Re: Alternate view

[Guest guest]

Autistics have this: Inreased N-acetyl-aspartate, choline, creatine, and phosphocreatine and dopamine in the prefrontal cortex with somewhat higher levels of white matter than normal controls. N-acetyl-aspartate is a sign of mitochondria health though, choline is implicated in OCD. #2. Autistics develop faster in some areas of the brain than normal controls but, eventually it evens itself out some. #3. Autistics possibly either low or high copper levels in the brain, possibly high lithium, mercury poisoning, zinc and magnesium deficiency many times and an immune system defect on the enzyme sulfurotransferase. Copper activates the right brain. There are right brain abnormalities in autism. Mercury toxicity parallels many asperger's traits. sulfurotransferase is needed to expel mercury. Zinc is an important neurotransmitter and so is sulfur. Simple blood tests don't point out any of these for several reasons which are obvious. Organic mercury is produced

by organisms living in soil. Thimerasol is in vaccines and causes encephalitis and very likely excarbates autism. The genetics IMHO are affected by the man-made chemicals which are in the hundreds of thousands with thousands of tons of petroleum, benzene, etc.. polluting the air every year in each major city. Not only has asperger's gone up. Diabetes in children, childhood leukemia, etc... has gone up in normal controls. Of course there have been studies showing children who live near powerlines have over a 700% more likelihood of developing leukemia. The gov't sprayed a city in California in the 60's or 70's with Zinc Sulfate to "see what would happen". Many people who lived there developed different types of cancers 20 years after the confidential testing took place. How many more tests are being done right now? Some of them are obvious. Here's another view. Maybe asperger's is a deliberate or, non-deliberate, induced toxicity from the age of indusrialization

which is very unnatural. VISIGOTH@... wrote: I'm playing Devil's Advocate with this post. Lately there was another post about AS maybe being another step in human evolution. Could be, but what if it isn't? Suppose that rather than AS being an attempt at human advancement, it is instead a natural eugenic measure in humans? Over time, all bloodlines acquire errors that can be passed on genetically. This could be the big things like Sickle Cell Anemia or Cystic Fibrosis, to lesser things like bad vision or gimpy knees. The more of these things that collect in a being, the less its fitness to procreate, given that these

traits could be passed on to create more less fit beings. Many of the majors either kill the sufferer before reaching reproductive age or soon after, limited their propagation. Others can cause physical or mental abnormalities that would also lessen the odds of propagation. Examples might be the Elephant Man Syndrome for the physical or the classic appearance of many mentally retarded people. These are outward expressions that would lessen the odds of that person reproducing and passing on their genes. Perhaps AS is much the same. Perhaps it is the culmination of many genetic errors that have built up over time and is one of nature's ways of discouraging reproduction. Most of us have much trouble socializing, moreso the males than the females. It also seems that many of us have ailments of one kind or another that are more or less permanant. So, perhaps AS is simply a condition

trying to keep us from reproducing for whatever reason. It is simply a cruel coincidence that many of us are also very intelligent and creative. Sort of a catch-22 in the system. Any comments? I will say that this was not meant to insult, upset or anger anyone. It is simply an alternative view on the matter. Given that eugenics in the positive light of a budding stage of evolution was brought up again, I though I would post a counterpoint to it this time.

How low will we go? Check out Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.

[Guest guest]

nick wrote:

> Autistics have this: Inreased

Where did you get all this info. I have never seen any documentation

that puts any of this beyond amateur speculation.

I see people claiming that aspies are superior, I think this is arrogance.

My believe is that being aspie simply means being different. While many

aspies are very smart in some narrowly defined areas there are other

areas where we look like complete imbeciles. I don't believe we are

smarter or dumber, just different. Certainly we are not ETs. We are

simply humans whose brains function differently.

All this talk of mercury and other heavy metals is silly. We have often

seen examples of parents upon having their children diagnosed find that

they too fit the definition. This very strongly points to hereditary

factors more than anything else.

