybe they were looking for direct links, and i don't think we're ever going to find the answer was that easy all along...

[GaryS]

Ah Lorna. Mmm.

[baddad]

Ah Lorna. Mmm.

 

And all the others!

 

Don't knock Lorna as a point of reference for old research material (assuming that's what the mmmm meant?). In the context and time-frame I quoted there were few other people writing on the subject commercially. And the connections made between measles, mumps and rubella (and the fevers they produced) were never 'disproven', they just fell out of favour when the MMR thing took off and the BMC were forced to produce a pamphlet full of misinformation and outright lies to counter all the negative press.

 

Please don't mistake that as an endorsement of any MMR theories or anything like that, cos it isn't. Whatever the facts or fiction behind the MMR 'scare' the reality is that before it all 3 of the viruses were linked to autism, and the pamphlet 'MMR - The Facts' was full of misinformation and outright lies. Thats's just 'historically accurate' and I'm not in any way suggesting that those two factors provide proof of anything other than that.

 

L&P

 

BD

[GaryS]

Sorry, wasn't knocking just reminidng myself that I always treat research from sources "with interest" as potentially quite biased. I was aware of some of the links being made pre-MMR but then, as now dismissed as an obfuscation - admittedly I didn't have the "interest" then as I have now. I find a lot of these type of "links" somewhat similar to the near perfect correlation between anti-depressant consumption and rain forest destruction.

[sesley]

There is no cure for a living breathing autistic human being, the best for them is for support and understanding to help them cope with this mad bad confusing,busy world we live in. People with autism are unique and need better understanding,from the education authorities,the medical profession,the governments etc the list goes on. Autism should be more positively promoted for acceptance rather than a negative ,oh dear we have a autistic child what shall we do now,how do we get a normal socially acceptable child attitude.

[GaryS]

There is no cure for a living breathing autistic human being, the best for them is for support and understanding to help them cope with this mad bad confusing,busy world we live in. People with autism are unique and need better understanding,from the education authorities,the medical profession,the governments etc the list goes on. Autism should be more positively promoted for acceptance rather than a negative ,oh dear we have a autistic child what shall we do now,how do we get a normal socially acceptable child attitude.

 

Sadly a more common attitude from parents is "oh dear we have a autistic child what does that mean, who's fault is it and when can I cure them", and from the authorities is "no not autistic, but does show similar signs" and when pressed - sorry there is no budget left for any help. Last year I heard a first hand account from a parent that a families social worker she was interviewed by had never heard of the Lamb report- unbelievable.

[coolblue]

The recent NICE guideline

 

http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG/Wave15/78/Consultation/Latest

 

says that 60 medical conditions are associated with autism. Gillberg & Coleman in " The Biology of the Autistic Syndromes" (1992) list dozens of such associated conditions documented as co-occurring with a diagnosis of autism. I know 'associated with' doesn't mean 'causing', but since the conditions include abnormalities in all but three chromosomes and a bunch of viral infections you do wonder. What concerns me is why possible links between known medical conditions and autism are no longer the focus of attention, as Baddad points out.

 

cb

[mygifts1306]

I think it is safe to conclude there is no groundbreaking research and that it really wont change our lives. Before i had children i always maintained that if i ever had children i would like them to be polite, care about others and the world and reach their potential, I really did not want to spend hours and hours reading what specialits say about my child should be doing. I could not use my instinct, and i did not want to copy other parents, so the only thing left was to read books. Autism is the most frustrating condition i think, but then again Great Britain is the most confusing place to live in, people dont really talk, and if they do talk you worry about how much information you are suppossed to reveal, and then they tell you its their daughter's birthday, you panic and think i will get something, then you are seen as being over the top, I dont have the diagnosis for autism, but my son does, I am also not from here(maybe thats the problem) , i find people's ways really confusing. Sorry I am away on a rant, back to topic...in my readings on parenting i came across a book called "the idle parent", a great read...I dont want a cure for my child but i know what i would like to take away from him, he would like to have pals and be liked, and i feel that is important for any child so that they can feel valued and hence have a good self image and self esteem, I want him to try and listen and carry out the instruction....

