Autism and nature versus nurture
The way this blog is set up makes it easy to miss comments - I am therefore copying a recent comment here, together with my response:
Alexander's Daddy said...You need to look at the medical studies published in the past 25 years and drop those sources from the 1940's,1950's-60's. Autism is genetic neurological disorder and more than 1483 studies have been published in the last 25 years to demonstrate that. I don't want any of your readers to be confused by what you have posted and what your personal thougts are on the subject because you don't have a medical background. If you would like to look at the science, just go to pubmed and look up autism and genetics. Here are two abstracts for you to chew on: (To see the abstracts, click on "Comments" to the previous post)
Mon Mar 27, 03:14:30 PM 2006
Andrew Reiner said...
I have been on a meditation retreat since 22 March (but left instructions for comments to be published) and have therefore been unable to comment until now.
There are at least two compelling reasons for rejecting the hypothesis that "autism is a genetic neurological disorder". I referred to both in the second post on Bruno Bettelheim.The first is the (30-60)-fold increase in the rate of occurrence of autism during the very period to which you refer (from 1-2 in 10,000 to 1 in 166, or 60 in 10,000). This cannot possibly be the result of genetic factors - at least not in the sense in which it is commonly understood, viz as something inherited from the parents. There must be something in the environment to account for the recent autism epidemic. The evidence that is gradually accumulating linking vaccination, especially the neurotoxin thimerosal, used to preserve vaccines and now finally being banned in more and more States (in the US) is now almost unassailable (unless you listen to the vaccine manufacturers or their allies in government). I recommend you have a look at David Kirby (2005), "Evidence of harm:Mercury in vaccines and the autism epidemic: a medical controversy" (New York: St Martin's Press, 2005).
The other likely environmental factor is the Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine, even without thimerosal (See, in particular, Neil Z Miller, Vaccines, autism and childhood disorders:Crucial data that could save your child's life. Santa Fe, New Mexico: New Atlantean Press, 2003, with a Foreword by Bernard Rimland; The book also includes Dr Rimland's congressional testimony of 6 April, 2000 on pages 43-46). The only way to find out what else may be responsible is to divert some of the billions of dollars now being spent on genetic research to environmental research.
The above certainly does not rule out the possibility that it is only genetically susceptible children who develop autism, for example, because of an inability to eliminate certain toxins like mercury from their systems.
The second reason for rejecting the simple genetic explanation you offer is the recent discovery that the environment can even change our genes! This can happen in utero, as a result of toxins being introduced into the mother's body during pregnancy (as in your first extract - see above), or it can happen any time after birth. I quote from a recent (10 January 2006) edition of ScienCentral:
Lab experiments suggest that a pregnant mother's exposure to certain chemicals in the environment can cause reproductive problems not only for her own children, but also for several more generations of her family... research with pregnant rats revealed what genetics researchers thought was impossible.
Enduring Effects of the Environment
One chemical is used in insecticides. The other is a fungicide used on vineyards and orchards. They are known to alter levels of reproductive hormones, but there were no signs — until now — that such chemicals could alter our genes — the DNA code we pass on to our children. "We've made a discovery that has made us sit back and think about some general biology questions in a number of different areas," says biologist Michael Skinner, director of Washington State University's Center for Reproductive Biology. "If disease can be induced by environmental factors, and then subsequently be carried forward to the subsequent generations, then we have come up with potentially a new paradigm for disease development."
Yesterday's Age newapaper (3 April 2006) reported on a study by Dr Angelo De Marzo and colleagues at the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, presented at a meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, that the ingestion of PhIP, a compound formed when meat is charred at very high temperatures ( as in a barbecue, for example), results in genetic mutation in rats after a mere four weeks, causing prostate cancer. This may explain the known link between eating red meat and prostate cancer, the Age reported. Indeed, the researchers found genetic mutations in all the organs they examined.
The 1483 studies that you refer to may, indeed, demonstrate a role for genes (indeed, how could it be otherwise?) but it requires something to take place in the child's environment for autism to develop.
Tue Apr 04, 05:00:58 AM 2006
Readers may also wish to have a look at http://vaccinationissues.blogspot.com/
Previous Posts :
Bruno Bettelheim and "mental disorders" again
Bruno Bettelheim and "mental disorders"
posted by Andrew Reiner at 4/04/2006 12:40:00 pm
4 Comments:
I actually agree with you about not commenting on something I do not have personal experience with. I definitely prefer writing about things I have myself experienced.
Since I don't want you - or anybody else - to feel insulted by anything I have written and since I am aware of how passionately so many people feel about autism and its possible causes, I'm happy to leave this subject to those with personal experience in the area.
My wife tells me that CranioSacral therapy has apparently had some success in treating autism in children - just in case you are still looking at treatment options for your son.Have a look at www.upledger.com
I wish you well in your journey.
As soon as I posted my response (above) I began to feel uneasy, a sure sign with me that I'm on the wrong track. With the daily accumulating evidence of a wide range of childhood disorders being linked to vaccines I feel it is my responsibility to do whatever I can to inform future parents, as well as those who have recently become parents, that they can not simply trust the experts when it comes to the question of how best to protect their children from harm. The medical profession, the pharmaceutical industry, government agencies and the mass media have betrayed the trust of millions of parents. There is no alternative to each and every parent doing their own research, rather than having blind faith in doctors or government. As I have said many times, part of this process of conscientisation has to be taking steps to become conscious - that is, personal growth in some form, until one's own inner voice is loud and clear. Until this voice is loud enough,it will be drowned out by the deliberate distortions of the vested interests who profit from human pain and suffering.
Joseph, I will certainly have a look at your blog when I return - I am going away for a week. I am, however, aware of the argument that the increase is not a real one as well as the opposite point of view (that there has been a real, substantial increase which can not be explained as an administrative aberration. This includes the testimony of parents who say they saw their children regress into autism soon after being vaccinated; it also includes the testimony of physicians who say they have seen the numbers increase in their practice during the last decade and a half or so). I will investigate further and post something when I return. Thanks for your comment
Although I did not comment further, that was not because I had failed to investigate the matter further. On the contrary, I looked not only on Joseph's site, but several others as well; indeed our own (Australian) media discussed this very question on Radio National recently, putting the case strongly for the position supported by Joseph. They failed even to interview anyone other than two scientists who supported the argument that the apparent increase in the incidence of autism is due to an administrative, rather than a real event. I can only say that people need to investigate these things for themselves, but they need to do so with an understanding that this is not a neutral, value-free debate but one in which billions, if not trillions, of dollars are at stake. If the incidence of autism is anyhting like 1 in 166 (60 in 10,000) that means that there has been a 30-to-60-fold increase in the last 30-40 years. That means there must be something in our environment - not necessarily a vaccine, but something we are doing to ourselves - causing this horrific human-made nightmare. It is in the interests of those whose livelihoods depend on denying such a possibility to sow the seeds of doubt. My own researches leave me in no doubt that the increase is real, though whether the real increase is 60-fold, 30-fold, or "merely" 20-fold (or even ten-fold) is a question I can not answer. It is up to every parent and future parent to research this for yourselves. It is too late for the millions of parents whose precious children regressed into the nightmare world of autism (and other childhood disorders such as mental retardation) after they trusted the authorities to protect their babies from harm.
Post a Comment
<< Home