Our partner

Jumping to conclusions 101

Asperger's Syndrome message board, open discussion, and online support group.

Moderator: TDT

Jumping to conclusions 101

Postby petrossa » Tue Jun 21, 2011 6:01 am

Autism is typically thought of as a neurodevelopmental disorder. It is assumed that something goes wrong early in a child's development and that the brain doesn't develop properly and that the result is permanent.

But what if that wasn't the case?

According to some recent research, the symptoms of Rett Syndrome (a form of autism) might caused by the continuing lack of the protein MeCP2 rather than problems with growth and development of the brain caused by the lack of MeCP2. If that seems like splitting hairs, it really isn't. That simple distinction means that Rett's might not be a neurodevelopmental disorder after all.


http://autismjabberwocky.blogspot.com/2011/06/what-if-autism-isnt-neurodevelopmental.html

More logical and more probable:

What if Rett's isn't a form of autism at all but just something that looks like it?

Strange people, they accept something as a fact and then when that thing doesn't conform to the majority of Autism cases one assumes that therefore that autism is more like the thing instead of reaching the obvious conclusion the the thing was wrongly classed.

Never ceases to amaze me.
There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch.
User avatar
petrossa
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 7368
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 1:00 pm
Local time: Sun Sep 21, 2014 4:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


ADVERTISEMENT

Re: Jumping to conclusions 101

Postby Chucky » Tue Jun 21, 2011 11:57 am

I agree with your thoughts on this, Petrossa. It seems a bit silly, especially the line: "That simple distinction means that Rett's might not be a neurodevelopmental disorder after all"

Kevin
psychforums.com rules:
http://www.psychforums.com/forum-rules.php


Please send me a private message if you need help with anything.
Chucky
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 28158
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:04 pm
Local time: Sun Sep 21, 2014 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jumping to conclusions 101

Postby petrossa » Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:18 pm

Indeed. that struck me too. He basically says it himself. But still jumps to the conclusion that Autism isn't a neuro-developmental disorder.

On his blog i posted this since he smart-alacked me:

MJ

Autism is badly classified i agree. DSM IV nor V offer no real solution.

Having Aspergers to a high degree i do have some insight in the matter. That and having read anything and everything over the last 35 years even vaguely pertaining to the matter.

Autism is imo, and this is supported by many studies, a result of white matter anomalies causing the brain to develop differently during and after gestation.

The pruning and re-enforcing system just causes the brain to have completely different way of processing information. That in itself is a good thing. A positive genetic adaption. The neo-cortex gets to be less a extension of the limbic system and more an autonomous entity.

The negative part of all genetic adaptations is that many come up and few are viable.

That what DSM labels autism is just some of the symptoms of various adaptations not panning out. Symptoms shared by a slew of other disorders.

This makes it a tricky business properly diagnosing 'real' autism.

Various other disorders just overlap and are classed as autism just on the basis of those symptoms leading to pollution of the data.

The title of your artical would be better named: Rett's syndrome isn't part of the autism spectrum.

Your next article might be titled:

There is no autism spectrum, there are just many disorders classed as such.
There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch.
User avatar
petrossa
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 7368
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 1:00 pm
Local time: Sun Sep 21, 2014 4:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jumping to conclusions 101

Postby autismjabberwocky » Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:18 pm

"On his blog i posted this since he smart-alacked me"

Where exactly did I do that? Do you think that responding to your comment and disagreeing with you is being a "smart-alack"?

Your point was that Rett's wasn't a form of autism because it doesn't look like the majority of other forms. My rebutal was -

1. Retts is currently, by definition, a form of autism. You might think that it shouldn't be that but that does not change its current status.

2. There is no "normal" form of autism nor is there any single identifiable trait that a majority of people with autism have. So the idea that Rett's doesn't look some non-existent majority of cases is nonsensical.

3. A diagnosis of autism is based exclusively on the presence or absence of behaviors. If you have enough behaviors then you have autism, if you don't you don't. There is no escape hatch in the DSM that says that the behaviors of autism aren't autism if there is a known genetic defect.

4. Fragile x works the same way as Rett's - a person with fragile x can have all of the symptoms of autism and therefore merit a diagnosis of autism in addition to having the other symptoms of fragile x. The presence of other problems does not preclude autism. And fragile x (and presumably the autism it causes) might be reversible in the same way as Rett's.
autismjabberwocky
Consumer 0
Consumer 0
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:57 pm
Local time: Sun Sep 21, 2014 9:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jumping to conclusions 101

Postby autismjabberwocky » Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:23 pm

Chucky wrote:I agree with your thoughts on this, Petrossa. It seems a bit silly, especially the line: "That simple distinction means that Rett's might not be a neurodevelopmental disorder after all"

Kevin


Why do you think that line is silly? The idea is that the symptoms are Retts are caused by the missing protein rather than being caused by neurodevelopmental problems that are a result of the missing protein. The first idea implies that Rett's can be corrected and functioning restored while the second says that there is permanent damage that will never be fixed.

