The false dichotomy of genes “vs.” the environment: Responses to the NY Times
The New York Times has published seven letters in response to last Monday’s front-page article on the Wright family feud. That article described autism research into the causes of and treatments for autism as either environmental or genetic—an over-simplication, as Professor Matthew Belmonte of Cornell University writes:
To the Editor:
Autism researchers are only beginning to assemble a wealth of observational details into a coherent theory of what causes autism.
Different subsets of these observations can evoke competing testable hypotheses (which are healthy for science) and competing ideologies (which are not).
As your article notes, the vaccine idea has been epidemiologically tested and not borne out. It seems time to move on.
I worry, though, that this vaccine controversy has steered the field away from environmental causes in general. As a brother and uncle to two people with autism, I am keenly aware of the role of genetics. But genes can affect responses to the environment, and the environment can influence gene expression, making the genetic-environmental dichotomy a false one. [my emphasis]
One truth our work has taught us is that the perturbations of brain development that lead to autism are usually the product of multiple interacting causes. Surely autism research has room for all of these, and for all of us. [my emphasis]
Matthew Belmonte
Ithaca, N.Y., June 18, 2007
The writer is an assistant professor of human development at Cornell University.
Of the remaining six letters, three mentioned vaccines (these were written by a parent, by the author of books about health and the environment, by an anti-vaccine advocate). The other three were by parents whose main concerns were education, inclusion and acceptance, and the needs of adults. I quote Margot Fassler of Guilford, Conneticut:
As the mother of an autistic child now reaching adulthood, I have been studied and probed, and have witnessed batteries of tests on my son. We are grateful for the attention. But what do we do now?
We need to reshape the paradigm so that there is an emphasis on helping autistic people move into adulthood — not just with more studies, but with practical programs for real people.
“Practical program for real people.”
“For real people.” With real needs that need addressing now.
Related Stories
POSTED IN: Adulthood, Environment, Genetics, Health, Vaccines
45 opinions for The false dichotomy of genes “vs.” the environment: Responses to the NY Times
María Luján
Jun 25, 2007 at 8:49 am
“For real people.” With real needs that need addressing now.
David N. Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction)
Jun 25, 2007 at 9:14 am
“We need to reshape the paradigm so that there is an emphasis on helping autistic people move into adulthood — not just with more studies, but with practical programs for real people.”
Sadly, that is precisely the attitude that has lead to the deaths of a number of autistics around the world. We need support, sure; but not just any intervention, taken at random from something on an internet page or in a book by an author reaching outwith his/her area of expertise.
And it would be good to see more studies looking at the AUTISTICS’ experiences of interventions, using grounded theory case studies… the views of the ’subjects’ in too many studies are way too often ignored. Nomothetically-based research has already led to many errant studies being published (Michelle Dawson’s work examines just one aspect of the fallacious research that goes in in the experimental paradigm).
George Wade
Jun 25, 2007 at 9:33 am
While the arguments rage: “Real people” have real needs that need addressing now.
Eg. “…but my son of 9 has such severe gut and reflux issues that we have to find out what is
going on inside and treat it. We are in the process of getting the file ready to schedule a scope with Dr K in next couple of months.”
These people from England are flying to Texas to get a pill cam examination of the GI tract from top to bottom. That will help enormously in prescribing practical treatment.
The academic arguments will not affect that family too much except in paying for it; which is practical, too, isn’t it.
Assistant Professor Herbert has suggested strongly that we do not have time for the luxury of pure academic research and argument; we need practical strategies to save this generation and the next: if there is one…
Irene
Jun 25, 2007 at 9:36 am
This is an important post. A good summary of lots of things I’ve been reading. I’m glad to have come across your blog. It’s really opened my eyes.
George Wade
Jun 25, 2007 at 9:49 am
Has anybody thought of preventing autism?
If we could prevent 85% by ignoring the feuds around CDC and everywhere: there would be time to look after the present generation properly.
An Australian doctor got a head start on this several decades ago and was stripped of his licence, of course. Later he was reinstated and recognised.
