The Age of Autism: Less is beautiful

[Guest guest]

I think it has been discovered that the brains of those on the autism

spectrum are different? but I can't quite remember how - is it

frontal lobe/cortex or something?

>

>

> In a message dated 3/3/2006 2:09:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

> mikecarrie01@... writes:

>

> That would at least show that the brain is used differently by

> different people and that the brain's potential is varied. I don't

> think knowledge of the brain is limited to what a scan can show--

> there's so much unknown about the brain.

>

>

>

> We actually know very little about the brain. It is known that if

part of

> the brain is damaged that other parts can compensate by taking over

those

> functions. On the other hand, there are cases where damage to parts

of the brain

> is never recovered. Even so, most cases of brain damage from

accidents and such

> does not come back, except in the few miracle cases that one often

hears

> about.

>

> I think the brain is capable of doing all these things within

itself. There

> are after all many billions of connections and, unlike in a

computer, each

> connection is more than a simple on or off proposition. Each

connection has

> several different chemicals that can act on it and these differing

combinations

> affect connection to a fine degree of control. So, this would have

a

> multiplier effect on the connections, though how great is a matter

for someone more

> knowledgeable on the numbers of chemicals and how exactly they and

their

> combinations would affect the connections.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I think it has been discovered that the brains of those on the autism

spectrum are different? but I can't quite remember how - is it

frontal lobe/cortex or something?

>

>

> In a message dated 3/3/2006 2:09:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

> mikecarrie01@... writes:

>

> That would at least show that the brain is used differently by

> different people and that the brain's potential is varied. I don't

> think knowledge of the brain is limited to what a scan can show--

> there's so much unknown about the brain.

>

>

>

> We actually know very little about the brain. It is known that if

part of

> the brain is damaged that other parts can compensate by taking over

those

> functions. On the other hand, there are cases where damage to parts

of the brain

> is never recovered. Even so, most cases of brain damage from

accidents and such

> does not come back, except in the few miracle cases that one often

hears

> about.

>

> I think the brain is capable of doing all these things within

itself. There

> are after all many billions of connections and, unlike in a

computer, each

> connection is more than a simple on or off proposition. Each

connection has

> several different chemicals that can act on it and these differing

combinations

> affect connection to a fine degree of control. So, this would have

a

> multiplier effect on the connections, though how great is a matter

for someone more

> knowledgeable on the numbers of chemicals and how exactly they and

their

> combinations would affect the connections.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

While those are certainly idiosuyncracies associated with Asperger's

they do not, by virtue of being present in a person, define a

diagnosis of Asperger's. There are other disorders which are not

dissimilar to Asperger's which have those same identifying markers.

This is why children with Asperger's are oftentimes diagnosed with a

plethora of other disorders before being properly identified with

Asperger's. I do not dispute that you and the others have these

markers in your genetic make-up; I am disputing the basis upon which

you have determined the others have Asperger's.

Raven

>

> Re:

>

>

> > Good to know. Can you give some descriptions on >how you know

they were

> > Aspergers?

>

> Everything I do that got me diagnosed as Asperger's, they also do -

> strange use of language, tendency to monologue, tendency not to

look

> others in the eye, tendency to do amazingly well at systematizing

and

> amazingly poorly at empathizing, tendency to crave some textures

and

> crigne at others, and (to some degree or another) just about all

the

> other things that some folks imagine you need mercury poisoning

for.

>

>

> Yours for better letters,

> Kate Gladstone

> Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest

> handwritingrepair@...

> http://learn.to/handwrite,

http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair

> 325 South Manning Boulevard

> Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA

> telephone 518/482-6763

> AND REMEMBER ...

> you can order books through my site!

> (Amazon.com link -

> I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold)

>

[Guest guest]

I don't deem it certain, only likely, that those other members of my

family had/have Asperger's.

Someday when I've time (I don't have time now), I'll go find some of

those Aspie diagnostic checklists and fill them in for Dad and

Grandma.

Yours for better letters,

Kate Gladstone

Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest

handwritingrepair@...

http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair

325 South Manning Boulevard

Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA

telephone 518/482-6763

AND REMEMBER ...

you can order books through my site!

