Odd question from another autistic

[Outdated]

If someone has a child with fetal alcohol syndrome, that's what they have--,even though they might have qualities of autism.

There is a lot of confusion at the moment but bit by bit we're chipping away at it. If you look closely enough you'll discover some of this same confusion within your self as well. Which of your foibles and odd quirks are specifically caused by autism, and which are the result of other factors such as childhood trauma? And which are simply a part of your own innate character? It's very difficult to try to sort the wheat from the chaff.

The more we learn the easier it should get.

 

[Crossbreed]

@RemyZee,
the model that I subscribe to is

1. autism [ASD1] is a hereditary form of neuro-diversity, and
2. severe co-morbid conditions [of ASD2/3] are triggered by environmental insults, acting on our irregular immune systems (in early childhood).

Said insult was not significantly present prior to 1979.

2014-CA DDS* Autism Cases By Birth Year​

*DDS autism means ASD2/3 only; not including ASD1.

 

[Outsider]

@Outsider - In the early 1980's I was retained by some parents of autistic children to explore the possibility that childhood vaccinations caused autism. I collected baby teeth and hair from babies' first haircut from those parents who had them, in case some kind of testing would become available and useful. I looked at the research, spoke with respected researchers and physicians, and concluded that there was no admissible scientific evidence that vaccines cause autism and explained it to my clients when I terminated my representation of them for that purpose.

I don't know what causes autism. It may have multiple possible causes and contributing factors. But the statistical evidence is compelling that autism runs in families.

About jurors. They usually are just ordinary, common people, often uneducated, often with their own biases. A skillful attorney - and skillful experts' testimony - teaches them in a manner that they can understand.

"Preponderance of the evidence" is a legal standard, not a scientific standard.

Let’s put the topic of vaccinations as possible causes of autism aside. I don’t think that at this time anyone has won a lawsuit against a pharmaceutical company producing vaccines of any kind. No one knows what the future brings.

I‘m more concerned with environmental causes of autism, which include harmful chemicals for most part. When I have time, I’ll present scientific articles showing that certain chemicals cause neurological damage, which includes but not limited to autism.

If 60% of autistic parents don’t have autistic children, there must be causes other than hereditary. I know of two such causes—improper parenting, which is extremely rare, and environmental pollution.

In my family, only my middle brother is autistic, our older brother and I are NT. None of my numerous cousins and second cousins is autistic. This is one of the reasons why I think it is worthwhile to look for environmental causes of autism.

 

[Outsider]

Possible but highly unlikely if both parents are autistic.

Myself and my brother and sister are all autistic. Our father is autistic. His father was autistic. It seems to be a dominant genetic line in our family, all of us kids also have blue eyes where as my mother's side of the family all have brown eyes. I never had any kids but my brother and sister did. My brother's only daughter is autistic. My sister has two daughters, one of them is autistic and the other isn't.

It might make an interesting poll, to find out how many members of this forum believe that at least one of their parents was also autistic.

On Monday I'm donating genetic samples to a study being carried out in Australia to try and determine the exact genetic traits that are associated with several different types of neurodivergence. I'm looking forward to seeing what comes from this. It's possible that in the future we could be diagnosed from a simple cheek swab instead of trusting the word of dodgy psychologists.

"Briefly, the aim of this research project is to establish a ‘recall by genotype’ (RbG) cohort in South Australia who will consent to: (i) provide a biosample for the purposes of generating and storing their personal genotype data, and (ii) be recontacted, or ‘recalled’, to participate in future research studies based on their genetic data. Generally, these future studies would be aiming to investigate the impact of genetics on human traits. My personal interest is in the mental health area, but in principle, the RbG cohort could be used to investigate a wide variety of traits of interest."

"Possible but highly unlikely if both parents are autistic."

Unfortunately, all statistical data that I found on the Internet applies to the families with one parent only being autistic. It appears that there is no data regarding both autistic parents. It is intuitively clear that the chance of being autistic increases when both parents are autistic, but if this doesn't necessary mean the chance of is close to zero.

 

[Outsider]

You keep making mistakes that disprove your assertions.

This is false in several ways (only one of which I'll address here):


The one that's already been pointed out already is that ASD is known (with 100% certainty) to be more than 50% hereditary.