It is well past time to take up his work and apply it to preventing autism and, perhaps, several other related diseases.
Anybody remember his name?
Chuck
Jun 25, 2007 at 9:51 am
Just one correction to your post,
Ms. Fisher is not an “anti-vaccine advocate”, she is an anti-vaccine-injury advocate and has very justifiable reasons for being so.
passionlessDrone
Jun 25, 2007 at 10:44 am
Hello friends -
“As your article notes, the vaccine idea has been epidemiologically tested and not borne out.”
This statement is only partially true, but for whatever reason it is taken as gospel. Why?
What has been borne out, epidemiologically, is that the incidence rate of getting a particular vaccination versus not getting one (i.e., MMR/DPT/) has been shown not to have an association with autism. Also, the presence of certain preservatives in a vaccine (i.e., ethylmercury), or lack there off has been shown not to have an association with autism [though it shoud be stated that many of these studies involve grotesque conflicts of interest or highly questionable manipulation of data].
However, there is not, to date, a study that compares two cohorts; one that receives a standard vaccination dosing of 22+ vaccines before the age of two and one cohort that receives zero vaccinations, or say what was common in the 1970’s, three vaccinations. THIS COMPARISON STUDY HAS NEVER BEEN PERFORMED.
If I am incorrect, it should be simple to provide links to such a study.
- pD
Suzanne
Jun 25, 2007 at 10:45 am
oh dear George. I hope I misunderstand you!
Has anybody thought of preventing autism?Yes, unfortunately. Let’s start with the American Eugenics movement.
Daisy
Jun 25, 2007 at 10:46 am
“Surely autism research has room for all of these, and for all of us.”
Well said. The either-or philosophy serves no one.
George Wade
Jun 25, 2007 at 12:03 pm
The Eugenics Movements sell vaccines and junk food don’t they? Making big money while doing good :) :)
I’m thinking of living a poor and simple life to prevent autism.
Leila
Jun 25, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Excellent point by Mr. Belmonte.
I think the research on causes will be able to help develop better treatments and educational programs for the autistic people that are living NOW. Because we are still not sure of how autism works in the brain and other areas of the body, we’re still scrambling to find out the best way to give our autistic loved ones a more comfortable life and provide them with the best opportunities for growth.
The best approach in my opinion is a multidisciplinary one, where you have experts of all areas (genetics, psychology, environmental) working together towards the goal of understanding and treating autism. The MIND Institute at UC Davis is already doing this, and I suppose other universities may be on a similar path.
David N. Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction)
Jun 25, 2007 at 1:32 pm
“Has anybody thought of preventing autism?”
Isn’t ignorance a better thing to prevent?
passionlessDrone
Jun 25, 2007 at 1:49 pm
“Isn’t ignorance a better thing to prevent?”
It would preferrable to prevent both, however, if history has taught us anything, it is that the capacity for human ignorance is boundless.
Nature is a cruel, cruel mistress and the fact is, autistics, especially low functioning autistics, are at a greater danger of suffering from very frequently encountered situations than their non autistic counterparts. No reduction in ignorance on the part of society as a whole will address this.
The notion that less ignorance is a solution to the problems of autism is a more dangerous myth than that of refrigerator mothers.
- pD
Chuck
Jun 25, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Where is the problem if preventing autism also prevents ignorance?
dkmnow
Jun 25, 2007 at 2:10 pm
George Wade: “Has anybody thought of preventing autism?”
I’m gonna’ let that one pass.
David Andrews: “Isn’t ignorance a better thing to prevent?”
And preventing the social construction of the pervasive cultural paradigm that regards Autistics as a scourge to be wiped out.
Yeah.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Jun 25, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Certainly there are people thinking of “preventing autism.”
I am not one of them.
dkmnow
Jun 25, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Chuck: “Where is the problem if preventing autism also prevents ignorance?”
Mr. Andrews was referring to the widespread ignorance that leads to the default presumptions that Autistics are inherently inferior, and that the Autistic life is not worth living.