I grew up on a farm, miles from any city. We ate almost no processed

food, most of it was home grown on the farm. This was over 50 years ago

long before the current pollution problems. I was not immunized as a

child therefore ruling out thimroseal.

I look to my father and see another aspie, undiagnosed. He is one of the

few people in the world capable of translating " old script German " into

English. He has a grade 6 education leaving school at 12 to help his

sick father on the farm. From this background he managed to have some of

his work in the archives of one of Canada's most prestigious universities.

I'm convinced that it is almost exclusively hereditary. The only reason

it has become more prominent is awareness.

Ace

[Guest guest]

Ace, please ask Nick to provide documentation rather than attack his

views.

I think there are good arguments that support genetics and good

arguments that support toxicity as causes for autism spectrum

disorders.

It is important to remember that things are always changing

therefore mutations do occur -- naturally -- on a regular basis in

nature. It is equally important to remember that introducing

chemicals into an environment has also proven to cause mutations to

occur.

There is another possibility that speaks to the theory that genetics

and toxicity in conjunction has a serious effect on humans resulting

in increased diagnoses of autism spectrum disorders.

Yet another possibility is that modern medicine has found better

ways with which to identify and diagnose autism spectrum disorders.

I'm sure there are other theories being bandied about as well.

Raven

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 5/2/2006 3:09:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, julie.stevenson16@... writes:

Many on the spectrum do manage to reproduce and often autism is seen to be running in families and also for whatever reason appears to be on the increase. If AS is natures way of trying to discourage reproduction - then nature isn't do a right good job of it ;-)

Of course they do. The reproductive and "companionship" drives are very powerful. However, some articles I have read state that if two people with AS have children, there is a greater change their children will be autistic, from AS to classic.

Like I said though, this was just an alternate theory opposed to the "Aspies are superior beings" idea.

[Guest guest]

Thanks for your perspective Ace. I think it's important to see cases like yours in order not to be paranoid. I have to talk to a counselor because of my paranoia and that's obviously not a quality trait in Asperger's although I'm working at it. So you have German ancestry? It's fun to study the facial differences of germans and other european cultures. Do you speak french? acsnag@... wrote: nick wrote:> Autistics have this: Inreased Where did you get all this info. I have never seen any documentation that puts any of this beyond amateur speculation.I see people claiming that aspies are superior, I think this is arrogance.My believe is that being aspie simply means being different. While many aspies are very smart in some narrowly defined areas there are other areas where we look like complete imbeciles. I

don't believe we are smarter or dumber, just different. Certainly we are not ETs. We are simply humans whose brains function differently.All this talk of mercury and other heavy metals is silly. We have often seen examples of parents upon having their children diagnosed find that they too fit the definition. This very strongly points to hereditary factors more than anything else.I grew up on a farm, miles from any city. We ate almost no processed food, most of it was home grown on the farm. This was over 50 years ago long before the current pollution problems. I was not immunized as a child therefore ruling out thimroseal.I look to my father and see another aspie, undiagnosed. He is one of the few people in the world capable of translating "old script German" into English. He has a grade 6 education leaving school at 12 to help his sick father on the farm. From this background he managed to have some of

his work in the archives of one of Canada's most prestigious universities.I'm convinced that it is almost exclusively hereditary. The only reason it has become more prominent is awareness.Ace

New Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.

[Guest guest]

All the theories get jumbled together. There seems to be no way to make complete, rational conclusions to any of them. Sometimes it's good to just go back to basics. The studies were done with MRI, CAT, and CT scans. I've heard that asperger's is simply being an intellectual person in an emotional world which Ace pointed out "doesn't make us any more superior". Of course I can see myself missing the point after someone shows it to me and alot of what I say just gets tangential and indecipherable simply because I lack the skills to make sense of it all most of the time. I'm sure alot of Aspies are like that. I keep forgetting to bookmark those sites with the information on the research. I'll have to remember to do that. ravenmagic2003 <ravenmagic2003@...> wrote: Ace, please ask Nick to provide

documentation rather than attack his views.I think there are good arguments that support genetics and good arguments that support toxicity as causes for autism spectrum disorders. It is important to remember that things are always changing therefore mutations do occur -- naturally -- on a regular basis in nature. It is equally important to remember that introducing chemicals into an environment has also proven to cause mutations to occur.There is another possibility that speaks to the theory that genetics and toxicity in conjunction has a serious effect on humans resulting in increased diagnoses of autism spectrum disorders.Yet another possibility is that modern medicine has found better ways with which to identify and diagnose autism spectrum disorders.I'm sure there are other theories being bandied about as well. RavenFAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and acceptance. Everyone is valued. Check the Links section for more FAM forums.