(Amazon.com link -

I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold)

[Guest guest]

Still reading through missed threads. Hope its not too late to comment...

:

> I think " mercury causes autism " is too simple too. I just hear

the 'mercury causes autism' 'mercury doesn't cause autism' sides

talking about vaccines, often leaving out mercury pollution and

failing completely to mention mercury in pregnant women.

Right! Did you know that in the 60's, pregnant mothers got free dental care

here in Sweden, and the only filling used was mercury amalgam. There was

also DDT and asbestos and radon-building material at the time, later PCB,

organophospate pesticides, lead in the air, chloride & fluoride in drinking

water, cadmium in paint and household plastics, smoking & drinking,

medicines, illegal drugs and a gazillion other chemicals, as well as massive

increase in all sorts of EM radiation of which long-term effects on the body

is still not known, as well as x-rays, radioactivity from bomb testing etc.

Why is anyone surprised that so many are born with neurological problems or

that cancer, allegies, MCS, FMS and other environmental diseases keep

rising? And why this focus on vaccines only?

But I think the toxicity angle only pertains to real brain damage, not to

AS, which seems to be more like a different neuro-type. Also, AS is NOT

exactly the same as autism, and even autism is often just someone

misunderstood and neuro-different. Only SOMETIMES is autism = brain damage.

> They need to look at that aspect more closely. They've discovered that

genes change expression generationally--that the genes themselves don't

change, but their expression does. Like if your grandmother went

through a famine while she was pregnant, your mother would have been

born with a small birthweight. Then, you would also be born with a

small birthweight even though your mother ate well while she was

pregnant with you. The expression of your grandmother's gene changed

and will pass down that way through several generations, eventually

going back to the way it was. They should look at that, too.

I've read that too. Isn't it rather indicative of Lamarckian selection

that's supposed to be 'impossible'?

> If we are only using one tenth of one percent of our brains as some

say, I can imagine alterations in the brain could bring out latent

positive qualities as well, yet still technically be brain damage.

But that seems too simple, too.

Yes. I think one is not only the sum of one's genes, but also a Soul. If a

new type of Souls have decided/been assigned to be born at this particular

time, then they will be attracted to a similar type of genes, through wich

they may express themselves. If no optimal genes exist, then the Soul must

choose the closest approximation and perhaps it is there the problem occurs;

in the discrepancy between the potential and high vibe the Sould brings with

it, and the limitations of the flesh into wich it is forced to take seat;

that the Soul doesn't fit overly well with the physical body & brain at its

disposal.

(That's how I feel anyway, as if I'm meant to have a very different type of

body, not as solid as bodies are on this pysical plane.)

> I can also see if we are a more sensitive genetic type, us being

wiped out, killed, or dying out throughout history. Not marrying, not

having children, becoming monks, a tribe of us being killed by a more

aggressive tribe, something environmental getting us possibly, killed

individually by some, depending on the times and culture. I can see

where what are called NTs now, dominating throughout history.

Yes, absolutely. I read a great thing about autism & elves, a speculation

about our type possibly having been persecuted as witches for being

different. Unfortunately it got removed from where I had it bookmarked. :-(

> But everything I can think about in regards to us, seems like bits

and pieces in my mind.

Yes. That's why the symbol for autism is a puzzle. How about we solve it

ourselves and get a collective Nobel Prize? ;-)

Inger

[Guest guest]

:

>> They need to look at that aspect more closely. They've discovered that

>> genes change expression generationally--that the genes themselves don't

>> change, but their expression does. Like if your grandmother went

>> through a famine while she was pregnant, your mother would have been

>> born with a small birthweight. Then, you would also be born with a

>> small birthweight even though your mother ate well while she was

>> pregnant with you. The expression of your grandmother's gene changed

>> and will pass down that way through several generations, eventually

>> going back to the way it was. They should look at that, too.

There is a whole lot of difference between birthweight and social

traits.

Inger:

> I've read that too. Isn't it rather indicative of Lamarckian selection

> that's supposed to be 'impossible'?