For the sake of civility, I’ll leave it at that.
Chuck
Jun 25, 2007 at 3:43 pm
So where is the problem if preventing physiological problems that hamper communications and intelligence lead to the inability to be properly diagnosed with an ASD?
passionlessDrone
Jun 25, 2007 at 4:10 pm
“So where is the problem if preventing physiological problems that hamper communications and intelligence lead to the inability to be properly diagnosed with an ASD?”
EXACTLY, EXACTLY, EXACTLY!
If a child displayed signs of reduced bloodflow to the brain, but didn’t have a label of autism, any parent that didn’t want the problem fixed would get crucified. Give them a diagnosis of autism, however, and hypoperfusion is just part of who they are; wanting to prevent it is ‘ignorance’. Insanity!
-pD
George Wade
Jun 25, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Quick comments before going shopping for the senior’s BBQ this evening.
pD… “As your article notes, the vaccine idea has been epidemiologically tested and not borne out.”
The raw data in some of these studies has been reworked and has shown the incidence of autism rising together with the amount of mercury or number or vaccinations. References are available to evidence; but not to any studies done by two blind scientists. Funding has mostly been blocked.
To Leila — Some of the treatments proposed have been multidisciplinary… (I use some myself)
David: I don’t do much critical logic or debating as it seems to lead to intense argument. So I can agree to prevent ignorance as well, if that is OK?
Kristina: I’m not going to try to change your mind as there is much to be learned from autistic people. But I’ll spend my own time changing thinking about prevention into doing, personally, as soon as possible; without spending time debating and making some people happy, some people angry.
dkmnow
Jun 25, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Chuck and passionlessDrone:
So, you’re saying that we can EITHER show the fundamental respect that is due all human beings, OR we can attend to medical problems, BUT NOT BOTH?
In both logic and rhetoric, that would be aptly described as a “false-choice fallacy” or “fallacy of the excluded middle.” Clinical psychology would call it “black and white thinking,” and regard it as singularly maladaptive.
So, please tell me, by what herculean contortions of rationalization can you claim that the message “Respect Autistics” means the same thing as “Abandon The Children”?
If Autistics correctly recognize this non sequitur as a fallacy, is that proof of “hampered intelligence”?
And since when was “reduced bloodflow to the brain” attributed to or associated with autism?
While you’re at it, could you please tell me if Oceana is still at war with Eastasia?
I’d really like to know.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Jun 25, 2007 at 6:17 pm
George, I appreciate hearing all views: There’s no true diversity without hearing everything. I have my own views, of course, and will write about them, and hope to keep learning.
George Wade
Jun 25, 2007 at 6:17 pm
YES! Oceana is still at war with Eastasia and developing Nukes to give away through a back door in order to fuel a really hot “Cold war” along with a raging economy.
But don’t let it get you down. Neither side will win: Mother Nature will, so take care in choosing sides…
passionlessDrone
Jun 25, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Hi dkmnow -
“So, you’re saying that we can EITHER show the fundamental respect that is due all human beings, OR we can attend to medical problems, BUT NOT BOTH”
I believe, my previous posting said quite clearly: “It would preferrable to prevent both”. Given that, it would seem you have made up a fantasy argument, put it in my mouth, and now demand I defend it. I will not.
Curing autism, to me, means addressing the root physiological issues, such as hypoperfusion of the brain (there are many, many others). This, in essence, means preventing autism.
“And since when was “reduced bloodflow to the brain” attributed to or associated with autism?”
As far as hypoperfusion and autism, the information is simple to find with a tool known as Google.
Definition of hypoperfusion
Study on brain blood flow in autistics
I quote:
“We found significant hypoperfusion in the prefrontal areas of autistic individuals as compared to normals in every case (p
dkmnow
Jun 25, 2007 at 8:13 pm
passionlessDrone,
My “fantasy argument” as you call it was an explicit rendering of the unspoken premises underlying your formulaic misrepresentation:
“Give them a diagnosis of autism, however, and hypoperfusion is just part of who they are; wanting to prevent it is ‘ignorance’. Insanity!”
