Autism: Evolution?

Originally posted by golemina
reply to post by ValentineWiggin

 

I thought our motto at ATS was to deny ignorance.

The 'stereotyping' being demonstrated is seriously out of touch with reality.

It comes off more as a disinformation piece and demonstrates the tendency of the 'establishment' who so desperately push the CAUSE of autism as ANYTHING but what it really is.

Humans are very cyclical, this type of absolute nonsense you're pushing happened previously with mercury poisoning many moons ago during the so called Pink Disease outbreaks caused by the so-called 'teething powders'.

Look it up!

And understand that MDs are, for the most part, totally useless in getting REAL and EFFECTIVE treatment for your child.

Those morons had a huge world-wide effort and the best 'medical minds' (can you spell oxymoron?

), actually identified the virus that 'caused' Pink Disease!

But despite all of the MDs brilliant and heroic efforts...

Pink Disease didn't stop until the mercury based teething powders stopped being sold...

When you buy into the 'establishments' views on causation... it TOTALLY cuts down on your ability to address the TRUE issues facing your child.

Here is a simple truth...

If you don't let your child be vacinated, they will NEVER 'get' autism.

It's THAT simple.

When parents stop innoculating their children, autism will simply die out...

Now that your child has been pushed off of the cliff and crashed on the rocks below, you get into trying to put the resultant mess back together, a life long commitment...

If you want answers I (and many thousand TRUE autism warriors) can help

If not, AEIOU.

Modern life is NOT for the weak.

edit on 18-4-2012 by golemina because: Typos baby!

1) Do you know some children who have autism never had vaccines?
2) This is a speculative thread.
3) I don't see any stereotyping here, as many people who have responded have children with autism or are in the spectrum themselves.
3) This can't be dis-info if there is no explanation for Autism in the first place, this is simply an idea to discuss.

Originally posted by satron
Autism is the next step in evolution like fat people are the next step in evolution during a famine.

I seriously hope you were kidding.

I have Asperger, and I also have other stuff overlaping, such as Schizoid Personality Disorder. But I was doing searches, and found (some) psychiatric-opinion opposition toward those two existing simultaneously. I noticed that there seems to be a professional bias against diagnosis' overlaping. I had a friend in my teens, who was Autistic along with Borderline Personality Disorder, which was acknowledged and diagnosed decades later.

But yeah, those ---definitely--- are blocks to reproduction. I had several flings, (unfortunately), (with protection) but I never had a LTR. Trying to make an LTR happen was alien to me. It was as unnatural to me, as could be.
I wanted one, too. Thank gaaaaawwwwwwd those horrible days are long done. I take to the internet like a fish to water.

Hmmm got me thinking either way by using internet and tv outside of entertainment the differences in brain function must somewhat differ from the skills used in real life unless you possess a healthy balance of both, going with internet for both entertainment and social interaction the worrying thing is if your brain becomes incapable of making the necessary connections then the computer does your thinking for you, thats a lot of lost connections and possible new neural pathways although depending on how you are wired the opposite could also be said, so I suppose its down to the perception of the individual user. "Perception - Friend or Foe" .

Its an interesting Hypothesis and one I have heard before. Idiot savants for one seem incapable of social interaction but they have computational skills that make the fastest computer seem useless.

There is definitely a form of evolution in the works. The question is if this form of mutation is beneficial to human survival or another evolutionary dead end.

For me evolution is adaptability not specialization. which is what you seem to be getting at with the OP. From what I can gather you seem to be proposing the supposition that autism may be an accidental or planned evolutionary off shoot.

Regardless what the cause the outcome will be the same. A human incapable of adapting to a changing environment wont last long enough to reproduce and thus ends the experimental model. So in closing I believe that if we can have the mental computational skills of the savants and still maintain our social skills THAT would be an evolutionary leap. Anything less would be an evolutionary dead end.

Keep in mind our technology can be wiped clean with one well placed CME.

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd
Its an interesting Hypothesis and one I have heard before. Idiot savants for one seem incapable of social interaction but they have computational skills that make the fastest computer seem useless.

There is definitely a form of evolution in the works. The question is if this form of mutation is beneficial to human survival or another evolutionary dead end.

For me evolution is adaptability not specialization. which is what you seem to be getting at with the OP. From what I can gather you seem to be proposing the supposition that autism may be an accidental or planned evolutionary off shoot.

Regardless what the cause the outcome will be the same. A human incapable of adapting to a changing environment wont last long enough to reproduce and thus ends the experimental model. So in closing I believe that if we can have the mental computational skills of the savants and still maintain our social skills THAT would be an evolutionary leap. Anything less would be an evolutionary dead end.

Keep in mind our technology can be wiped clean with one well placed CME.

I like this. I totally agree actually. All I know about the Savant, is that 30 percent of autistic children are savants.

Here's something to throw into the pot...

What about regression?

Any autistic spectrum adults here or parents of autistic children know that feeling. Your child talks more a couple days in a row, the hand flapping stops, they are calm and considerate...

Then WHAM. It all comes back, full force if not worse.

Most of our children are involved in some sort of therapy, diet plan, or Biophysical treatment program. The changes we make on the outside by encouraging the development of "normal" milestones and "normal" social skills makes a difference, but it can still regress.

I think this points to it being more of a genetic thing, and can also help to rule parents out of the equation, since every mother of a child effected by Autism that I have spoken with is a vicious lioness in a constant fight for her child's progress.

ETA: I have heard great things about the Biophysical approach, chelation, diet changes, reducing allergens..dyes...but I won't have much to add on that until our appointment with the Biophys Dr. in May

Originally posted by ValentineWiggin
Here's something to throw into the pot...

What about regression?

Any autistic spectrum adults here or parents of autistic children know that feeling. Your child talks more a couple days in a row, the hand flapping stops, they are calm and considerate...

Then WHAM. It all comes back, full force if not worse.

Most of our children are involved in some sort of therapy, diet plan, or Biophysical treatment program. The changes we make on the outside by encouraging the development of "normal" milestones and "normal" social skills makes a difference, but it can still regress.

I think this points to it being more of a genetic thing, and can also help to rule parents out of the equation, since every mother of a child effected by Autism that I have spoken with is a vicious lioness in a constant fight for her child's progress.

ETA: I have heard great things about the Biophysical approach, chelation, diet changes, reducing allergens..dyes...but I won't have much to add on that until our appointment with the Biophys Dr. in May

edit on 18-4-2012 by ValentineWiggin because: (no reason given)

I believe you are getting closer to the truth of the matter. Diet and environmental pollution have a lot to answer for.

Here are my random thoughts on this.

- I don't see this as "evolution" because it isn't following the evolutionary path...these genes are not being passed down to the next generation through reproduction. These are gene defects being caused by a yet unknown source.

- Just because the first case was "diagnosed" in the 1930s does not mean that Autism only appeared then...just that is when people named it and seperated it from other disorders. Before this...autistic kids would probably just be considered mentally ill.

- Diagnosed cases increasing does not necessarily mean that true cases are being increased...it may just be that there is more awareness and a broader definition of what "autism" is.


I really think the new study about a link between mother obesity and autism is on the right track...both show a similar trend in rising incidence...and I think they go further and suggest it is more about high blood sugar and insulin while pregnant.

I just don't think this is "evolution" anymore than the increase of diabetes is "evolution".

I can tell you one Biophysical approach that did NOT work for us, however, it's the only real one I could start before seeing the MD and that is the GFCF (Gluten Free Casein Free) diet.

I cut milk first, all dairy, and my son went instantly in to withdrawal. He literally screamed on the floor for milk even when I was giving him really great tasting milk substitutes. This lasted 3-4 days, and stopped. I thought, as well as close family members, he was getting better and we were seeing results.

A few weeks later we go for an Evaluation and I explain this to the woman, that he was doing much better. She pulled our old MCHAT and we did the evaluation again. He scored with 3 more points in the negative. It had a placebo effect on us, we wanted it to work so badly, but it did not.

I know it works for some, so it must be some part in it, but you would have to look at how many people who used this diet also used other Biophysical treatments such as chelation and oxygen chambers.

My son Phoenix was diagnosed with Autism when he was 3, though many of the stereotypical behaviors of an autistic child he did not display. He said his first word (mama) at 6 months, he smiled and made eye contact, then the time came for his 12 month shots, which I believe he got a little late...anyway. he went from a perfectly normal (and in fact above average) child, to constantly screaming and no longer being able to say any words. I have no doubt that Vaccines are the cause as both of the OPs timelines of when autism first appears in the 30's and then spikes in the late 90's also coincide respectively with when vaccines were first being used on children (polio vaccine). In the early 1950s, there were four vaccines: diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis and smallpox. Because three of these vaccines were combined into a single shot (DTP), children received five shots by the time they were 2 years old and not more than one shot at a single visit. By the mid-1980s, there were seven vaccines: diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella and polio. Because six of these vaccines were combined into two shots (DTP and MMR), and one, the polio vaccine, was given by mouth, children still received five shots by the time they were 2 years old and not more than one shot at a single visit. Since the mid-1980s, many vaccines have been added to the schedule. Now, children could receive as many as 24 shots by 2 years of age and five shots in a single visit. All this stress when their growing brains and little bodies are so susceptible to damage is to much for many children (especially boys, who are 5 time more likely to become autistic).
Since my sons diagnosis he has made leaps and bounds, though he could not really speak much after the vaccines, he was able to do things which blew my mind, like at the age of 3 I witnessed him assemble a 50 piece puzzle on the brown side (upside down). How many "normal" kids do you know who have the patience for that? He is six now and can speak in full sentences while making eye contact, he is potty trained and rarely has accidents, he will let me hug him and no longer avoids human contact, he laughs and smiles. He still has a speech deficit, and has many abnormal habits and is hyper-sensitive, like certain sounds set him of on a tantrum, and he still screams allot, and yes he his awesome at video games, and can navigate on the computer to any of his favorite game sites. though I do not think that it is because he is more adapted to do so. I believe that my son and my family are victims of a criminal government allowing a equally criminal group of corporations to push vaccines that THEY KNOW are hurting our children, one for depopulation and soft kill reasons, and two because they are making allot of money doing it. I just hope that one day that the families effected by this outrage will see justice done in the form of public executions.

reply to post by OrionStarfire


If you actually believe everything you said to be true what are you waiting for??

I dont know about you but if I ever had kids and somebody did something I thought was detrimental to them. I would do something serious about it. But thats just me and probably why I dont want to have kids just yet.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Here are my random thoughts on this.

- I don't see this as "evolution" because it isn't following the evolutionary path...these genes are not being passed down to the next generation through reproduction. These are gene defects being caused by a yet unknown source.

So why wouldn't the defective genes of unknow be passed on?

There are two possible sources of the genetic variability which is required and able to drive evolution; genetic recombination and mutation. Mutations are random nucleotide alterations such as copying errors or changes induced by external mutagens. In contrast, genetic recombination is performed by the cell during the preparation of gametes (sperm, egg, pollen) which are used for sexual reproduction.
Source

Or what about co-evolution?

Interactions between organisms can produce both conflict and co-operation. When the interaction is between pairs of species, such as a pathogen and a host, or a predator and its prey, these species can develop matched sets of adaptations.

Here, the evolution of one species causes adaptations in a second species. These changes in the second species then, in turn, cause new adaptations in the first species. This cycle of selection and response is called co-evolution.

[196] An example is the production of tetrodotoxin in the rough-skinned newt and the evolution of tetrodotoxin resistance in its predator, the common garter snake. In this predator-prey pair, an evolutionary arms race has produced high levels of toxin in the newt and correspondingly high levels of toxin resistance in the snake.

Could technology be the "species" and humans the second "species" and these traits evolve? I like the wording of "Evolutionary arms race". Personally.

The residues ("tailings") of mines often contain such high concentrations of toxic metals (e.g., copper, lead) that most plants are unable to grow on them. However, some hardy species (e.g. certain grasses) are able to spread from the surrounding uncontaminated soil onto such waste heaps.

These plants develop resistance to the toxic metals while their ability to grow on uncontaminated soil decreases. Because grasses are wind pollinated, breeding between the resistant and nonresistant populations goes on. But evidently, disruptive selection is at work.

Higher death rates of both less resistant plants growing on contaminated soil and more resistant plants growing on uncontaminated soil leads to increasing divergence of the populations into two subpopulations with the extreme manifestations of this trait.

The evolutionary significance of disruptive selection lies in the possibility that the gene pool may become split into two distinct gene pools. This may be a way in which new species are formed. The formation of one or more species from a single precursor species is called speciation. It is the topic of a separate page.
Source

- Just because the first case was "diagnosed" in the 1930s does not mean that Autism only appeared then...just that is when people named it and seperated it from other disorders. Before this...autistic kids would probably just be considered mentally ill.

Valid point, but is it realistic if we look back on numbers data for children who were mentally ill before the onset of the Autism diagnoses that the numbers would match up to the outstanding numbers

- Diagnosed cases increasing does not necessarily mean that true cases are being increased...it may just be that there is more awareness and a broader definition of what "autism" is.

Good point to consider, jury still out on that one...that's one of the BIG questions.

I really think the new study about a link between mother obesity and autism is on the right track...both show a similar trend in rising incidence...and I think they go further and suggest it is more about high blood sugar and insulin while pregnant.

I was a hefty 110 lbs when I got pregnant and a hefty 116 lbs now (which we discussed in chat ) but I would love a link to this study if you can dig it up.

I just don't think this is "evolution" anymore than the increase of diabetes is "evolution".

But, the decrease in Diabetes is due to changing the diet (sugars, carbohydrates) that effect the body and the addition of insulin where it is not being produced naturally. Pretty simple there because we know the causation for Diabetes, difference is the causation of Autism is still unknown. It could also be said here and I am admittedly ignorant on if this has been studied or not, that Environmental Factors could have lead to gene mutation causing the pancreas to not produce insulin appropriately (once again, not an expert on Diabetes, just my general understanding)

POLLUTION, environmental pollution. In the water there are a lot of things that were not there as recently as the 40's. The air also. After the 40's you had atomic bombs polluting the air and whatever the dust settled onto. You began widespread use of petroleum bases products, and 'drugs'. Autism I believe has increased substantially since our industrial revolution, and more importantly become a gauge of the proliferation and level of contamination.

I definitely don't think it's evolution, I believe your way off there, rather, simply a gravitation towards game type scenarios were these individuals can find their comfort zone with little outside annoyance. The autistic people I'v met, seem adept at manipulating the environment their in at the time. Sorry to say, but if your talking evolution then the weak would be less likely to survive and the Autistic population diminish. Beyond idiot savants, what desirable characteristic is there? It's a disease or toxicity breakdown of a healthy human species. I'd call it more in the line of DNA or genetic damage.

reply to post by TiM3LoRd

If I were to go vigilante and start shooting Pfizer execs, then my family would be left without a father. Part of being a parent is being responsible enough to make decisions based on the welfare of your children and not based on emotions. Believe me, there is nothing more that I would like to do than to see some evil bastards brain splattered and their life extinguished from this earth forever, but alas...where would that leave my child in this cruel system.

reply to post by ValentineWiggin


You propose an interesting idea. However, what do we do online, check myspace, facebook, youtube, video chat, watch tv/movies, etc.Almost everything online involves human interaction. What do you look at when you go on facebook? Pic of friends. What do you look at when you watch TV and movies? People/faces/social interaction. Even the protagonist in most video games has to get along with others and work together to accomplish a common goal. Facial mapping and expression has improved for video games because it lacks realism and we desire to be able to identify with the characters... to make them feel human. So to sum it up, I disagree with your autism theory.

It is simply a genetic defect inherent in all our DNA. The reason why the number of diagnosed children have increased is simply due the fact that awareness has been raised, information is more readily available, and also because parents want to blame something or somebody for their failure as a parent ( I am a parent of 2 and I have noticed this disturbing trend through many observations and conversations).

Of course, TV / internet can and has hindered many from the stand point of direct social interaction (simply due to the lack of direct contact). However I think this has more of an impact on adults that children. Consider this, where are we required to go, by law, until we reach the age of 18? School!!! And what do we do in school? We play, laugh, talk, and learn WITH huge amounts of children/teenagers. From the age of 6 to 18 we are placed in a world that enables us to develop these social skills and practice the things that we will require to succeed socially as an adult. From there, we go off to college which again, requires some level of direct social interaction. However, as an adult we can choose whether or not to place ourselves in either a social setting or solitude. As I said, interesting idea but I'm not sure if you have considered all variables.

reply to post by adventxero


Also, there is a striking correlation between autism and the myriad of vaccines children are required to get these days.

Need to reply to this quite quickly, off out.

I do think Autism is an attempt at another evolutionary step. I work with Autism and have done for a long time.

* The guys I work with definitely are in an age group where it's unlikely they would have had vaccines.

* To clear something up, savant tendencies in Autism are about as rare as they are in the "normal" population, those with Autism that display savant tendencies tend to be "glorified" a little (too much - is it fair on them?).

I think honestly that Autism is an attempt to evolve, but (sadly) failed, all the Autistic people I know would not be able to take care of themselves on their own. They're lovely people, like you or I, they do have personalities - they may just be a little hampered.

Off out, I'll come back to this.

well i sure don't FEEL autistic

Originally posted by Romekje

Originally posted by satron
Autism is the next step in evolution like fat people are the next step in evolution during a famine.

I seriously hope you were kidding.

I wasn't. In a world where food is disappearing, it will be the fat people that survive. I don't think the skinny people are going to get that far.