Just because there exist another mechanism of inheritance except for

genes does not mean any of the typical AS-traits can be explained

with it. AFAIK, we know very little of which traits could be transmitted

generationally. My bet it is traits that today are believed to be

environmental

in origin and not traits that seems to come from another species.

>> If we are only using one tenth of one percent of our brains as some

> say, I can imagine alterations in the brain could bring out latent

> positive qualities as well, yet still technically be brain damage.

> But that seems too simple, too.

>

> Yes. I think one is not only the sum of one's genes, but also a Soul.

I don't see how the soul would be related to this new type of

inheritance.

> If a

> new type of Souls have decided/been assigned to be born at this particular

> time, then they will be attracted to a similar type of genes, through wich

> they may express themselves.

It is usually individuals being part of the same species that is generating

attraction ;-)

> Yes, absolutely. I read a great thing about autism & elves, a speculation

> about our type possibly having been persecuted as witches for being

> different. Unfortunately it got removed from where I had it bookmarked.

> :-(

Here perhaps:

http://www.autistics.us/library/elves.html

Leif

[Guest guest]

My grandfather was born in 1908 (or thereabouts) and he was very Aspie. Even

more so than myself.

Inger

Re: The Age of Autism: Less is beautiful

>

>

> " I have family members who were either AS or had traits who were born

well before the vaccines came to be. "

Before 1930?

>

FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and

acceptance. Everyone is valued.

Don't forget, there are links to other FAM sites on the Links page in the

folder marked " Other FAM Sites. "

[Guest guest]

Oh, thanks Leif! I thought it had been taken down forever.

Inger

Re: Re: The Age of Autism: Less is beautiful

:

>> They need to look at that aspect more closely. They've discovered that

>> genes change expression generationally--that the genes themselves don't

>> change, but their expression does. Like if your grandmother went

>> through a famine while she was pregnant, your mother would have been

>> born with a small birthweight. Then, you would also be born with a

>> small birthweight even though your mother ate well while she was

>> pregnant with you. The expression of your grandmother's gene changed

>> and will pass down that way through several generations, eventually

>> going back to the way it was. They should look at that, too.

There is a whole lot of difference between birthweight and social

traits.

Inger:

> I've read that too. Isn't it rather indicative of Lamarckian selection

> that's supposed to be 'impossible'?

Just because there exist another mechanism of inheritance except for

genes does not mean any of the typical AS-traits can be explained

with it. AFAIK, we know very little of which traits could be transmitted

generationally. My bet it is traits that today are believed to be

environmental

in origin and not traits that seems to come from another species.

>> If we are only using one tenth of one percent of our brains as some

> say, I can imagine alterations in the brain could bring out latent

> positive qualities as well, yet still technically be brain damage.

> But that seems too simple, too.

>

> Yes. I think one is not only the sum of one's genes, but also a Soul.

I don't see how the soul would be related to this new type of

inheritance.

> If a

> new type of Souls have decided/been assigned to be born at this particular

> time, then they will be attracted to a similar type of genes, through wich

> they may express themselves.

It is usually individuals being part of the same species that is generating

attraction ;-)

> Yes, absolutely. I read a great thing about autism & elves, a speculation

> about our type possibly having been persecuted as witches for being

> different. Unfortunately it got removed from where I had it bookmarked.

> :-(

Here perhaps:

http://www.autistics.us/library/elves.html

Leif

FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and

acceptance. Everyone is valued.

Don't forget, there are links to other FAM sites on the Links page in the

folder marked " Other FAM Sites. "

[Guest guest]

Re: Re: The Age of Autism: Less is beautiful

:

>> They need to look at that aspect more closely. They've discovered that

>> genes change expression generationally--that the genes themselves don't

>> change, but their expression does. Like if your grandmother went

>> through a famine while she was pregnant, your mother would have been

>> born with a small birthweight. Then, you would also be born with a

>> small birthweight even though your mother ate well while she was

>> pregnant with you. The expression of your grandmother's gene changed

>> and will pass down that way through several generations, eventually

>> going back to the way it was. They should look at that, too.

