Autism - some genuine questions

[FellatioNelson]

I will state from the outset that I do not have any direct experience of serious autism and none of my immediate family are on the spectrum but I have relatives and friends whose DCs are somewhere on the spectrum, ranging from suspected/borderline Apsergers to full-on diagnosed Autism of the most serious, catastrophic kind. And of course MN makes you very aware of just how many families are dealing with this in their lives to one extent or another. I realize it is a bit of a catch all term and can affect people extremely subtly, or very obviously and appallingly.

My genuine question is this: (and I promise faithfully that this is not meant as mischievous shit-stirring)

Are we doing something either environmentally, medically, nutritionally, or otherwise, to somehow create the sheer number of young people being diagnosed with ASD? I know classic Autism has always existed - perhaps we were less aware of it in the past because sufferers would often be institutionalized or hidden away in a way that is quite outdated now. And people with Asperger's would just have been considered eccentric, difficult, geeky, awkward or whatever, in the same way as people with ADHD were just plain naughty or scatterbrained and people with Dyslexia were stupid.

But even so, even allowing for all of that, the sheer number of children being diagnosed with some form of ASD seems to be off the scale in the last ten years or so. Were there always this many sufferers and we are just better at recognising the signs, or are we unwittingly doing something (globally, collectively, not individually) to make it happen?

My DS2 has a diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome. I am happy to accept that it is genetic, because I see so much of it in my DF. But DS2 also had a difficult birth, and DH and I were much older than when the other DCs were born. I too wonder about all the pollutants in the atmosphere. I have also heard that it could be an evolutionary repsonse to the way we live now.
I think the truth is no-one knows for sure. Yes, there are more children diagnosed than before, but AS wasn't recognised as a diagnosis before 1994 (and is due to disappear again soon.)
I taught for 27 years and can certainly look back at certain children and think "Ah, now I understand".

My theory is that genetic predisposition is triggered by environmental influences.

One of those significant influences is birth intervention and oxytocin deprivation as a result.

What kind of birth intervention Star?

hi leoniedelt i was interested in what you said about vaccines. i have a 3yo daughter who is showing autistic traits and battling with the idea of giving her the measles jab. my wife believes she should have it but i'm really concerned whether it would make the traits worse? i know the government's stance is very clear 'there is no link between vaccine and autism' but i truly believe some external factor triggers it, especially since there are no traits in both our families, as we can remember.

I'd be inclined to think that "autism" is "autism, just as "epilepsy" is "epilepsy". Stay with me for a moment here.

Epilepsy is "a disorder" characterized by fits due to disordered electrical signals in the brain.

Autism is "a disorder" characterized by pervasive developmental dysregulation in multiple areas, most commonly social, verbal and non-verbal communication.

Painfully vague? Yep.

Just as the "malignant" epilepsies like Lennox Gastaut Syndrome, epileptic encephalopathy or infantile spasms don't really make sense sharing space under the same umbrella as benign myoclonus of infancy or benign childhood focal seizures, a mild presentation of Asperger Syndrome and profound autism don't seem to belong at the same party either.

Frankly, even "cancer" fits this description - leukaemia, lung cancer and skin cancer share very little in common aside from malignant cell overgrowth. As in the case of all of these conditions, too - the treatment is exceptionally different.

I am inclined to think that this is far more likely due to a desire to "simplify" things for the lay-person. If we see a new consultant, they don't want to hear "epilepsy" from me, they want to know that Bee has generalized epileptic encephalopathy with focal right temporal overlay resulting in atypical absence and tonic clonic seizures secondary to an encephalomyopathy associated with mitochondrial depletion syndrome. If a lay-person asks me the same question, their eyes glaze over at about the 3rd syllable.

The problem, then, lies with how much specificity you need. The way ASD presents in Bee is different from how it presents in her brother. But, unless I want to try and explain what the specific diagnosis is and how it affects my DC, particularly since both of them have autistic features secondary to yet another condition, it is autism, or ASD.

Lazy? Perhaps.

Confusing? Most certainly.

I honestly feel that in SOME cases our current refusal to accept any degree of neurodiversity in an industrialised society is leading to the pathologising of individuals who might otherwise not be. It's already been proven that outcomes for many neurodisordered individuals are often better in less "developed" nations. (Obviously this is not true in every case - especially those at the severe end of the spectrum - but it's often seen in adhd/AS cases, whether or not our "experts" are willing to admit it)

Neurodiversity neccessary for human evolution
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110603122849.htm Autism & lone hunter gatherers.

This article refers mostly to adhd children but I feel that many AS/HFA children are potential orchids too.
www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/12/the-science-of-success/307761/ Most children are dandelions and will thrive anywhere - a few for evolutionary reasons are orchids and dependent upon environmental factors will either bloom spectacularly or die off. For AS children this could translate to our inventors, technical innovators & brain surgeons versus our teen suicides at a societal level all too easily imho.

This is the quote that sums up the genetic variability theory for me

"Most primates can thrive only in their specific environments. Move them and they perish. But two kinds, often called ?weed? species, are able to live almost anywhere and to readily adapt to new, changing, or disturbed environments: human beings and rhesus monkeys. The key to our success may be our weediness. And the key to our weediness may be the many ways in which our behavioral genes can vary. " (In this context "weediness" = adhd/AS/HFA etc as those are the individuals who show the most variation from the norm in terms of behavior).

There was a study done (for which I cant currently find a link right now) that demonstrated that when the "non-social" rhesus monkeys were removed from the group - the remaining sociable monekys in that "tribe" all died within 12 months. This proved the survival value of the "oddities" to the whole tribe.

Star's theory on oxytocin is now being taken seriously enough for the first animal clinical trials to start - perhaps one day there will be a prescription med that will "cure" some on the spectrum. Primarily the trials at the moment are all on Rhesus monkeys - but there is one promising human study based on social cognition rather than autism per say. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100921143926.htm

desprodad - I found the book the "GAPS diet" gave one of the clearest explanations of the known links between the immune system/gut and brain development I've come across in 20 years of trying to read up on the subject. (I have a sibling with a totally different neurodisability). Wakefield tried to promote the possibility of further research into the gut/immune disorders and autism but we all know what happened to him. It's a very individual choice.

If nothing else, this is turning (has turned) into a VERY interesting thread.

The idea of conformity and the lack of diversity is one I have discussed with friends a lot. For me, even, once I got into Uni and started "socializing" based not on age group but on like interests and common threads, my oddities became a lot less overwhelming for me. I still stick out when I am not hiding away, but now I have that option... and I have managed a few pretty fine feats in my day. I am hardly an Einstein, but it is the "weird" things I can do that separate me from the pack now, and finally in a good way.

Just don't expect me to make sustained eye contact...

p.s

It's so great to hear others agree with my theory of it being different conditions all lumped under the same umbrella. I get SO frustrated with being told that "all ASD kids" need X, or behave like Y, or benefit from Z by the so-called "experts" in RL. It's such a lazy approach when they vary so much.

fango - noone in their right minds would describe mine as a "little professor" either - a mud monkey would be more apt .

oh it drives me mad bochead. It's accepted pretty much everywhere now that there is no such thing as 'autism' and yet most of the research into the condition(s) makes no attempt to identify subgroups.

Beemum mentioned cancer earlier and it is like trying to ascertain the cause of lung cancer by looking at every single cancer there is.