This one is true, but it does not directly support your environment-centric positions:


You've mentioned statistical training, but your posts suggest you have a lot to learn.

Just for the record:

* Mutagenic chemicals exist. It's not impossible that some cases of ASD are exacerbated by, or even caused by them.
* Random mutations occur in humans, and almost certainly affect the presence of, or severity of, some cases of ASD.

It looks to me that you have some valid points. But so far you've based your arguments on false claims, which makes it impossible to accept your conclusions, and not worth checking your sources.

I suggest you look at what you're doing as an exception to an exception in a domain where the data is incomplete, difficult to analyze, and obfuscated by "people with an agenda" who "spin" their data and conclusions.

As far as I can make out, what you're trying to show (or perhaps discuss?) is real, but one among many contributory causes of ASD. But you're approaching it from the wrong angle (for example by implying that your favorite subset is much more common than the data shows).

You'll never find a comfortingly simple cause and effect relationship working from the top down.

Why not start from your preferred area of interest, given that it's very probably real, instead?

Rather that going through your arguments, some of which I don't understand because they are poorly presented, I'll make it simple by asking a simple question - Do you deny that certain chemicals cause neurological damage?

 

[Rodafina]

I know of two such causes—improper parenting…

Can you please share your sources?

 

[Outsider]

@Outsider, not everyone who compiles these statistics agrees on the definition of autism. So many sources only mean ASD2 & 3.

Sites like this one include ASD1, which is not considered to be pathological.

It would be helpful if the authors of autism articles specify the forms of autism they refer to, but in all cases that came to my attention they didn't make the distinction. There is a way, though, to bypass this difficulty -- currently I am looking for articles establishing relationship between neurological damage and certain chemicals. I think it is fair to assume that all forms of autism form a subset of a larger set of neurological disorders.

 

[Outsider]

Can you please share your sources?

I mentioned at another thread that I know about only one case of extremely bad parenting that caused autism. It happened in Russia. A child was adopted by a family who kept him chained to a kernel, where he lived like a dog. Somehow, he managed to escape and then was raised in an orphanage. As a teenager, he had a host of problems, including autism.

I don’t think that cases like this happen on regular basis, but it enters the autism statistics anyway.

The idea that autism caused by so-called cold mothers is based on Dr. Freud’s psychoanalysis. I read two of his books, The Interpretation of Dreams, and Civilization and its Discontents, and came to conclusion that Freud was a complete idiot, and so are the psychiatrists who use his theory to “cure” patients.

“Bad parenting” is a reference to parenting by regular parents, who somehow caused autism in their children. I don’t think that such bad parenting exists.

 

[Rodafina]

I mentioned at another thread that I know about only one case of extremely bad parenting that caused autism. It happened in Russia. A child was adopted by a family who kept him chained to a kernel, where he lived like a dog. Somehow, he managed to escape and then was raised in an orphanage. As a teenager, he had a host of problems, including autism.

That story hardly proves a causal relationship in that incident and not at all in the wider population.

Paraphrasing your own words regarding a case study that you once read does not tally up to a reliable source.

 

[Mary Terry]

I mentioned at another thread that I know about only one case of extremely bad parenting that caused autism. It happened in Russia. A child was adopted by a family who kept him chained to a kernel, where he lived like a dog. Somehow, he managed to escape and then was raised in an orphanage. As a teenager, he had a host of problems, including autism.

I don’t think that cases like this happen on regular basis, but it enters the autism statistics anyway.

The idea that autism caused by so-called cold mothers is based on Dr. Freud’s psychoanalysis. I read two of his books, The Interpretation of Dreams, and Civilization and its Discontents, and came to conclusion that Freud was a complete idiot, and so are the psychiatrists who use his theory to “cure” patients.

“Bad parenting” is a reference to parenting by regular parents, who somehow caused autism in their children. I don’t think that such bad parenting exists.

You don't know if the child was born with autism or had autism before the abuse occurred.

 

[Outdated]

You don't know if the child was born with autism or had autism before the abuse occurred.

Another case - You can lead the ignorant to knowledge, but you can't make it think.

 

[Hypnalis]

Rather that going through your arguments, some of which I don't understand because they are poorly presented, I'll make it simple by asking a simple question - Do you deny that certain chemicals cause neurological damage?