You surrendered the “moral high-ground” the moment you committed to that threadbare oblique stab at a crucial human rights issue — one which you haven’t spared three-tenths of a second toward understanding, and yet (apparently) feel perfectly free to misrepresent whenever it suits your momentary convenience. The curebies may think it’s clever, but that kind of manipulative sanctimony gets no traction with me.
What you and your ideological idols find so inconvenient to acknowledge is that we DO NOT argue against valid medical treatments. There is no medical condition associated with autism that can justify promoting the culture-wide dehumanization of Autistics as mindless, helpless, hopeless lumps of subhuman flesh. The continued promotion and exploitation of such attitudes does immeasurable harm to each and every one of us who live the Autistic life, just as they will to your own child. The harm done by that bigotry is not intrinsic to autism at all — it’s just a superfluous indignity heaped upon us for being different. Gratuitous emotional harm inflicted by others IS NOT a symptom of autism.
But like it or not, that IS what you’re defending — and practicing, with your mendacious rhetoric.
For added perspective, let me put it another way: When you look upon one of your fellow human beings as nothing more than a burdensome collection of defects, they WILL sense that attitude in you no matter how you try to disguise it, and they WILL NOT be grateful to you for it.
Nor should they.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Jun 25, 2007 at 8:22 pm
I quote the end of my post—-for myself, I advocate for a
dkmnow
Jun 25, 2007 at 8:46 pm
And for that, I thank you.
:-)
Symptoms of Fragile X Reversed in Mice
Jun 25, 2007 at 10:20 pm
[…] K. Belmonte—-whose letter to the New York Times I quoted from earlier today—-has written about the difference and intersections of autism and […]
Julie
Jun 25, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Why is the conversation seem to be about how to “cure” or “prevent” all autism when I think we need to talk about programs that get the therapies and support to the children and adults who have the need. My daughter is Rebekah first with autism but it is so much a part of who she is I could not imagine her without it and I would not want to. What most refer to as quirky I think is just her and it is a wonderful and different part of her. I would like to see her have an easier time recieving services in the shool and at home and have her continue to learn and grow and communicate with us to the best of her ability.
George Wade
Jun 26, 2007 at 1:33 am
Kristina — I quote the end of my post—-for myself, I advocate for a “Practical program for real people.”
“For real people.” With real needs that need addressing now.
Julie — Why is the conversation seem to be about how to “cure” or “prevent” all autism when I think we need to talk about programs that get the therapies and support to the children and adults who have the need. My daughter is Rebekah first with autism but it is so much a part of who she is I could not imagine her without it and I would not want to. What most refer to as quirky I think is just her and it is a wonderful and different part of her. I would like to see her have an easier time recieving services in the shool and at home and have her continue to learn and grow and communicate with us to the best of her ability.
Myself — Today I was asked the name of a small motor ship and the website it is on. It was easy to remember, though I had only seen both and typed the URL a couple of times. In contrast I could not remember the names of the owners of the website and ship at all though I can see their faces in my imagination easily. That is one of my quirks that your posts have brought out for me and that will make memory easier in the near future. Instead of a memory castle of 10 Roman Memory Rooms I’ll construct a Memory Marina of 100 sailing yachts: using an autistic quirk to good advantage.
But another autistic quirk of mine is colitis and iliitis that are uncomfortable and that tire me out. Also that spread the inflammation to my brain: leading to trains of thought that race around; making it difficult to live indoors and cook or tidy. Difficult to work through a project or two, too. And very difficult to have human relationships that work. That’s what I, personally, need nutritional and medical treatment for: and that helps me a very great deal.
As each autistic human is different I can’t see where arguing helps or where prescribing for others helps. Trying out likely possibilities, using one’s own judgement, should help; though it does take some long time… Is that reasonable, Julie and all?
passionlessDrone
Jun 26, 2007 at 8:50 am
Hi dkmnow -
My post seems to have been truncated in mid stream. (?)