 

kind regards

[baddad]

Sadly a more common attitude from parents is "oh dear we have a autistic child what does that mean, who's fault is it and when can I cure them", and from the authorities is "no not autistic, but does show similar signs" and when pressed - sorry there is no budget left for any help. Last year I heard a first hand account from a parent that a families social worker she was interviewed by had never heard of the Lamb report- unbelievable.

 

??? Confused here...

The parents are saying the child is autistic but the authorities are saying no? Who made the diagnosis? What's the lamb report? (that last was a joke, sort of)

Sorry, you probably noticed I tend to get a bit of a flea in my fedora when something that looks a bit like home or casual diagnosis gets mentioned (it used to be a bee in my bonnet, but they all disappeared a couple of years ago, so now I'm stuck with fleas and fedoras.)

I do take your point about some parents reactions, but even the most right-on, pro biodiversity mums and dads probably needed a little while to get their heads round it.

 

It's not the most popular POV I know, but I do think autism - especially 'AS' - has already been stretched to breaking point as far as a 'continuum' goes, and I'm sorry but I don't think it's helping anyone. Of course, no autistic child should go undiagnosed, but 'traits' aint autism, (grits aint groceries and Mona Lisa was a man), and if telling a parent who's got a kid with traits that is wrong then I think we've got different ideas about 'right'.

 

[Oh re your other post and 'knocking' - Don't worry, I never took it that way at all. I'm very thick skinned (some would just say 'thick') and hope you';ll appreciate my posts are not 'knocks' too]

 

My gifts - I think what you want for your kids sounds great. I can say that all of the things you mention, including pals and being liked and feeling valued etc are possible for huge numbers of autistic people (no, not all, but for the very small percentage they're not it may well be that they're not things they need, and while that loss hurts us it is our loss and we have to think of it in those terms). And of course, there are also many non-autistic people who will also miss out on those things. Not sure if I'm reading your post correctly, but if you were saying you're still trying to come to terms with your littlun's dx don't beat yourself up about it (see above). We've all been there, and even when you've got past it it'll still come back sometimes and bite you in the bum. And that doesn't mean you're making negative judgements about your kids, it's because, as Sesley says, it's a mad, bad, confusing, busy world, and we are scared for them. I hope that's true for all parents, whether their kids are autistic or not, but there's no doubt that autism or any other disability adds another level of worry.

 

L&P

 

BD

[GaryS]

My post was kind of hypothetical. I hear stories of parents being told that their child has "traits" now I don't have a problem with that unless the reason for not actually giving a diagnosis is in order to avoid provision then that's a different story. I the same way as losing provision because somebody couldn't do their sums is just wrong.

 

No, no accusation of knocking from here, and I was just making sure I was being understood.

 

 

My kids haven't been diagnosed, still going through the mill and my step-son had his Dx well before I met Mom so I haven't faced that particular trial.

[sesley]

whatever diagnosis you get your child is still your child,and if you take a good look at yourselves and the things you find difficult you might see simular characteristics in either you or relative. In the end they are your biological inheritence and deserve the very best love and nuture that a child needs to develop into adults. Yes there are frustrating times,but there are some funny and rewarding ones too.Its important to stay positive and not let the negatives take over.

[GaryS]

Sorry - I am giving out signals to the contrary? Otherwise I'm not quite understanding your responses I'm afraid sesly

[baddad]

whatever diagnosis you get your child is still your child,and if you take a good look at yourselves and the things you find difficult you might see simular characteristics in either you or relative. In the end they are your biological inheritence and deserve the very best love and nuture that a child needs to develop into adults. Yes there are frustrating times,but there are some funny and rewarding ones too.Its important to stay positive and not let the negatives take over.

 

Hi Sesley - mostly agree with that, but don't agree that if we see ourselves in our children it's necessarily a biological or genetic inheritence. If a child is brought up in an environment where, say, racism or sexism is accepted and the norm it is much more likely that the child will grow up to be a racist or sexist. That's not genetic or biological, it's a product of environment and role modelling. I point that out not as any sort of 'challenge' to love and positivity, but just because there's a danger if we look at these kinds of things only in terms of genetic predisposition or inheritence we can see them as 'fixed'. That may not be (probably isn't) the case, and if we identify negatives - in ourselves or our kids or even in both - then a determination and intent to overcome them could make huge differences in a life where acceptance of them as 'fixed' becomes limiting and disabling.