Talk is cheap. Use Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.

[Guest guest]

Interesting view point, but :-)

" Perhaps AS is much the same. Perhaps it is the culmination of many

genetic errors that have built up over time and is one of nature's

ways of discouraging reproduction. Most of us have much trouble

socializing, moreso the males than the females. It also seems that

many of us have ailments of one kind or another that are more or

less permanant "

Many on the spectrum do manage to reproduce and often autism is seen

to be running in families and also for whatever reason appears to be

on the increase. If AS is natures way of trying to discourage

reproduction - then nature isn't do a right good job of it ;-)

>

> I'm playing Devil's Advocate with this post.

>

> Lately there was another post about AS maybe being another step in

human

> evolution. Could be, but what if it isn't?

>

> Suppose that rather than AS being an attempt at human advancement,

it is

> instead a natural eugenic measure in humans? Over time, all

bloodlines acquire

> errors that can be passed on genetically. This could be the big

things like

> Sickle Cell Anemia or Cystic Fibrosis, to lesser things like bad

vision or gimpy

> knees. The more of these things that collect in a being, the less

its

> fitness to procreate, given that these traits could be passed on

to create more

> less fit beings.

>

> Many of the majors either kill the sufferer before reaching

reproductive age

> or soon after, limited their propagation. Others can cause physical

or

> mental abnormalities that would also lessen the odds of

propagation. Examples

> might be the Elephant Man Syndrome for the physical or the classic

appearance of

> many mentally retarded people. These are outward expressions that

would lessen

> the odds of that person reproducing and passing on their genes.

>

> Perhaps AS is much the same. Perhaps it is the culmination of many

genetic

> errors that have built up over time and is one of nature's ways of

discouraging

> reproduction. Most of us have much trouble socializing, moreso the

males

> than the females. It also seems that many of us have ailments of

one kind or

> another that are more or less permanant.

>

> So, perhaps AS is simply a condition trying to keep us from

reproducing for

> whatever reason. It is simply a cruel coincidence that many of us

are also

> very intelligent and creative. Sort of a catch-22 in the system.

>

> Any comments?

>

> I will say that this was not meant to insult, upset or anger

anyone. It is

> simply an alternative view on the matter. Given that eugenics in

the positive

> light of a budding stage of evolution was brought up again, I

though I would

> post a counterpoint to it this time.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Environmental factors could certainly be an issue.

I remember watching a programme showing how frogs are sensitive to

changes in the envirnment, such as pollution and how they have

mutated and that people should be aware of such things as frogs are

kind of an early warning system showing that these things are going

to eventually affect humans if not already doing so.

>

> Ace, please ask Nick to provide documentation rather than attack

his

> views.

>

> I think there are good arguments that support genetics and good

> arguments that support toxicity as causes for autism spectrum

> disorders.

>

> It is important to remember that things are always changing

> therefore mutations do occur -- naturally -- on a regular basis in

> nature. It is equally important to remember that introducing

> chemicals into an environment has also proven to cause mutations to

> occur.

>

> There is another possibility that speaks to the theory that

genetics

> and toxicity in conjunction has a serious effect on humans

resulting

> in increased diagnoses of autism spectrum disorders.

>

> Yet another possibility is that modern medicine has found better

> ways with which to identify and diagnose autism spectrum disorders.

>

> I'm sure there are other theories being bandied about as well.

>

> Raven

>

[Guest guest]

Raven:

> I think there are good arguments that support genetics and good

> arguments that support toxicity as causes for autism spectrum

> disorders.