In any case, can we now, at least, agree that autistics have been shown to have reduced bloodflow to some areas of the brain as compared to non autistics? You seemed confused on this point previously.
If we are in agreement on this, are we also in agreement that this would seem to be an area where, if it were possible, preventing people from having hypoperfusion would be preferrable to not preventing them from having that condition? If so, we are in agreement once again! If not, it would seem you are arguing in favor of some peoplels brains getting less oxygen than ‘normal’ people. This, I believe, is a curious position for an advocate.
“What you and your ideological idols find so inconvenient to acknowledge is that we DO NOT argue against valid medical treatments.”
What if those treatments allow a person to communicate such that they were no longer given an autism diagnosis? This would, in effect, serve to prevent autism. Are you still in favor of them? If so, then we are in agreement.
“There is no medical condition associated with autism that can justify promoting the culture-wide dehumanization of Autistics as mindless, helpless, hopeless lumps of subhuman flesh.”
I have made no such promotion, implied or not. Your perceptions, in my case, are inaccurate.
“The harm done by that bigotry is not intrinsic to autism at all — it’s just a superfluous indignity heaped upon us for being different”
This is, I believe, is as they say, the rub. You, it is apparent, have a very keen grasp of language, you can navigate the internet, literature, also, is an area of you know well. From what I can tell, you share very little in common with what I would like to see prevented, other than an ever widening diagnosis under which you fly your very verbose banner. A man with no pinky finger and a man with no arms or legs are both amputees.
By way of example, my son recently turned four. Around his birthday, one evening, he was quite agitated, crying a lot and seeking comfort. We knew he was in pain from something, but he has no mechanism to tell us anything. His vocabulary is limited to about 15 words, all nouns, none of which are body parts. Sign language is about the same. He does not understand how to respond to a yes or no question; i.e., ‘does your head hurt?’, ‘does your stomach hurt?’ He does not understand how to point to a particular item, i.e., ‘Show me where it hurts, point to where it hurts’. He could not draw a picture of where he was in pain. In short, the only thing he could do was cry.
Eventually, his ear drum perforated, pus came out, and we said, aha, an ear infection.
Damn it, this is something quite more than simply just being different. Had my son been able to tell me, ‘There is pressure inside my ear’, the situation would have been dealt with. Also, if he had this ability, he likely would not have a diagnosis of autism. He wanted to tell us what was wrong, but simply couldn’t. I want to prevent this from happening, to me, or anyone. How can this possibly be construed as me believing autistics are ‘hopeless lumps of flesh’?
- pD
Chuck
Jun 26, 2007 at 8:52 am
Dkmnow:
You surrendered the moral high-ground the moment you tried to use your straw man argument by injecting statements that I and passionlessDrone have not made. In fact, I will go so far as to say that it is impossible to take any moral high-ground on the subject of Autism Spectrum Disorders. How can anyone take a firm stand on a subjectively diagnosed psychologically defined disorder that has diagnosis criteria changing with every new publication of the DSM and treatable physiological problems that are addressed by medical professionals who, most likely, do not understand or know how to treat any psychologically defined disorder? The high ground that you want is made of nothing more then quick sand.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Jun 26, 2007 at 9:47 am
pD, Communication difficulties have always been a huge challenge for my son. His speech is severely delayed, he has apraxia, he has “unusual” ways of using language. He does not tell us if any part of his body hurts—-hence the clearning scenarios in this post. He has learned a lot of language and communication skills as a result of extensive therapy and teaching but I sense that, even if he could speak in complete sentences and paragraphs, his ways of using language would be different from that people are accustomed to hearing. And his ways of using language have strong similarities to the ways that autistic adults I have met and spoken with use language.
I love language—-I am a teacher of foreign languages, Latin and Greek—-and Charlie, and the other autistic persons (of all ages, including those that comment here on this blog) has taught me that language is only a part of communication.