>

Leif:

> There is a whole lot of difference between birthweight and social

traits.

Yes, actually. But, you remember that article about the licking mice?

Inger:

> I've read that too. Isn't it rather indicative of Lamarckian selection

> that's supposed to be 'impossible'?

Leif:

> Just because there exist another mechanism of inheritance except for

genes does not mean any of the typical AS-traits can be explained

with it. AFAIK, we know very little of which traits could be transmitted

generationally. My bet it is traits that today are believed to be

environmental in origin and not traits that seems to come from another

species.

I assume you mean Hn? Leif, isn't the very definition of " species " that one

species cannot produce fertile offspring with another?

Leif:

> I don't see how the soul would be related to this new type of inheritance.

I just explained it, here:

> If a new type of Souls have decided/been assigned to be born at this

> particular time, then they will be attracted to a similar type of genes,

> through wich they may express themselves.

Leif:

> It is usually individuals being part of the same species that is

> generating

attraction ;-)

If you make that sub-species, Soul-type or neuro-type I might go along with

the argument. We are ALL human now (well, more or less anyway). ;-)

Inger

[Guest guest]

Re:

> > They need to look at that aspect more closely. They've discovered that

> genes change expression generationally--that the genes themselves don't

> change, but their expression does. Like if your grandmother went

> through a famine while she was pregnant, your mother would have been

> born with a small birthweight. Then, you would also be born with a

> small birthweight even though your mother ate well while she was

> pregnant with you. The expression of your grandmother's gene changed

> and will pass down that way through several generations, eventually

> going back to the way it was. They should look at that, too.

>

> I've read that too. Isn't it rather indicative of Lamarckian selection

> that's supposed to be 'impossible'?

The low-birthweight thing (and other examples of genes changing

expression generationally - e.g., cats having kittens in the Arctic

have kittens with thicker fur than the same breed of cat having

kittens in the tropics) differs from Lamarckianism in that the genes

themselves do not change (an allele for getting a particular weight,

or fur, or eye-color, or height, or whatever, doesn't actually change

into another allele) ... the gene can do various different things, and

(to some extent) the environment tells it what/how much to do just at

present.

For example, an allele controlling birthweight would " program " a

range of possible weights - e.g., " minimum weight at birth: 3

kilograms -> maximum weight at birth: 3.75 kilograms " with the precise

result depending on hormone-levels in the mother's body, that the gene

" picked up on " during fetal growth, and these hormone-levels in the

mother appear to depend (in part, at least) on what/how much the

mother's own mother had eaten during her own pregnancy... someone else

might have a different allele that programs " minimum weight 3.25

kilograms -> maximum weight 4.00 kilograms " but if this person's

family has traditionally eaten much less than the other person's

family, the person with the " high-birthweight " allele can enter the

world weighing less than a person who had a " low-birthweight " allele

but different maternal/grandmaternal hormone levels due to differences

in how the family has eaten for some generations ...

>

> > If we are only using one tenth of one percent of our brains as some

> say,

People quote wildly different figures on this: ten percent, one

percent, one-tenth of one percent.

For more on this, see the SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN magazine article on this question:

http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=000B077E-AD46-1047-AD46834\

14B7F0000 & catID=3

> Yes, absolutely. I read a great thing about autism & elves, a speculation

> about our type possibly having been persecuted as witches for being

> different. Unfortunately it got removed from where I had it bookmarked. :-(

It - or something like it - now appears over here:

http://www.autistics.org/library/elves.html

Yours for better letters,

Kate Gladstone

Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest

handwritingrepair@...

http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair

325 South Manning Boulevard

Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA

telephone 518/482-6763

AND REMEMBER ...

you can order books through my site!

(Amazon.com link -

I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold)

[Guest guest]

Kate:

> The low-birthweight thing (and other examples of genes changing

expression generationally - e.g., cats having kittens in the Arctic

have kittens with thicker fur than the same breed of cat having

kittens in the tropics) differs from Lamarckianism in that the genes

themselves do not change (an allele for getting a particular weight,

or fur, or eye-color, or height, or whatever, doesn't actually change

into another allele) ... the gene can do various different things, and

(to some extent) the environment tells it what/how much to do just at

present.