 

L&P

 

BD

Edited March 25, 2011 by baddad

[Mumble]

If a child is brought up in an environment where, say, racism or sexism is accepted and the norm it is much more likely that the child will grow up to be a racist or sexist. That's not genetic or biological, it's a product of environment and role modelling.

Recognising that you've said 'much more likely' not inevitable, I'd still like to offer myself as a counter to this. My mother is, has and always was/will be (and from what I remember from when I was younger my father held similar views) very racist, religionist (is that a word? - well it is now!), homophobic, and very set in her beliefs about women's roles (chains and kitchen sinks).

 

Once I begun to understand just how wrong these views were, I actively and strongly took the opposing view, and my sister is the same. I don't hate racism etc.; I don't understand them. I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with the beliefs, practices or appearance of another person where/provided those have no impact on others. It's something I really can't get my head round.

 

Sorry, just realised this is totally , think I need to go and make some tea and wakeup!

[GaryS]

where/provided those have no impact on others.

 

 

There in lies the rub, and is a very subjective assessment made at the point in time it is made, and should be judged accordingly.

[Mumble]

There in lies the rub, and is a very subjective assessment made at the point in time it is made, and should be judged accordingly.

Sorry, I don't understand - could you explain what you mean a bit more?

[GaryS]

Sorry, I don't understand - could you explain what you mean a bit more?

 

I mean the assessment of hatred, antagonism or simple dislike from one group of people against another should be made in the context and timeframe the situation(s) arose. Like you, I do not consider myself racist,homophobic, anti-creed or religion but then again I'm fortunate to have not been subjected to severe detrimental behaviour by any of those groups but I do have empathy to other individuals who have and I'm not suggesting you don't!.

 

It does take a great deal of courage to separate deep feelings against a group generally, where there have been a representation of that group (in your eyes) who have harmed you.

Edited March 25, 2011 by GaryS

[baddad]

Mumble - absolutely. That's why 'much more likely'.

 

Gary S - that historical/contextual observation you make is valid up to a point, but only up to a point.

Firstly, lets take an example - Christopher Columbus.

At the moment (or at least according to an episode of 'Soprano's' and a few other US series I watched) there's a shift in the US education system history curriculum that tends to label him a 'racist' because of his terrible treatment of other ethnic groups. Many old school parents find that reevaluation of their national treasure difficult, because in context CC was a 'product of his times' and can't/shouldn't be judged retrospectively by modern standards. IMO the reality is, irrespective of the histrorical context, that Christopher Columbus horrifically abused other human beings and did so on the basis of their ethnicity and the dehumanised status he and his society projected onto them. That was prejudicial treatment based on race. It was 'racism'.

We would not say that a racist (or sexist or...) today wasn't a racist because he grew up in an environment (or society - given that local social influences can actually be more powerful than wider ones) where dehumanisation of other people based on their ethnicity (or gender or...) was more common or even the norm. It is, at very best, a 'mitigating factor', but should never be seen as an excuse, justification or cop-out. Going back to my response to mumble above, 'much more likely' isn't the same thing as 'inevitable' and it (MML) should be challenged every single time it is offered as a defense.

 

L&P

 

BD

[sesley]

going back to the original topic regarding these witch doctors going around praying on vunerable people with the possible cure for autism,when there is no cure for a living breathing person's character,I get really annoyed that the ignorance still around regarding autism gives room for these charletons to exist. You can treat the symptoms of physical conditions like gastro or allergys with special diets and diet supplements if your person is on a stubbonly rediculous diet,like mine is, and support them in whatever abilitys they do have,because they all have some abilitys and i say abilitys because its a positive. In either academic or a special interest learning. and it should start as early as possible as soon as you understand why there is a challenge to learning. There must be thousands of adults funtioning well with autism and aspergers,since its not a new increasing thing. It seems more because of the increase of population and the continued learning of how human beings develop and what may cause the delays. The more is understood,the more is learn't and for the benefit of the next generations of children born or still to be born. Autism is such a huge scale of differences,more needs to be learn't and understood so that whatever human being exists with autism, gets the same human consideration of difference as any other human of a different race I hope that one day people with autism will be as acceptable in our society as the norm and celebrated for its difference in positive way.