Perhaps, Chuck, it is impossible to take any “moral high ground” on any psychologically defined disorder. The DSM is a tool fairly recent creation and yet we put so much store by it—-but then, the concept of “normality” can only be traced back to the mid-19th century.
passionlessDrone
Jun 26, 2007 at 9:54 am
Hi Kristina -
If you could change the underlying physiological, ahem, differences, in your son that have caused his language delays and apraxia, would you? Or would you consider taking that kind of action to be changing who he is to such a degree that you would not consider it? If taking such an action removed his autism diagnosis, would this make a difference in your decision?
-pD
Julie
Jun 26, 2007 at 10:20 am
George it is reasonable to treat any medical condition that you may have. We do that with our Daughter as well. She has asthma/allergies and a dairy allergy. When she is feeling sick it is more difficult for her to get through the day and I would not leave her medical issues untreated. The problem is that although they effect her ability to get through the day I do not believe that they are part of the autism. The medical issues are medical and I believe that autism is developmental. Two seperate issues, yes they relate because they are all part of the same person but that does not mean that the medical issues are related to the autism.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Jun 26, 2007 at 10:33 am
$6 million questions! I think all the years of therapy and teaching and physical exercise have changed the apraxia and therefore improved Charlie’s language. So something like these sorts of things I am in favor of. If you mean something like some sort of brain surgery or medication, I would be much more hesitant—-medications always seem to be double-edge swords—-and, as time passes and I contemplate Charlie’s language and learning, and the family histories of my husband and me, I think that, even if he could talk better, Charlie would still be neurologically different. Maybe he would be somewhere else on the spectrum, but the struggles with communication (in terms of conversation for instance) would be there.
There’s a difference to me between diagnosis and being “diffrently wired.” My very ADHD husband has been noting “Asperger’s moments in him—his ways of thinking and relating to people are things that have always been the case for him, and they affect not only how he deals with conversations, but also his whole worldview—I’d have to write a post to explain this, I guess.
Even if Charlie did not have an autism diagnosis, I think the neurological differences would remain. It’s useful for him to have his autism diagnosis, but I can see how some families would prefer to have this “taken away”—-if a child were to be mainstreamed and they were worried about the child being “labeled.”
Irene
Jun 26, 2007 at 11:48 am
At SOME point we must agree to disagree. I DO believe that MY son’s intestinal issues with the “rivers of diarrhea” ARE associated with the autism diagnosis. Changing his diet made SIGNIFICANT changes and differences physiologically (BM’s and sleep patterns) but also behaviorally and verbally. If I want to find the research to prove that (since my own experience is only anecdotal), I could. If you wanted to find the research that DISproves it, you could find it. It’s the beauty of the INTERNET and data manipulation.
You will do the best YOU can to care for YOUR child. I will do the best I can to care for MY child. Is it all in love? YES! Do we need each other’s approval? NO! I, personally, like to read other points of view, it’s educational and will do nothing but help me a better parent. My hope, my prayer, is that someday my child will be able to communicate with others the things my husband and I “just know.” We somehow “just know” what the crying/tantrum is about and can help. Sometimes it’s a guess, a good one. Sometimes it’s instinct. Sometimes we JUST KNOW. But sometimes we don’t know and he can’t tell us. Not yet. Whether it’s typing, or signing, or pictures or words, if his acquisition of language (in whatever form) causes this “autism to go away” then so be it.
I’m also learning that it is important to take into account the experiences of people with autism. Those who can share their experiences and opinions, should. Their voices deserve to be heard. I, already, in just a few weeks, have learned so much and gained an insight I’d not had before. But I have to remember, that each person is different, each autism is different, each experience is different. What helps some (communication, comfort, physically) does not necessarily help many. My husband and I, are responsible for our son. And only WE can make those decisions for and hopefully, in the near future WITH him. No one else has to approve.