For example, an allele controlling birthweight would " program " a

range of possible weights - e.g., " minimum weight at birth: 3

kilograms -> maximum weight at birth: 3.75 kilograms " with the precise

result depending on hormone-levels in the mother's body, that the gene

" picked up on " during fetal growth, and these hormone-levels in the

mother appear to depend (in part, at least) on what/how much the

mother's own mother had eaten during her own pregnancy... someone

else might have a different allele that programs " minimum weight 3.25

kilograms -> maximum weight 4.00 kilograms " but if this person's

family has traditionally eaten much less than the other person's

family, the person with the " high-birthweight " allele can enter the

world weighing less than a person who had a " low-birthweight " allele

but different maternal/grandmaternal hormone levels due to differences

in how the family has eaten for some generations ...

But did Lamarck say that it specifically was the gene that was changing? Did

they even know enough about genes that far back? Wasn't what we call

Lamarckian selection simply that an acquired/environmentally induced trait

may be inherited by the next generation, regardless of the specific

mechanics behind its expression?

Reading this thread in order, I just saw your statement about circumcision

as well. That is probably the most common argument used against Lamarckian

selection. I think it's a rather thin one (no pun intended) since removal of

a piece of skin is not the same as what takes place on a cellular level. I'm

not saying that I am convinced either for or against since genetics is not a

special interest, but I'm always open to new ideas IF there appears to my

uneducated mind to exist at least some proof to support it.

We had a discussion about this in Leif's Hn forum which elicited a range of

interesting articles on the subject. Let me see if I have a copy in my

archives...

Inger

[Guest guest]

> Leif:

>> Just because there exist another mechanism of inheritance except for

> genes does not mean any of the typical AS-traits can be explained

> with it. AFAIK, we know very little of which traits could be transmitted

> generationally. My bet it is traits that today are believed to be

> environmental in origin and not traits that seems to come from another

> species.

>

> I assume you mean Hn? Leif, isn't the very definition of " species " that

> one

> species cannot produce fertile offspring with another?

No, that is an outdated view. ;-)

Well, at least I don't think that is a useful criteria for mammals. I think

species

are created by diverging mating behaviors. The first step would be

asortative

mating, which can lead to full-fledge speciation if both groups are large

enough.

It would help if they also become isolated in some other way. Many do agree

with the notion that Aspies practise asortative mating.

Not being able to product fertile offspring is a much later happening. For

instance, look at various wolf species. None of them meets the criteria

of not being able to produce fertile offsprng, but they still have distinct

features and rarely interbreed. Some people believe red wolf is a hybrid

between cayote and grey wolf.

> Leif:

>> I don't see how the soul would be related to this new type of

>> inheritance.

>

> I just explained it, here:

>

>> If a new type of Souls have decided/been assigned to be born at this

>> particular time, then they will be attracted to a similar type of genes,

>> through wich they may express themselves.

I still don't understand. Imprinting, which is the name of the new

mechanism, still only operates by regulating gene expression. It

really isn't much different from regular gene regulation, other than that

it can remember sucessful levels of expression of various genes over

generations and thus doesn't require mutations in genes. To me this

seems to lie somewhere between genetics and environment. It would

surprise me a lot of imprinting could create novel functions.

> Leif:

>> It is usually individuals being part of the same species that is

>> generating

> attraction ;-)

>

> If you make that sub-species, Soul-type or neuro-type I might go along

> with

> the argument.

Subspecies or species are relative terms.

> We are ALL human now (well, more or less anyway). ;-)

I sometimes wonder if some NT-researchers think we are humans.

There is frequently claims that modernity consists of typical traits

that Aspies lack.

Leif

[Guest guest]

" Yes. That's why the symbol for autism is a puzzle. How about we

solve it ourselves and get a collective Nobel Prize? ;-) "

I suspect that many would consider that solution/solve would = cure

:-( It would indeed be great to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that

autism is a neuro-logical difference and have this accepted and also

people with autism accepted and not viewed as wrong, just different -

am I just dreaming again though?

>

> Still reading through missed threads. Hope its not too late to

comment...

>

> :

> > I think " mercury causes autism " is too simple too. I just hear

> the 'mercury causes autism' 'mercury doesn't cause autism' sides

> talking about vaccines, often leaving out mercury pollution and

> failing completely to mention mercury in pregnant women.

>

> Right! Did you know that in the 60's, pregnant mothers got free

dental care

> here in Sweden, and the only filling used was mercury amalgam.

There was

> also DDT and asbestos and radon-building material at the time,

later PCB,

> organophospate pesticides, lead in the air, chloride & fluoride in

drinking

> water, cadmium in paint and household plastics, smoking & drinking,

> medicines, illegal drugs and a gazillion other chemicals, as well

as massive

> increase in all sorts of EM radiation of which long-term effects on

the body

> is still not known, as well as x-rays, radioactivity from bomb

testing etc.

> Why is anyone surprised that so many are born with neurological

problems or

> that cancer, allegies, MCS, FMS and other environmental diseases

keep

> rising? And why this focus on vaccines only?

>

> But I think the toxicity angle only pertains to real brain damage,

not to

> AS, which seems to be more like a different neuro-type. Also, AS is

NOT

> exactly the same as autism, and even autism is often just someone

> misunderstood and neuro-different. Only SOMETIMES is autism = brain

damage.

>

> > They need to look at that aspect more closely. They've discovered

that

> genes change expression generationally--that the genes themselves

don't

> change, but their expression does. Like if your grandmother went

> through a famine while she was pregnant, your mother would have been

> born with a small birthweight. Then, you would also be born with a

> small birthweight even though your mother ate well while she was

> pregnant with you. The expression of your grandmother's gene changed

> and will pass down that way through several generations, eventually

> going back to the way it was. They should look at that, too.

>

> I've read that too. Isn't it rather indicative of Lamarckian

selection

> that's supposed to be 'impossible'?

>

> > If we are only using one tenth of one percent of our brains as

some

> say, I can imagine alterations in the brain could bring out latent

> positive qualities as well, yet still technically be brain damage.

> But that seems too simple, too.

>

> Yes. I think one is not only the sum of one's genes, but also a

Soul. If a

> new type of Souls have decided/been assigned to be born at this

particular

> time, then they will be attracted to a similar type of genes,

through wich

> they may express themselves. If no optimal genes exist, then the

Soul must

> choose the closest approximation and perhaps it is there the

problem occurs;

> in the discrepancy between the potential and high vibe the Sould

brings with

> it, and the limitations of the flesh into wich it is forced to take

seat;

> that the Soul doesn't fit overly well with the physical body &

brain at its

> disposal.

>

> (That's how I feel anyway, as if I'm meant to have a very different

type of

> body, not as solid as bodies are on this pysical plane.)

>

> > I can also see if we are a more sensitive genetic type, us being

> wiped out, killed, or dying out throughout history. Not marrying,

not

> having children, becoming monks, a tribe of us being killed by a

more

> aggressive tribe, something environmental getting us possibly,

killed

> individually by some, depending on the times and culture. I can see

> where what are called NTs now, dominating throughout history.

>

> Yes, absolutely. I read a great thing about autism & elves, a

speculation

> about our type possibly having been persecuted as witches for being

> different. Unfortunately it got removed from where I had it

bookmarked. :-(

>

> > But everything I can think about in regards to us, seems like bits

> and pieces in my mind.

>

> Yes. That's why the symbol for autism is a puzzle. How about we

solve it

> ourselves and get a collective Nobel Prize? ;-)

>

> Inger

>

[Guest guest]

Re:

> But did Lamarck say that it specifically was the gene that was changing? Did

> they even know enough about genes that far back?

They didn't know about genes in Lamarck's day, but people did believe

that " something " went from parent to child. They usually assumed that

the " something " consisted of, or existed within, the parents' blood.