"poorly presented" /lol.

I'm not "arguing" with you because your positions are not based on facts. I point this out sometimes to make it clear to other people, who might otherwise be mislead by your posts. I think the other realistic posts in this thread are made for the same purpose.

Here's is a sufficient answer to your question:
Black mamba - Wikipedia

What you're claiming is not supported by the existence of neurotoxins.

You need to establish (or find existing proof of) a statistical AND scientific basis for your claims - neither of which you've even attempted so far. Absent that, I'm going with mainstream science.

 

[Outsider]

That story hardly proves a causal relationship in that incident and not at all in the wider population.

Paraphrasing your own words regarding a case study that you once read does not tally up to a reliable source.

Of course, cases like this one don't happen in wilder population. In statistics such cases are called "outliers" and not used for further inferences. No one, including myself, would use this case to say anything of value about the important cases of autism. Other than listing listing this case as a potential cause of autism there is nothing else to add to it.
I wrote in another post that statistics doesn't establish cause-and-effect relationship between events, it is used to establish correlation between two or more variables. Correlation doesn't necessarily mean the presence of cause-and-effect relationship, but it suggests to conduct further investigation by non-statistical means. On the other hand, if there is no strong correlation between the events, it would be a waste of time to try to do additional research.
Now, regarding the article - somehow its authors came to conclusion that the boy had developed autism (I wish I could provide a link to the article, but I have read it 15 years ago, and I don't remember its title). The article doesn't mention how they arrived to conclusion, but I assumed that their diagnosis was correct, and counted it as a case of autism. Maybe, in the future someone will draw a definitive conclusion based o similar articles, but it won't be me, I have the priorities other than spending my time investigating very rare cases.

 

[Outsider]

You don't know if the child was born with autism or had autism before the abuse occurred.

Yes, you are correct, I don't know if the child was born with autism or acquired it due to the parental misguidance; I'm not the one who diagnosed him. The article authors diagnosed him with the acquired autism. Did they come to the correct conclusion? It is not for me to judge their methodic. It is clear to me that they didn't use statistical data to draw their conclusion. Basically, what I did was the inclusion of their data into the overall autism statistics. It is quite possible that their method of diagnostics is incorrect, but I don't even know what their methodic is.
When I do my evaluation of any statistical data, I am responsible for my conclusions, which is not the case of this boy. Sometimes data analysts rely on other professionals' research, sometimes they don't. In rare cases like this one it is common to accept the outside investigation because the case itself is of practically zero significance.

 

[Rodafina]

Of course, cases like this one don't happen in wilder population. In statistics such cases are called "outliers" and not used for further inferences. No one, including myself, would use this case to say anything of value about the important cases of autism. Other than listing listing this case as a potential cause of autism there is nothing else to add to it.
I wrote in another post that statistics doesn't establish cause-and-effect relationship between events, it is used to establish correlation between two or more variables. Correlation doesn't necessarily mean the presence of cause-and-effect relationship, but it suggests to conduct further investigation by non-statistical means. On the other hand, if there is no strong correlation between the events, it would be a waste of time to try to do additional research.
Now, regarding the article - somehow its authors came to conclusion that the boy had developed autism (I wish I could provide a link to the article, but I have read it 15 years ago, and I don't remember its title). The article doesn't mention how they arrived to conclusion, but I assumed that their diagnosis was correct, and counted it as a case of autism. Maybe, in the future someone will draw a definitive conclusion based o similar articles, but it won't be me, I have the priorities other than spending my time investigating very rare cases.

Your own words in this post suggest that writing things like, “I know of two such causes—improper parenting, which is extremely rare, and environmental pollution,” is inaccurate and misleading.

You have not yet been able to provide any reliable sources of information to support claims that you make regarding causes of autism. You are entitled to your opinions, but they must not be presented or interpreted as facts. The thread is about misinformation regarding autism, and striving for accuracy especially here is important.

 

[Outsider]

"poorly presented" /lol.

I'm not "arguing" with you because your positions are not based on facts. I point this out sometimes to make it clear to other people, who might otherwise be mislead by your posts. I think the other realistic posts in this thread are made for the same purpose.

Here's is a sufficient answer to your question:
Black mamba - Wikipedia

What you're claiming is not supported by the existence of neurotoxins.

