diniesaur
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 03, 2011
Posts: 639
Location: in the Ministry of Silly Walks
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 1:17 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| I watched all three videos about Daniel, and I don't see any evidence that he has or had autism. Do you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
MrXxx
Moderator/Enigmatus Paradoxius
Joined: May 12, 2010
Posts: 5678
Location: New England
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Verdandi wrote: | | MrXxx wrote: | | There may be no evidence to support the claim that vaccines cause Autism, but there is also no evidence proving they don't. There is no absolute proof anyway. |
I am not cherry picking to disagree with you, because I actually agree with what I perceive to be your main point (that the etiology matters less than helping people).
I just wanted to point out that there is no such thing as "absolute proof" in science, at least to my understanding. All evidence is potentially falsifiable, and so evidence can point to possibilities and probabilities, but future research can throw it into doubt.
That said, there is a lot of actual evidence that vaccines have nothing to do with autism, and practically none at all that vaccines have anything at all to do with autism. |
I know you aren't "cherry picking." Your point about absolute proof is actually in small part the same as my own point. The main point is though, that whether or not one thing or another, or a number of things can be proven to cause Autism, is far less important than the problems that Autism causes.
The "evidence" shown by studies about vaccines actually does not point definitively in any particular direction, for or against vaccines causing Autism. What we need to remember is that evidence that does not prove, does not disprove, or even suggest, anything at all. What does suggest, one way or another, are the conclusions drawn by the researchers. It's up to us to determine whether their conclusions have any basis in facts demonstrated by their studies. And that is a pretty complex task given that studies are usually written in pretty complex language most of us don't fully understand, and have no idea how to interpret. Trust is a huge part of what determines whether we have any confidence in the researcher's conclusions.
I have had some training in statistics, and have read several studies on the topic. I've never seen one containing any definitive evidence for or against vaccines causing Autism. Not yet.
The real issue, as far as I am concerned, is that the only thing we, as Autistics, can really concentrate on right now is the Autism itself, and how to deal with it, whatever the cause. Debating causes is simply a huge waste of time that clearly isn't doing anything but dividing the overall community of Autistics.
I don't really care how anyone became Autistic. All that matters to me is, "Do you have the symptoms?"
If the answer is yes, the only useful discussion from that point forward, IMHO, is "How can we help you?"
Or, better yet, "How can we help US?"
Let the researchers do what they're supposed to do. Let them find the causes. If they do eventually find the causes, they may very well find there ARE many different ones. And I have a strong feeling that eventually they will find that many of the things we think are NOT causes for Autism, actually are.
In the end, I really believe that we will find that some causes that many Autistics are "poo-pooing" at the moment, actually are causes, and that all this fighting over who "qualifies" or "doesn't qualify" as a "Genuine Autistic" is all nothing more than nonproductive silliness that is actually hurting us as a community by dividing us.
I for one, do not care what caused your Autism, or anyone else's. Autism, whether or not one is proud to have it, is not fun. Regardless of cause, we are all in the same boat symptomatically.
It really bothers me when some people on the boat start suggesting that others on the boat don't belong there.
Really? If that's true, then what are we to do? Throw them overboard?
This kind of quibbling doesn't help US or THEM.
_________________
MrXxx is taking a long sabbatical, and no longer moderating. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Callista
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 04, 2006
Age: 30
Posts: 9821
Location: Central USA
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We already know the first cause of autism--the thing that gets the ball rolling--is genetic. That can be found through twin and sibling studies, and it's a simple matter of math.
What we don't know is how those genes express themselves. Autism spectrum disorders are probably the single most heritable mental disorder for which we can't point to a single gene. It's more heritable than schizophrenia, ADHD, bipolar, or even mental retardation. But we still can't find a single gene--because there is no single gene.
Autism is probably a behavioral characteristic that is common to many types of atypical development. What we haven't yet traced is how we get from the genotype to the phenotype: How does the autistic brain develop; how is it different from NT brains? What thing are the genes affecting that is so related to autism? So far, we're pretty sure it has something to do with the physical structure of the brain--autistic brains are significantly different for any micro- or macrostructure you care to examine--but what, exactly, the difference is, we don't know.
And then there's the interesting difference in expression. While autism spectrum disorders as a whole have a heritability close to 90%, the heritability of specific types of ASDs is lower. That is: You have one twin with autism. His identical twin will almost always be autistic--but he might not have the exact same sort of autism. You could have one kid with Asperger's and one with Kanner's, or two kids with wildly different variations on PDD-NOS. Somehow, those phenotypes diverged from the genotype. That's not an unknown thing: Identical twins also have different iris patterns and fingerprints. Autism could be something of the same sort. That, we still don't know.
We know autism can result from Rett syndrome. We know it is more common in cases of congenital rubella syndrome, which causes fetal brain injury. We know it's more common with Down Syndrome, and that autistic traits are associated with Fragile X.
My theory, and that of many autism researchers, is that autism is a single phenomenon that can be caused in many different--mostly genetic--ways. There seems to be some aspect of the very early brain's development that tends toward autism under certain conditions--conditions which are probably related to the way the genes are guiding the brain's development during that time. It may even be a protective factor--some failsafe that triggers, allowing the child to survive a genetic problem that would otherwise be fatal. Who knows? We don't--yet.
In all of this, we need to focus on research that will produce practical solutions for autistic people--directly or indirectly. Knowing how the autistic brain develops will let us understand how to best teach young autistic children. If we just go doing research that won't increase our store of useful information, we're just wasting money.
_________________
Engineering & Psychology student. Gamer. Christian. Asexual. Information Addict. Deal with it!
Reports from a Resident Alien:
http://chaoticidealism.livejournal.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
MrXxx
Moderator/Enigmatus Paradoxius
Joined: May 12, 2010
Posts: 5678
Location: New England
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2011 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Good post Callista.
I'd like to clarify that I don't mean to imply that finding causes is not a good idea, or that no progress has ever been made in finding causes. I do think causes should be sought, and even feel that, if cures that actually work are found, that is a good thing, not a bad thing.
What I have trouble understanding though, is when "this cause" or "that cause" is discounted by people, with no proof that the cause DOESN'T cause Autism, based solely on the belief that it couldn't possibly cause it. It's a set of symptoms, not a disease with a specific cause. Cures may depend on causes, but treatment dosen't depend on them at all.
When it comes to whether or not a person qualifies as Autistic, the cause doesn't matter.
As far as treatment goes, the ONLY thing that matters is whether the patient displays qualifying symptoms. If they do, they should get treatment. If society starts discounting Autistics based solely on the cause of the Autism, and suddenly starts telling people, "Sorry, you are no longer considered Autistic," all those people will never be treated.
How is that right?
It's not.
All this could change if all the causes are at some point isolated and identified. Right now, we just don't know for certain what does or does not cause it. All we know is there is a set of symptoms, and ways to deal with them. Let's not start throwing people out of the support systems just because we don't believe they have Autism.
If we have it, let's deal with it in whatever way we need to. If someone else has it, what business is it of ours to say they don't for any reason?
_________________
MrXxx is taking a long sabbatical, and no longer moderating. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