Lamarck claimed:

/a/ that the environment induced direct and *permanent* (not indirect

and eventually reversible) changes in that " something, "

and

/b/ that those changes happened *always*, not just sometimes, with the

effects *always* visible in the very first generation after the change

in environment For instance, if Lamarck had had it right, then cutting

off the tails of baby rats would eventually cause these rats to have

babies with either no tails or at least shorter-than-normal tails

However, people have actually done that (for 100 generations of

amputated baby rats) and the new baby rats always arrived with

entirely normal-length tails.

People have similarly now done operations on a cellular level,

similarly without a Lamarckian outcome. If Lamarckianism worked, and

if you did something to stop a male and female fetal rat's tail-cells

from growing, and then you mated the two rats, the offspring would

have no tail-cells and therefore no tails. However, they grow

normal-length tails. Similarly, the people who now get gene-therapy

for various in-born disorders (the few that we can already treat with

gene-therapy), and then have children, have children with the same

genes, the same tendency to express the disorder, the same incidence

of the disorder, etc., etc.

Yours for better letters,

Kate Gladstone

Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest

handwritingrepair@...

http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair

325 South Manning Boulevard

Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA

telephone 518/482-6763

AND REMEMBER ...

you can order books through my site!

(Amazon.com link -

I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold)

[Guest guest]

" For instance, if Lamarck had had it right, then cutting off the

tails of baby rats would eventually cause these rats to have babies

with either no tails or at least shorter-than-normal tails However,

people have actually done that (for 100 generations of amputated baby

rats) and the new baby rats always arrived with entirely normal-

length tails. "

What about Manx cats from the Isle of Man? They just have a little

stump of a tail.

>

> Re:

>

> > But did Lamarck say that it specifically was the gene that was

changing? Did

> > they even know enough about genes that far back?

>

> They didn't know about genes in Lamarck's day, but people did

believe

> that " something " went from parent to child. They usually assumed

that

> the " something " consisted of, or existed within, the parents' blood.

> Lamarck claimed:

>

> /a/ that the environment induced direct and *permanent* (not

indirect

> and eventually reversible) changes in that " something, "

>

> and

>

> /b/ that those changes happened *always*, not just sometimes, with

the

> effects *always* visible in the very first generation after the

change

> in environment For instance, if Lamarck had had it right, then

cutting

> off the tails of baby rats would eventually cause these rats to have

> babies with either no tails or at least shorter-than-normal tails

> However, people have actually done that (for 100 generations of

> amputated baby rats) and the new baby rats always arrived with

> entirely normal-length tails.

>

> People have similarly now done operations on a cellular level,

> similarly without a Lamarckian outcome. If Lamarckianism worked, and

> if you did something to stop a male and female fetal rat's tail-

cells

> from growing, and then you mated the two rats, the offspring would

> have no tail-cells and therefore no tails. However, they grow

> normal-length tails. Similarly, the people who now get gene-therapy

> for various in-born disorders (the few that we can already treat

with

> gene-therapy), and then have children, have children with the same

> genes, the same tendency to express the disorder, the same incidence

> of the disorder, etc., etc.

>

>

> Yours for better letters,

> Kate Gladstone

> Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest

> handwritingrepair@...

> http://learn.to/handwrite,

http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair

> 325 South Manning Boulevard

> Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA

> telephone 518/482-6763

> AND REMEMBER ...

> you can order books through my site!

> (Amazon.com link -

> I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold)

>

[Guest guest]

" Neuro-logical " LOL!

I think you may have just invented a new neologism, ! I love it!

Inger

Re: The Age of Autism: Less is beautiful

" Yes. That's why the symbol for autism is a puzzle. How about we

solve it ourselves and get a collective Nobel Prize? ;-) "

I suspect that many would consider that solution/solve would = cure

:-( It would indeed be great to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that

autism is a neuro-logical difference and have this accepted and also

people with autism accepted and not viewed as wrong, just different -

am I just dreaming again though?

>

> Still reading through missed threads. Hope its not too late to

comment...

>

> :

> > I think " mercury causes autism " is too simple too. I just hear

> the 'mercury causes autism' 'mercury doesn't cause autism' sides

> talking about vaccines, often leaving out mercury pollution and

> failing completely to mention mercury in pregnant women.

