Autism is genetic

[jonesonscam]

The National Autistic Society has just said something pretty significant: Autism is genetic. Not “possibly genetic”. Not “we’re not really sure what causes it”.

After reviewing 83 research papers, the NAS is now stating definitively that autism is genetic. You’re born autistic and you’re autistic for life. Most autistic people are autistic because of genes they inherited from their parents.

I think this matters enormously because for decades, autism has been surrounded by nonsense about vaccines, parenting, mothers doing something wrong, pregnancy, diet and a million other things.

It has left parents blaming themselves, and autistic people being told that something caused them to be autistic that could somehow have been prevented.

There isn't an “autism gene”. Thousands of genes are involved, and genetics is complicated. But the basic message is now remarkably clear: autism isn't something that happened to someone. It's something they were born with.

That matters because when we stop looking for something to blame, we can start looking at what actually matters: understanding autistic people, supporting them properly, and making a society that works for them.

This all feels like a pretty important shift.

@x2boys I don’t really understand it, the whole thing just goes right over me head. I have a lot of respect for those who can patent their child and talk like scientists at the same time. My son is 36 and I haven’t really moved on from the early days of information being available on line.

The messaging from NAS when you read through it is that autism is inherited. They do mention other causes such as de novo mutations, enviromental factors, rubella but play them down eg "Other ‘environmental’ factors cannot make a person autistic on their own. Generally, the person must already have genes from their parents that could make them autistic, and these factors make it more likely that they will be autistic. But the impact is small and unpredictable: these factors may make a difference for some people but not for others".

It is the messaging that it is more than likely inherited that I disagree with. We still do not know what causes autism for most people. Yes, I agree it can be from parents but also it may not be. This messaging is dangerous. It risks limiting research and gives the wrong message.

I don't believe that everyone with an autism diagnosis has the same condition, they just share some symptons to varying degrees that have been lumped in together. I actually want more research and don't want to settle for the "oh well it's from the parents so there's nothing more to see here" view.

Some screenshots from NAS so you can see what I mean in regards to the messaging and the narrative.

Yes the description is badly done. Its not inherited. But the working theory at the moment is that its genetic. Those two things are not necessarily the same although they could be.

Yes the NAS havent explained this very well
I think a more realiatic explanation would be whilst autism is mainly genetic that doeant mean its inherited and also environmental factors may play a part.

DB is 37 & has Asperger’s (how he terms it for himself) & it’s always been ragingly obvious that he gets those traits from my father. They’re elevated in him but they’re inherited, nonetheless.

I’ve been spouting the genetic ‘theory’ for years & I am SO relieved it’s getting more of a voice now.

I do understand your meaning here but please be careful - putting people off taking the MMR jab is EXTREMELY detrimental & has no links at all to autism.

You are talking very specifically about the congenital rubella syndrome (caused by the rubella virus developing during pregnancy) which is wildly different.

Surely PP’s post should be read as advocating for people to take the MMR vaccine as it prevents rubella.
I don’t see how it could be read otherwise.

It's a multi gene thing. The parents might been under the threshold for being autistic but their genes - the most autistic ones - were passed along and hence you have a children with autism. It's just like two brown eyed people producing a blue eyed child. There had to be a blue eye gene in each brown eyed parent even if it was quietly sliding through the generations without being previously expressed.

What are you talking about? The poster is not putting anyone off a jab, they're talking about the links with the rubella virus that you yourself set out, which is set out by the NAS

That is interesting and it tallies with experience in our family.

Nevertheless there is also research showing that lifestyle and diet can make a difference to behaviour in some cases. I think that’s more with ADHD/ADD than autism.

It’s also true in less severe cases that the right behaviour can be encouraged and practiced (as in practiced each day) with good parenting.

Clearly this isn’t relevant for highly autistic people but for those who are less strongly on the spectrum and able to moderate their behaviour, clear instruction and the right support from parents can make a difference.

It’s perhaps like cancer - your genes predispose you to it, your lifestyle in some cases can make a difference as to whether/when it develops.

Definitely. But back then it was seen as "eccentric, quirky, unsociable, difficult" - in fact it was accepted that people are just different in many ways.

everyone has something these days

@Bikergran agree completely. I'm sure I can trace autism in our family at least 3 generations on both sides (mum and dad plus their parents).
It was never "labelled" as such

What do you have?

?? That clearly isn't what I wrote or the intention of what I wrote. However, even if it was you must be aware that vaccine injury exists and there is always that tiny risk that somebody could ve harmed by them? You also sound like you do have an interest in autism so you must be aware of the people with PANS who are diagnosed with autism and the growing links between vaccine injury, PANS and autism for this specific group of people. Also throw encephalitis and the research in regards to this and autism. Epigenetics.

Part of the reason I don't like the NAS' messaging is because I don't want research to be curtailed, I think there is a hell of a lot more we need to find out about autism. Politics and lobbying impact research. This messaging is dangerous and could cause an impact.

Just to clarify: I am not anti vacc at all, I know we need the majority of people to be vaccinated so we have the benefit of the heard for those who cannot vaccinate or may have a compremised immune system. I'm fully vaccinated, my husband is fully vaccinated, all of my children bar one is fully vaccinated but he requires sedating so it has to be timed with another procedure. I don't believe in ignoring conversations or shutting down conversations.

Again genetic doesnt necessatily mean inherited

I can’t imagine it being much of a “shift”. I thought it was accepted years ago that autism is genetic. At least that’s been my understanding.

Its not 'inherited' though

And most of us know and have known about the genetic links for years, its not a new idea/theory, its always been spoken about

I dont think there is any other condition that suffers seem to want conversations shut down about. Its very strange

Personally I think Wes Streeting attwmpt to make it a parental choices issue by paying psychologists to say it is effectively a fad has made these assumptions worse. Extremely divisive and blame-shifting choice from the ex Health Minister.

I want to know why they wont resolve anemia in pregnancy despite knowing that it poses and increased risk. Yes genetics are there but the epigenetic variables (such as anemia that the NHS does little to help with) once again show how terrible maternity care has serious consequences for UK society.

Science is always writing papers. Another one will come along to debunk this.
The one thing about Drs and scientists is they will always announce something as a definite. They rarely say ‘ we think’. But ‘ this is definite’.
Take food. The advice changes over the decades. Each piece of advice was announced with great authority as a ‘definite’. Until someone came along and changed it.

They may well be right. I do baulk a bit at ‘making a society that works for them’.
We should make a society that works for everyone. Autism or not.

Thank you.
It is so useful to have these terms: syndromic autism, caused by a specific chromosomal disorder; and polygenic autism which is the 90% of cases and which runs in families.

Syndromic is often accompanied by severe learning disability, and can be a de novo mutation.

Basically, they are not the same thing at all, and are just lumped under the same umbrella for historical reasons as many of the symptoms are superficially similar.

I'm just going to stand up for science here and say that it's not the scientist that say this means this. It is the press offices

The actual research will say something along the lines of "these results show this and from this we can conclude that in this cohort of patients there is a genetic component to autism"

When the paper is published the university or institute PR department ask if they can provide a press release which will summarise the paper and then it will get rewritten as "autism can be genetic"

The press release gets picked up by the press and it gets turned into "all autism is genetic"

My partner works in neurodegenerative diseases and has had several newspaper articles written about his work and about how this drug cures dementia or this is the cause of Parkinson's and it doesn't reflect the work published that led to the article in the first place.

Interesting. Thankyou. Although I assume someone signs off the press release.
I am not anti science just in case anyone thinks so.