Not really. The two views are fundamentally different, and not

more than one of them could be correct. Toxicity could play

a role as common comorbid conditions and vulnerabilities, but

it cannot really cause autism if autism is genetic.

> It is important to remember that things are always changing

> therefore mutations do occur -- naturally -- on a regular basis in

> nature.

You are confusing things. Autism is not a single mutation, and

the chances for the multiple mutations that define autism to arise

out of pure chance are inifitesmall. That's why the two views

can only be combined if toxicity is a comorbid.

> It is equally important to remember that introducing

> chemicals into an environment has also proven to cause mutations to

> occur.

Certainly, but this is *random* mutations, not the *specific*

mutations involved in autism.

> Yet another possibility is that modern medicine has found better

> ways with which to identify and diagnose autism spectrum disorders.

Very likely

Leif

[Guest guest]

>

> " Perhaps AS is much the same. Perhaps it is the culmination of many

genetic

> errors that have built up over time and is one of nature's ways of

discouraging

> reproduction. "

This is an interesting thought. I'm curious about the expression of

genes and how they can change for several generations when outside

factors are acted upon them.

[Guest guest]

>

> " Environmental factors could certainly be an issue.

>

> I remember watching a programme showing how frogs are sensitive to

> changes in the envirnment, such as pollution and how they have

> mutated and that people should be aware of such things as frogs are

> kind of an early warning system showing that these things are going

> to eventually affect humans if not already doing so. "

I've heard about this, too. Frogs will also just disappear in an area

which is scary, and may or may not come back later. Based on frog-

watching, I'd say we should already be worried.

Pollution--can you say 'tasteless' and 'odorless'?

[Guest guest]

>

> Raven:

> > I think there are good arguments that support genetics and good

> > arguments that support toxicity as causes for autism spectrum

> > disorders.

>

> Not really. The two views are fundamentally different, and not

> more than one of them could be correct. Toxicity could play

> a role as common comorbid conditions and vulnerabilities, but

> it cannot really cause autism if autism is genetic.

I did not say that more than one could be correct, Leif. I said there

were good arguments to support each side of the argument.

Raven

[Guest guest]

nick wrote:

> So you have German ancestry? It's

> fun to study the facial differences of germans and other european

> cultures. Do you speak french?

No German ancestry, just German history. My ancestors moved from

Switzerland to the Pallantain area of Germany in the early 1600s. For

some time they were the most successful farmers in Germany and were the

government's favorite people until there was a change of government. At

that point they left Germany but taking the language and many German

customs with them.

They arrived in America at about the same time as the Mayflower.

No I do not speak French.

Ace

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 5/2/2006 11:04:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, acsnag@... writes:

They arrived in America at about the same time as the Mayflower.No I do not speak French.Ace

What part of America did they come to? My ancestors came from the Holland area to England around the time of Henry VIII, one of them serving in his army and being made a Gentleman for it. From then on they were mostly merchants. One was given a land grant in northern Virginia in 1640. He sailed over with his family on his own ship and began a good trade between the colonies and England.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 5/2/2006 4:08:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, julie.stevenson16@... writes:

I thought autism was possibly the result of a group of genes being different and not just one - I'm not sure I can explain or elaborate, just things I have heard as possiblilities/theories.

It probably is a number of genes and not just one. Many conditions are more than one gene. We'll probably learn more once the scientists begin seriously studying the "junk" DNA. So far they have mostly been looking at the DNA that makes proteins and ignoring that which did not. However, now it is becoming accepted that that junk DNA is where the instructions for building things with the proteins lie. So essentiall for a long time they were looking at the parts in the kit but ignoring the assembly manual.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 5/2/2006 5:06:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, msaraann@... writes:

Henry VIII was brother to my direct ancestor, his sister (not tobe confused with his daughter "Bloody" .) Not exactly a proudlineage, my father's side.