>

> Right! Did you know that in the 60's, pregnant mothers got free

dental care

> here in Sweden, and the only filling used was mercury amalgam.

There was

> also DDT and asbestos and radon-building material at the time,

later PCB,

> organophospate pesticides, lead in the air, chloride & fluoride in

drinking

> water, cadmium in paint and household plastics, smoking & drinking,

> medicines, illegal drugs and a gazillion other chemicals, as well

as massive

> increase in all sorts of EM radiation of which long-term effects on

the body

> is still not known, as well as x-rays, radioactivity from bomb

testing etc.

> Why is anyone surprised that so many are born with neurological

problems or

> that cancer, allegies, MCS, FMS and other environmental diseases

keep

> rising? And why this focus on vaccines only?

>

> But I think the toxicity angle only pertains to real brain damage,

not to

> AS, which seems to be more like a different neuro-type. Also, AS is

NOT

> exactly the same as autism, and even autism is often just someone

> misunderstood and neuro-different. Only SOMETIMES is autism = brain

damage.

>

> > They need to look at that aspect more closely. They've discovered

that

> genes change expression generationally--that the genes themselves

don't

> change, but their expression does. Like if your grandmother went

> through a famine while she was pregnant, your mother would have been

> born with a small birthweight. Then, you would also be born with a

> small birthweight even though your mother ate well while she was

> pregnant with you. The expression of your grandmother's gene changed

> and will pass down that way through several generations, eventually

> going back to the way it was. They should look at that, too.

>

> I've read that too. Isn't it rather indicative of Lamarckian

selection

> that's supposed to be 'impossible'?

>

> > If we are only using one tenth of one percent of our brains as

some

> say, I can imagine alterations in the brain could bring out latent

> positive qualities as well, yet still technically be brain damage.

> But that seems too simple, too.

>

> Yes. I think one is not only the sum of one's genes, but also a

Soul. If a

> new type of Souls have decided/been assigned to be born at this

particular

> time, then they will be attracted to a similar type of genes,

through wich

> they may express themselves. If no optimal genes exist, then the

Soul must

> choose the closest approximation and perhaps it is there the

problem occurs;

> in the discrepancy between the potential and high vibe the Sould

brings with

> it, and the limitations of the flesh into wich it is forced to take

seat;

> that the Soul doesn't fit overly well with the physical body &

brain at its

> disposal.

>

> (That's how I feel anyway, as if I'm meant to have a very different

type of

> body, not as solid as bodies are on this pysical plane.)

>

> > I can also see if we are a more sensitive genetic type, us being

> wiped out, killed, or dying out throughout history. Not marrying,

not

> having children, becoming monks, a tribe of us being killed by a

more

> aggressive tribe, something environmental getting us possibly,

killed

> individually by some, depending on the times and culture. I can see

> where what are called NTs now, dominating throughout history.

>

> Yes, absolutely. I read a great thing about autism & elves, a

speculation

> about our type possibly having been persecuted as witches for being

> different. Unfortunately it got removed from where I had it

bookmarked. :-(

>

> > But everything I can think about in regards to us, seems like bits

> and pieces in my mind.

>

> Yes. That's why the symbol for autism is a puzzle. How about we

solve it

> ourselves and get a collective Nobel Prize? ;-)

>

> Inger

>

FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and

acceptance. Everyone is valued.

Don't forget, there are links to other FAM sites on the Links page in the

folder marked " Other FAM Sites. "

[Guest guest]

I'm supposed to be just like my great great grandfather but all I

know is that we have the same stim (which isn't a usual one) and love

gardening. My grandmother tells me I'm just like him but I wish I'd

asked her more questions.

> >

> >

> > " I have family members who were either AS or had traits who were

born

> well before the vaccines came to be. "

>

> Before 1930?

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

> FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship,

support and

> acceptance. Everyone is valued.

>

> Don't forget, there are links to other FAM sites on the Links page

in the

> folder marked " Other FAM Sites. "

>