I think that is a rather important finding, especially for people who have Rett's.
autismjabberwocky
Consumer 0
Consumer 0
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:57 pm
Local time: Sun Sep 21, 2014 9:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jumping to conclusions 101

Postby Chucky » Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:51 pm

I'm nolt ignoring you my friend, but I want to tell you that I simply don't have time to get into a scientific debate about this. I'm needed elsewhere on the site.

Take care and good luck.
Kevin
psychforums.com rules:
http://www.psychforums.com/forum-rules.php


Please send me a private message if you need help with anything.
Chucky
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 28158
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:04 pm
Local time: Sun Sep 21, 2014 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jumping to conclusions 101

Postby mvic » Wed Jun 22, 2011 10:06 pm

"That simple distinction means that Rett's might not be a neurodevelopmental disorder after all"

But Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder, therefore Retts might not really be a form of Autism is the true conclusion ==> and so back to what Petrossa was saying
User avatar
mvic
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 843
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 12:56 pm
Local time: Sun Sep 21, 2014 9:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jumping to conclusions 101

Postby autismjabberwocky » Wed Jun 22, 2011 10:33 pm

mvic wrote:
"That simple distinction means that Rett's might not be a neurodevelopmental disorder after all"

But Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder, therefore Retts might not really be a form of Autism is the true conclusion ==> and so back to what Petrossa was saying


No, the five disorders that make up the the autism spectrum are though to be neurodevelopmental disorders. But since the cause of the vast majority of cases of autism is unknown, that cannot be stated as a certainty.

My point was that fragile x and Rett's were thought to be neurodevelopmental disorders and new evidence is showing that might not be the case. So when two of the largest known genetic causes of the condition turn out to be something different than you had thought, the logical conclusion is that maybe the condition isn't what you thought it was not that your two largest sources are no longer part of the condition.
autismjabberwocky
Consumer 0
Consumer 0
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:57 pm
Local time: Sun Sep 21, 2014 9:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jumping to conclusions 101

Postby petrossa » Thu Jun 23, 2011 6:09 am

autismjabberwocky wrote:No, the five disorders that make up the the autism spectrum are though to be neurodevelopmental disorders. But since the cause of the vast majority of cases of autism is unknown, that cannot be stated as a certainty.



Now you are going into circular reasoning. The cause of Autism is very well known, it's just that many disorders with autism like symptoms are wrongly classed as Autism.
There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch.
User avatar
petrossa
Consumer 6
Consumer 6
 
Posts: 7368
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 1:00 pm
Local time: Sun Sep 21, 2014 4:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Jumping to conclusions 101

Postby autismjabberwocky » Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:51 am

petrossa wrote:Now you are going into circular reasoning. The cause of Autism is very well known, it's just that many disorders with autism like symptoms are wrongly classed as Autism.


And what exactly is this "well known" cause? Because the rest of the world doesn't seem to know about it.

From the US National institute of health -

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealt ... ase.causes

Autism is a physical condition linked to abnormal biology and chemistry in the brain. The exact causes of these abnormalities remain unknown, but this is a very active area of research. There are probably a combination of factors that lead to autism.

From the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke -

Scientists aren’t certain about what causes ASD, but it’s likely that both genetics and environment play a role. Researchers have identified a number of genes associated with the disorder. Studies of people with ASD have found irregularities in several regions of the brain. Other studies suggest that people with ASD have abnormal levels of serotonin or other neurotransmitters in the brain. These abnormalities suggest that ASD could result from the disruption of normal brain development early in fetal development caused by defects in genes that control brain growth and that regulate how brain cells communicate with each other, possibly due to the influence of environmental factors on gene function. While these findings are intriguing, they are preliminary and require further study. The theory that parental practices are responsible for ASD has long been disproved.

From the CDC -

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/facts.html

We do not know all of the causes of ASDs. However, we have learned that there are likely many causes for multiple types of ASDs. There may be many different factors that make a child more likely to have an ASD, including environmental, biologic and genetic factors.

I could cite many more sources but I think you get the point. The cause of the majority of cases of autism is unknown.
autismjabberwocky
Consumer 0
Consumer 0
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:57 pm
Local time: Sun Sep 21, 2014 9:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

Return to Asperger's Syndrome Forum




  • Related articles
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 83 guests

cron