111–120 of 190 posts
I've had a sneaking feeling that a lot of the phyto-estrogen compounds out their were eventually going to be linked to autism. Expect to see a massive consumer wave against anything containing these compounds: fragrances and any items that contain fragrance, dyes, receipt paper, soy, both BPA and BPS in soft plastics, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People tend to forget just how important hormones can be and just assume everything is because of genes.
That's an odd comment since hormones are the result of gene expression.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting, I had no idea the rate was so high. I’ve seen one study[1] that sampled for ~7%, but not 25%. Do you have a link I could read? [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2904453/
Not parent, but closest thing I can find is the Kaltiala-Heino et al. study [1], found from p7 in this literature review [2]. There it's summarized as "26% of those who had experienced gender dysphoria had previous diagnosis of ASD". But that study has only 47 people (none adults), all drawn from a pair of Finnish hospitals. It looks like an outlier among the others, which suggest something more like 5%. [1] https://…
> However, the team cautioned that these findings cannot and should not be used to screen for autism. "We are interested in understanding autism, not preventing it," added Professor Baron-Cohen. I don't understand why not?
One shall not see a difference as something bad. Many autistic people have tremendously contributed to our society. The goal in this case is to develop the knowledge and tools that will help everyone use this as a strength.
What's a "difference"? You're begging the question by implicitly redefining what would fairly be described as a challenge or handicap, depending on severity, as simply being a "difference" instead.
Inability to properly simulate the mental state of others is, by and large, a deficiency. Mental abilities that you cultivate in the place of that can be interesting, but it's not just a "difference".
If we're going to give people the right to abort, and the right to abort based on screening processes - both of which are huge moral questions in and of themselves - then it only stands to reason that we continue to give parents more power in this situation based on the information we can give them.
Since in many places you can simply abort because you just don't want the kid, which is a pretty simple reason, it stands to reason that more complicated / more concretely justified reasons would be fine also.
One complicating factor that I put into every thread about random things being associated with autism: the diagnostic criteria for autism doesn't just measure how autistic someone is, but also how well they've learned to cope with being autistic. It measures things like frequency of meltdowns, ability to handle their everyday life without assistance, ability to "mask" by doing things like holding eye contact or memor…
> the diagnostic criteria for autism doesn't just measure how autistic someone is, but also how well they've learned to cope with being autistic. I'm not medically qualified at all, but that sounds a bit like saying Typhoid Mary didn't have typhoid because she was asymptomatic. That someone is able to effectively cope with a condition doesn't mean they don't have the condition. Am I missing something?
Furthermore, people simply don't seek diagnosis and care unless they're having problems that are severe enough. One example is Bill Gross, the "bond king", who figured out that he had Aspergers in his 70s. If someone is adjusted enough to their social niche, why would they seek a mental health diagnosis?
Maybe so, though equally could just be a small part in a larger puzzle or even a red herring. However, as somebody who is on the autistic spectrum, I have noted that my index and "ring finger"[edit thanks to comment] are of equal lengths, a trait more common in females than males who tend to have one longer - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digit_ratio Another aspect/theory from personal experience is that my earli…
if I could go back in time and become normal I don't know if this is good news, or bad news but... there is no normal . I know what you meant, what it would be like without ASD. But I'm not sure that would give you any particular insight into anything other than simply being a different person.
> This finding appears to contradict an earlier report by Windham et al. [32] that showed that lower levels of oestriol in second trimester were modestly associated with a later diagnosis of autism in the offspring. However, our samples correspond to a slightly earlier time point in pregnancy compared to Windham et al. (mean gestational week = 14.9 vs. 17.2 respectively) (see Table 1) [32], which could potentially better capture the steroid surge during the PMW [14]. Furthermore, our samples are of different origin, as Windham et al. assayed maternal serum, rather than foetal amniotic fluid. Steroid hormone levels in maternal serum do not differ relative to the baby’s sex and do not correlate to amniotic levels during the PMW [42].
So, high levels in blood reduce the autism risk and in amniotic fluid it's the other way around? I'll wait for a replication, I think
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People tend to forget just how important hormones can be and just assume everything is because of genes.
That's an odd comment since hormones are the result of gene expression.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the diagnostic criteria for autism doesn't just measure how autistic someone is, but also how well they've learned to cope with being autistic. I'm not medically qualified at all, but that sounds a bit like saying Typhoid Mary didn't have typhoid because she was asymptomatic. That someone is able to effectively cope with a condition doesn't mean they don't have the condition. Am I missing something?
Medical practitioners aren't on a platonic quest for truth when they make diagnoses. They're generally trying to separate out those who would benefit from treatment. Physical tests aren't often that useful for mental conditions, so official diagnostic criteria often has a section about how the observed traits and behaviors cause problems for the patient at home, in school, or at work. Furthermore, people simply don't…
I guess what my ultimate misunderstanding is:
> One complicating factor that I put into every thread about random things being associated with autism
How is that a complicating factor in discovering causes themselves? If someone has the Foo and Bar factors that cause autism, but has otherwise been able to work around it they are still "autistic" but just at a subclinical (is that the right phrase?) level. I guess I'm having some (pedantic?) misunderstanding around autism as a diagnosis vs. a disease you have.
I wonder how this fits with the "extreme male brain theory of autism".