About “prevention”: Wow! Eugenics? I would never assume that a parent of an autistic child would mean THAT by the word “prevention.” Two of our three children were surprise blessings to our family (the other was a planned and begged for blessing). Our youngest is one of those two surprises. This, third pregnancy was completely different because NO ONE KNOWS WHERE AUTISM COMES FROM. Is it genetics? Is it vaccines? Is it soda? Is it alien abduction? NO ONE KNOWS! However this baby came to us we were going to love, protect, nurture and love her some more. But still, we chose not to immunize. Do immunizations cause autism? I don’t honestly know. It was a hard decision to make. What if she gets the measles or whooping cough and dies? Could we live with ourselves? Could we have prevented that? It was agonizing but it was our decision. Now, we still “prevent” autism. We watch her like a hawk. Is she developing socially? Is she pointing? Is she trying to talk and communicate? Anyone can agree or disagree, approve or disapprove. It’s what parents do.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Jun 26, 2007 at 2:29 pm
The good thing is that we can keep agreeing to disagree—can keep dialoguing—keep listening.
Chuck
Jun 26, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Kristina,
Actually the first Mental hospital, Bethlem Royal Hospital, was in the 13th century. The concept of “curable” and “incurable” happened in the 18th century. We are still having that debate to this very day.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Jun 26, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Thanks for that information—–on “normality,” see Lennard Davis’ work on the notion of “normal” (as distinguished from a “mental hospital”).
Grace
Jun 27, 2007 at 2:06 am
My family as well as my husband’s both have what would be considered spectrum traits, but no one in our families has ever had them to the point that they were unable to function in society independently.
Yet now we have a son who falls under the PDD-NOS category who has difficulty processing language & using social language appropriately (pragmatic speech disorder), an attention deficit, and some short-term memory impairment. He also suffers from an impaired immune system and some related disorders.
(All symptoms listed in the EPA report on mercury exposure, btw. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/reports/volume5.pdf - see table 6-3. My son was exposed to mercury during an amalgam replacement when I was 5 mos pregnant. All the evidence supports this as the source of his impairments so why should we believe that thimerosal couldn’t possibly do something similar?)
He is a beautiful soul & a joy to have around - but we don’t know if he will ever be able to live independently.
It is incredibly frustrating to see people who have spectrum traits but can still function independently in society arguing against treatments for those who can’t.
These vocal ones rail against so-called NT’s (I have come to doubt that there is any such thing as normal) making decisions for them while apparently demanding the right to speak for all. (Many of these people have difficulty communicating so it would seem that those who do not will be the only ones whose voices will “count”.)
It seems like we now have to come up with a new designation for our kids who need serious help so that they don’t get pushed aside in the wake of those who want a monopoly on the autistic label as well as the political cause for reasons that I am still struggling to figure out.
Autism is NOT who my son is! It has affected him, of course, but if they were to find a cure for his autistic problems, he would still be the same wonderful person that he is. He would just be like the rest of his family line - uniquely himself but able to function as he chooses rather than as his frustrating physical circumstances currently dictate…
George Wade
Jun 27, 2007 at 10:50 am
OK! I’m not arguing anymore. I’ll just wait and see, patiently, how many grandchildren the gods allow us all to have.
Meanwhile I have been able to add one of the neurodiverse ideas to my armoury; thank you.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Jun 27, 2007 at 2:20 pm
George, Thank you so much for joining in this exchange and look forward to hearing more from you.
George Wade
Jun 28, 2007 at 7:16 am
Thank you Christina.
Here is another contribution that appears to be really controversial, posted here. That isn’t the intention: it is simply a survey at Nothing more than a pilot study, yet; but not to be ignored. Methodology at and results at …
There are non-confrontational ways of looking at studies and comparing with other organisations work. That is what I am interested in; not debating traditional style.
I used to insist that people should understand a study like this and change their habits within the next 5 minutes…, or at least 2 days. “This shows that you should detoxify with DMSA - Why don’t you?” I don’t mind very much anymore: perhaps my own detoxification has made me less Asperger’s Autistic? That’s why I won’t be going to war with this survey.
George Wade
Jun 28, 2007 at 7:21 am
I’ll try the URL again: Methodology at: generationrescue.org/survey.html and results at links on that page. You are invited to analyse the raw data yourselves.
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: