Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mother's blood test predicts a sub-type of autism

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 85 posts

Re: Mother's blood test predicts a sub-type of autism

#61

Post by rsstack »

13rac1 wrote: post #57
rsstack wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An honest question: is there a Positive or even neutral one-line summary of ASD?

How about a list of people who have/had it: Tim Burton – Movie Director / Lewis Carroll – Author of “Alice in Wonderland” / Charles Darwin – Naturalist, Geologist, and Biologist / Emily Dickinson – Poet / Albert Einstein – Scientist & Mathematician / Bobby Fischer – Chess Grandmaster / Bill Gates – Co-founder of the Microsoft Corporation / Temple Grandin – Animal Scientist / Thomas Jefferson – Early American Politici…

I'm sorry, but this hand-picked list of exceptional people with light symptoms of ASD is minimizing a spectrum that includes some very serious disorders. Bringing out Bill Gates, with speculated mild Asperger's, is simply not a reasonable argument that "ASD can be good".

For perspective: Arguing "I know I guy who needs to squint to see things that are far away but he's an amazing pianist" doesn't add to a discussion about early detection of vision impairment and vision loss.

Re: Mother's blood test predicts a sub-type of autism

#62

Post by sjg007 »

msandford wrote: post #59
sjg007 wrote: post #55

This is mind blowing... if I understand correctly basically it’s moms immune system that induces autism, is this the correct interpretation? I’d imagine it’s more complicated but still... it gives hope that early intervention and maybe prenatal and postnatal treatments to reduce the incidence.

What's super crazy is that if it's an autoimmune problem then the idea that vaccines cause autism might actually be right for a very small percentage of the population. If that were to be true (a HUGE if) and we could figure out the precursor markers then we could exempt the folks who need exemption and still keep herd immunity by vaccinating all the folks who wouldn't be harmed.

That's a bigger leap but testable. You'd expect to find antibodies in the child for the brain proteins that aren't present in the mom.

Re: Mother's blood test predicts a sub-type of autism

#63

Post by danielheath »

trhway wrote: post #26
danielheath wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Autism is an extremely broad term. At one extreme, those who will never speak and spend their lives enraged by being unable to communicate. At the other, a very substantial fraction of the worlds finest science & engineering minds. I wouldn't mind a few more of the latter.

you see, mentally right now choosing between neurodiversity and selection you voted for selection.

Okay, fair enough: that was a shit way for me to make a point.

There's nothing wrong with preferring that people have the ability to communicate with others (vs them not having that ability).

The moral issue is externally-enforced selection (AKA eugenics), which seems to persistently rear its ugly head as soon as you start talking about disability.

My friend (edit: redacted) chose not to have kids, because every ancestor he could trace on his paternal line had died of cancer around age 40, and he didn't think it was fair to inflict that on somebody else. I think that was a wise and moral choice - but it would not be wise or moral to take the choice away from him.

Re: Mother's blood test predicts a sub-type of autism

#64

Post by kaypro »

hobos_delight wrote: post #44
SubiculumCode wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, and own the book, and have had lunch with the author, but I would just add that NeuroTribes represents a very opinionated take on autism that has some sharp critics.

Yes, thank you for the addition. The book was the first thing I read after we received the diagnosis for my son - although a friend had recommended it prior to this. It also helped me as person feel less different and accepting of myself (I do not have an ASD diagnosis).

Thank you for recommending this!

Re: Mother's blood test predicts a sub-type of autism

#65

Post by danielheath »

throw998 wrote: post #58
SubiculumCode wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the intention behind your final sentence, and to whom it referred. If directed at my post, all I can say is that in respect to autism, it is paternal age which is the most critical, per the science, which, by the way, isn't something I just learned, its related to my career.

disappears if you control for the fact that older men have children with older women

Thank goodness there’s a throwaway here to make unsourced claims to argue with a postdoc in the field. Otherwise we might not get both sides of the story.

Re: Mother's blood test predicts a sub-type of autism

#66

Post by danielheath »

rsstack wrote: post #61
13rac1 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about a list of people who have/had it: Tim Burton – Movie Director / Lewis Carroll – Author of “Alice in Wonderland” / Charles Darwin – Naturalist, Geologist, and Biologist / Emily Dickinson – Poet / Albert Einstein – Scientist & Mathematician / Bobby Fischer – Chess Grandmaster / Bill Gates – Co-founder of the Microsoft Corporation / Temple Grandin – Animal Scientist / Thomas Jefferson – Early American Politici…

I'm sorry, but this hand-picked list of exceptional people with light symptoms of ASD is minimizing a spectrum that includes some very serious disorders. Bringing out Bill Gates, with speculated mild Asperger's, is simply not a reasonable argument that "ASD can be good". For perspective: Arguing "I know I guy who needs to squint to see things that are far away but he's an amazing pianist" doesn't add to a discussion…

The ability to focus more deeply than the general population is quite valuable in a world where technological progress requires increasing specialisation.

Re: Mother's blood test predicts a sub-type of autism

#67

Post by [deleted] »

danielheath wrote: post #66
rsstack wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but this hand-picked list of exceptional people with light symptoms of ASD is minimizing a spectrum that includes some very serious disorders. Bringing out Bill Gates, with speculated mild Asperger's, is simply not a reasonable argument that "ASD can be good". For perspective: Arguing "I know I guy who needs to squint to see things that are far away but he's an amazing pianist" doesn't add to a discussion…

The ability to focus more deeply than the general population is quite valuable in a world where technological progress requires increasing specialisation.

[deleted]

Re: Mother's blood test predicts a sub-type of autism

#68

Post by 13rac1 »

rsstack wrote: post #61
13rac1 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about a list of people who have/had it: Tim Burton – Movie Director / Lewis Carroll – Author of “Alice in Wonderland” / Charles Darwin – Naturalist, Geologist, and Biologist / Emily Dickinson – Poet / Albert Einstein – Scientist & Mathematician / Bobby Fischer – Chess Grandmaster / Bill Gates – Co-founder of the Microsoft Corporation / Temple Grandin – Animal Scientist / Thomas Jefferson – Early American Politici…

I'm sorry, but this hand-picked list of exceptional people with light symptoms of ASD is minimizing a spectrum that includes some very serious disorders. Bringing out Bill Gates, with speculated mild Asperger's, is simply not a reasonable argument that "ASD can be good". For perspective: Arguing "I know I guy who needs to squint to see things that are far away but he's an amazing pianist" doesn't add to a discussion…

You may discount the entirety of positives, but there are, in fact, positives. This does in no way minimize the severe cases, rather simply contends ASD is not always negative, which was your original concern.

I cannot agree with your perspective comparison. Vision many help someone learn piano more quickly at first, but is immaterial to their maximum ability as a pianist. A better comparison is early detection of the development of additional fingers or exceptionally large hands (example: Rachmaninoff), both of which directly and permanently affect a person's ability to play difficult piano pieces. This too would be a concerning eugenics issue.

Re: Mother's blood test predicts a sub-type of autism

#69

Post by rsstack »

danielheath wrote: post #66
rsstack wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but this hand-picked list of exceptional people with light symptoms of ASD is minimizing a spectrum that includes some very serious disorders. Bringing out Bill Gates, with speculated mild Asperger's, is simply not a reasonable argument that "ASD can be good". For perspective: Arguing "I know I guy who needs to squint to see things that are far away but he's an amazing pianist" doesn't add to a discussion…

The ability to focus more deeply than the general population is quite valuable in a world where technological progress requires increasing specialisation.

Can you continue your line of thought? This ability, which is extremely rare, is quite valuable. What's the next step, the conclusion?

Re: Mother's blood test predicts a sub-type of autism

#70

Post by Blikkentrekker »

dragonwriter wrote: post #46
alisonkisk wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"behavioral impairment" is a social judgement, not a biological flaw. Homosexuality was long considered a psychiatric disorder, so be careful putting blind faith in psychiatric judgements.

> "behavioral impairment" is a social judgement, not a biological flaw. Yes, pretty much all of modern psychiatric diagnosis are explicitly diagnosing a combination of inability to succeed in the concrete social conditions one finds oneself in combined with concurrent behavioral or other symptoms, not “biological flaws”. (Which, incidentally, would also be subjective judgments; biological features are objective, that…

There are a great many psychiatric disorders that highly correlate with the arbitrary definitions of success used to justify that those that correlate negatively are to be called “disorders”.

It's not even about success in society; it's simply about whether the psychiatric authority considers it undesirable, and in want of eradication.

Drapetomania even existed, which had nothing to do with success. The authority simply considered it undesirable that slaves fled.

Many behaviors that correlate very negatively with success are not considered mental disorders, for they the authority considers them desirable.

And of course, it's an entirely circular argument. There are also some disorders that correlate very negatively with success and thus called disorders, but the disorder is more or less “not caring about success”. — there are disorders characterized by the subject's indifference how he is socially perceived.

Post reply on HN