I'm related directly to Washington, Washington's brother. Also directly related to e of the and e Expedition and Patton.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 5/2/2006 5:08:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, crna_kuna@... writes:

I find it already horrible us women have to suffer pain at giving birth because people's heads are too big as a consequence of our brains evolving too quick in too small a time... then one can see the bigger brain as a mistake of nature anyways. Not worth suffering for in any case!! ;P

There is a theory that the brain originally developed as something of a circuit breaker for sensory input, especially pain. Primitive things like flatworms have something like a brain that is a just a cluster of cells, but it doesn't seem to have any affect on the creature. It is believed that its function is give the overload of pain stimulous a place to dissapate without harming the main nervous system. From that beginning the brain may have evolved.

I have often wondered why mammals were more successful than marcupials given all the problems mammal hae with birth. It certainly would be more conducive to larger brains.

On the other hand, it is not just brin size that matters: the wiring is important too. You remember the "Hobbits" found in the Pacific recently, the remains of them anyway? A study of the skull interior showed that they had a very highly developed portion of their brains, for their size that is. That portion was the front most section of the brain that is related to developing plans and carrying them out. It is believed that this allowed them to make weapons and tools even though their overall brain size was small. If we do ever engineer the brain, that would be the part to aim for since it is what gives us a large part of our human thought capacity.

Another problem with large brains is fuel usage. The brain is like the SUV of organs. It uses around 20% of all the calories taken in by the body and is demanding in other ways as well, like oxygen. Make it any bigger and you will only increase its demands. That would mean taking something away from the body, improving digestional efficiency, a tailored diet (dangerous in case the system breaks down), etc. I think the thing to do would be to improve the functioning of the brain size we have rather than trying to make it larger still.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 5/2/2006 8:52:15 AM Eastern Standard Time, mikecarrie01@... writes:

This is an interesting thought. I'm curious about the expression of genes and how they can change for several generations when outside factors are acted upon them.

Genes can be put into one of two categories: Dominant and Recessive. Dominant genes express whenever one such gene if present. For recessive to express, both genes in a pair must be recessive.

For example: Brown eyes are B, and blue eyes are b. Brown is dominant, blue recessive.

Case 1: Father brown eye dominant (BB), Mother brown eye dominant (BB). All possible combinations are BB, so brown eyes are expressed. 100% brown eyed.

Case 2: Father brown eye dominant (BB), Mother brown eye (Bb). Combinations are BB, BB, Bb, Bb. Two offspring are brown eye dominant, two are brown eyed but carry the recessive blue eye gene. 100% brown eyed, 50% blue eye recessives.

Case 3: Father brown eyed (Bb), Mother brown eyed (Bb). Combinations are BB, Bb, Bb, bb. One offspring is brown eye dominant, two have brown eyes but carry the recessive blue and one has blue eyes. 75% brown eyed, 25% blue, 75% blue eyed recessives.

Case 4: Father brown eyed (Bb), mother blue eyed (bb). Combinations are Bb, Bb, bb, bb. Two offspring have brown eyes but carry blue recessive, two offspring are blue eyed. 50% brown eyed, 50% blue eyed, 100% blue eye recessive.

This shows how some traits can be carried by a person but not expressed. This is why some diseases like Cystic Fibrosis can "skip" a generation. Unless both parents carry the recessive genes, then it will not express. In case one, there will not be blue eyed offspring and the chances of the next generation having blue eyed children is zero even it one crossed with a blue eyed person.

Looking at it again, you could see these cases as succeeding generations. If you look at the percentages, that is the change that a child will have blue eyes in the next generation, provided they cross with someone who carries the recessive gene.

This is a simplification of course, but it is a useful exercise.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 5/2/2006 6:48:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, crna_kuna@... writes:

> All this genetic diversity is theoretically supposed to have made me> strong, but I've got all kinds of health issues. Perhaps it was all> the inbreeding in the royal family.> > -sara>certain members of the royal family show accute sensitivity to tiny hard objects being placed underneath multiple layered soft objects to sleep on.consider that a compliment.

Actually most results of inbreeding were unpleasant. There were things like inherited physical deformities to hemophelia.