You need to establish (or find existing proof of) a statistical AND scientific basis for your claims - neither of which you've even attempted so far. Absent that, I'm going with mainstream science.

In reference to the link - I appreciate your sense of humor. Regarding more serious matters
"

"poorly presented" /lol.

I'm not "arguing" with you because your positions are not based on facts. I point this out sometimes to make it clear to other people, who might otherwise be mislead by your posts. I think the other realistic posts in this thread are made for the same purpose.

Here's is a sufficient answer to your question:
Black mamba - Wikipedia

What you're claiming is not supported by the existence of neurotoxins.

You need to establish (or find existing proof of) a statistical AND scientific basis for your claims - neither of which you've even attempted so far. Absent that, I'm going with mainstream science.

“Several types of chemicals are linked to neurological disorders, including heavy metals like lead and mercury, pesticides, solvents, and endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) like phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA). Additionally, some studies suggest that certain household chemicals, such as organophosphate flame retardants and quaternary ammonium compounds, can also negatively impact brain health, potentially leading to neurological condition” Compiled by AI.

Not everybody trusts the tricky AI, I’m aware of that. This is a more serious reference produced by the scientists whose article were accepted by the National Library of Medicine, USA. All articles in the Library are selected from peer-reviewed journals.

Exposure to lipophilic chemicals as a cause of neurological impairments, neurodevelopmental disorders and neurodegenerative diseases - PMC

The next article mentions autism as a consequence of environmental pollution.

This quotation from the second article is quite revealing, at least to me.

The root causes of the present global pandemic of neurodevelopmental disorders are only partly understood. Although genetic factors have a role,<a href="Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity - PMC">5</a> they cannot explain recent increases in reported prevalence, and none of the genes discovered so far seem to be responsible for more than a small proportion of cases.<a href="Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity - PMC">5</a> Overall, genetic factors seem to account for no more than perhaps 30–40% of all cases of neurodevelopmental disorders. Thus, non-genetic, environmental exposures are involved in causation, in some cases probably by interacting with genetically inherited predispositions.”

Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity - PMC

This is my second question – if autism is not a neurological disorder then what is it?

 

[Crossbreed]

Leo Kanner's "improper parenting" (a.k.a. Refrigerator Mother) hypothesis is anathema among contemporary autistics and autism-competent counselors.

It was thoroughly debunked by Lorna Wing --who was accused of the same thing regarding her own ASD3 daughter!

 

[TBRS1]

Those who are committed to advocacy and education regarding autism have a very long road ahead and much misinformation to correct. I am working on that within my own family, but don’t have the skills or motivation to take on the wider society.

Seems like even many of us had to re-learn what autism was, compared to what we were told as young ones. When I was a young one, it was still a world where “girls don’t have autism.”

I got a degree in psychology in the 1980s.

There was a 4 page chapter on "autism" in the abnormal psychology textbook.

Nobody who posts here would recognize themselves from the description of autism I was taught. I certainly would have never thought I was autistic, based on what I was taught.

I was also taught that autism was caused by emotionally stunted mothers.

Although it is now over forty years later, the popular concept of "autism" is still largely based on those very wrong things I was taught.

Some say "A lie will travel half way around the world while the truth is still pulling on its boots." This is a true thing.

 

[WhitewaterWoman]

.
Now, regarding the article - somehow its authors came to conclusion that the boy had developed autism (I wish I could provide a link to the article, but I have read it 15 years ago, and I don't remember its title). The article doesn't mention how they arrived to conclusion, but I assumed that their diagnosis was correct, and counted it as a case of autism. Maybe, in the future someone will draw a definitive conclusion based o similar articles, but it won't be me, I have the priorities other than spending my time investigating very rare cases.

Something from 15 years ago about autism is almost surely out of date.

Taken as a whole, you seem to believe that if anybody anywhere has published a paper stating X, that X must be considered as being an option in the range of explanations.

A correlation does not suggest further explorations should be undertaken, if the correlation is ridiculous or has previously been disproved.

Only when a body of evidence, reproduced in many scientific studies, is consistent can we begin to be comfortable in saying something is true.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

The science I like relies on resolve the anomalies, not so much studies most mazes only have one path.