[GaryS]

Mumble - absolutely. That's why 'much more likely'.

 

Gary S - that historical/contextual observation you make is valid up to a point, but only up to a point.

Firstly, lets take an example - Christopher Columbus.

At the moment (or at least according to an episode of 'Soprano's' and a few other US series I watched) there's a shift in the US education system history curriculum that tends to label him a 'racist' because of his terrible treatment of other ethnic groups. Many old school parents find that reevaluation of their national treasure difficult, because in context CC was a 'product of his times' and can't/shouldn't be judged retrospectively by modern standards. IMO the reality is, irrespective of the histrorical context, that Christopher Columbus horrifically abused other human beings and did so on the basis of their ethnicity and the dehumanised status he and his society projected onto them. That was prejudicial treatment based on race. It was 'racism'.

We would not say that a racist (or sexist or...) today wasn't a racist because he grew up in an environment (or society - given that local social influences can actually be more powerful than wider ones) where dehumanisation of other people based on their ethnicity (or gender or...) was more common or even the norm. It is, at very best, a 'mitigating factor', but should never be seen as an excuse, justification or cop-out. Going back to my response to mumble above, 'much more likely' isn't the same thing as 'inevitable' and it (MML) should be challenged every single time it is offered as a defense.

 

L&P

 

BD

 

Yes, you're right and no, you're wrong. If we could assume that there is some agreed, pan-humanity set of moral rules that everyone should follow then I'd fully agree. The problem is humanity - this insane species (not uniquely BTW) do not have a consistent moral compass. Trying to tell a Muslim they are sexist, or Jatis to an Indian is segregative, or Jewish are friendly to the majority of Lebanese wouldn't meet which a great deal of sympathy. The rules that are defined within a society are only relevant to the society and as rules change, can only apply within a certain time frame - surely?

[baddad]

Yes, you're right and no, you're wrong. If we could assume that there is some agreed, pan-humanity set of moral rules that everyone should follow then I'd fully agree. The problem is humanity - this insane species (not uniquely BTW) do not have a consistent moral compass. Trying to tell a Muslim they are sexist, or Jatis to an Indian is segregative, or Jewish are friendly to the majority of Lebanese wouldn't meet which a great deal of sympathy. The rules that are defined within a society are only relevant to the society and as rules change, can only apply within a certain time frame - surely?

 

 

No. whether racism is being practised by a white man, blackman, green man from mars, or sexism is being practiced by a man or woman or genderism is being practised by a hetrosexual or homosexual all of these things are 'isms' - they are hatred and prejudice based on value judgements of groups rather than individuals. The fact that a 'group dynamic' might exist that condomes or actually encourages the hatred, prejudice and judgement doesn't make the 'acts' non-hateful, non-prejudicial or non-judgemental. No, trying to tell a person with a prejudice wouldn't be met by that person with a great deal of understanding or sympathy, or by a community that held the same prejudices as that person, but it would still be the reality if they enacting behaviours that were hateful, prejudicial and judgemental on the basis of a collective animosity towards 'type' rather than personal towards an individual they would be guilty of an 'ism'.

 

L&P

 

BD

Edited March 25, 2011 by baddad

[GaryS]

Precisely all the "yes, you're right" bits for all the right reasons and I agree unequivocally. But that doesn't stop the event happening in a society where the majority accept to benefit their society (no matter how other society feels). I'm only being pragmatic here, there are a number of moral "rights" which would no doubt make the world a more idealist place but there is perhaps too much history for them be seen as practical in all cultures. I dunno.

[gazmcfaz]

its most likely a genetic cause. A study in a university found HALF of all the asd adults they tested had the same piece of dna make up missing. I think it was chromosone 15 from the dad wasnt there, but the mothers was. Sound familiar?