Also, there is a difference between royalty and nobility. Royalty is the bloodline of Kings and Queens. Nobility is most of the other titles, like my distant ancestor. Granted he was at the bottom of the heap, being a Gentleman (pretty much like a Knight), but then that gave him a measure of respect but left him too far down the pecking order to get tangled up in the political games.

[Guest guest]

I thought autism was possibly the result of a group of genes being

different and not just one - I'm not sure I can explain or elaborate,

just things I have heard as possiblilities/theories.

> >

> > " Perhaps AS is much the same. Perhaps it is the culmination of many

> genetic

> > errors that have built up over time and is one of nature's ways of

> discouraging

> > reproduction. "

>

> This is an interesting thought. I'm curious about the expression of

> genes and how they can change for several generations when outside

> factors are acted upon them.

>

[Guest guest]

> What part of America did they come to? My ancestors came from the Holland

area to England around the time of Henry VIII, one of them serving in his army

and being made a Gentleman for it. From then on they were mostly merchants. One

was given a land grant in northern Virginia in 1640. He sailed over with his

family on his own ship and began a good trade between the colonies and England.

Jumping in here because I can't resist the genealogy conversation:

Henry VIII was brother to my direct ancestor, his sister (not to

be confused with his daughter " Bloody " .) Not exactly a proud

lineage, my father's side.

I've also got ancestors from Switzerland. They went by the surname

Switzer. And my " German " ancestors fled France to Germany before

coming to the USA.

I've also got African ancestors via the marriage of a freed slave and

an Irish woman; and Native American ancestors; and Melungeon; and

English, Irish, ish.

All this genetic diversity is theoretically supposed to have made me

strong, but I've got all kinds of health issues. Perhaps it was all

the inbreeding in the royal family.

-sara

[Guest guest]

>

> I'm playing Devil's Advocate with this post.

>

you're not playing devil's advocate. I am always yin-yang in stuff (I

think I am bipolar) and never believe one truth. Choosing the side of

Nature, both the 'genetical advancement' as well as 'genetical

disease' (if numbers will keep on increasing) theory is the same:

Goodbye homo sapiens.

And also end of the line of possible advancement of the human brain.

No further.

I find it already horrible us women have to suffer pain at giving

birth because people's heads are too big as a consequence of our

brains evolving too quick in too small a time... then one can see the

bigger brain as a mistake of nature anyways. Not worth suffering for

in any case!! ;P

[Guest guest]

> All this genetic diversity is theoretically supposed to have made me

> strong, but I've got all kinds of health issues. Perhaps it was all

> the inbreeding in the royal family.

>

> -sara

>

certain members of the royal family show accute sensitivity to tiny

hard objects being placed underneath multiple layered soft objects to

sleep on.

consider that a compliment.

[Guest guest]

>

> " Henry VIII was brother to my direct ancestor, his sister (not

to

> be confused with his daughter " Bloody " .) Not exactly a proud

> lineage, my father's side.

>

> I've also got ancestors from Switzerland. They went by the surname

> Switzer. And my " German " ancestors fled France to Germany before

> coming to the USA.

>

> I've also got African ancestors via the marriage of a freed slave

and

> an Irish woman; and Native American ancestors; and Melungeon; and

> English, Irish, ish.

>

> All this genetic diversity is theoretically supposed to have made me

> strong, but I've got all kinds of health issues. Perhaps it was all

> the inbreeding in the royal family. "

Hey, you sound like me! I don't know my lineage (would love to!), but

I am English, African, Native American, Irish, ish, German,

Norweigan and French.

And I have health issues too and have wondered about inbreeding and

the Europeans getting 'soft'.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 5/3/2006 1:22:21 PM Eastern Standard Time, msaraann@... writes:

Hypersensitivity can be a great thing if, for example, you live in thewild. It would aid survival and enjoyment of life.

Before I got the AS diagnosis, I was told I had Hyper-attentive disorder. Simply that meant that I was very aware of everything going on around me and had trouble tuning out sound and movement. The doctor said that it usually was less noticable in natural environs and that it would probably mean I would be a good hunter or scout. It probably is the hunter genes expressing a bit strongly.