Long! Autism and Genetics - was Re: FW: National Asperger's Society

[Guest guest]

I'm way out of my depth here, but I do believe it is important to

take some sort of stand on the " genetic card " that is always played,

even if it must take a backseat to other more pressing issues for the

moment.

" Genetics " is such a loaded term, fraught with different meanings for

different groups. My biggest problem with it is that even

geneticists don't understand genetics, especially in light of new

information coming out all the time regarding epigenetics. I've

referred often to the agouti mouse study. The mice, with a very

strong " genetic predisposition " to being obese, yellow, cancerous and

diabetic suddenly no longer were when moms were given a prenatal and

pregancy diet full of methyl donors. It is now well established that

bad things your grandma might have done (smoked, for example) can

have a greater negative impact on your health than stuff your mom did

(again, smoking, for example) because of epigenetics. I don't see

it as a big leap to suggest that all the shit my generation was

loaded with (vaccinations, pasteurized milk, etc) has somehow

manifested itself epigenetically in a generation of kids overwhelmed

with autism, peanut allergies, asthma, and generally crappy health.

The " genetics and autism " debate is, to me, similar to the " cure for

cancer " debate. It makes me crazy that we spend BILLIONS trying to

find cures for cancer when we know damn well that cancer rates are

absolutely soaring (my daughter at my age will have a 1 in 4 risk of

breast cancer in trends continue, for example) because we pollute

ourselves and, although this is talked about less, don't protect

ourselves with our diet. If we spend an equal amount of dollars on

doing things that would prevent cancer in the first place (supporting

organic farms and food, suing the crap out of the worst polluters,

giving people good options for leaving less of a polluting footprint,

etc) cancer rates would actually stop dropping instead of steadily

rising in almost all areas (a few, like breast cancer, have dropped

for various reasons nothing to do with genetics or cure for cancer

reasearch). And, I say all this coming from a family where every

single person who has died has died of cancer.

Yes, genetics play a role in autism and cancer and almost everything

else you can think of. However, when people see the word genetics in

association with autism, they DO think incurable (or whatever synonym

you want to use). I ended up on the phone by chance with a woman who

had 5 kids with autism. When I told her I couldn't contribute to

the charity she worked for because we were dead broke trying to

recover my son from autism she reassured me I'd done nothing wrong--

it was all genetic. Her intentions were kind, but I almost exploded

thinking about how doctors had fed her that line. For this woman,

there was nothing to be done for her kids other than educational

interventions, and that is a crying shame.

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but I really do believe that

the use of the genetics card is more insiduous than we might think,

either by design or in ignorance.

Anita

- In Autism-Biomedical-Europe , " zpapacarroll "

wrote:

>

>

> Hi Sally,

>

> I think this is exactly the implication, which is why I think there

> must be an agenda to making this some sort of linchpin in so many

> discussions.

>

> I agree that it isn't wise to say that there is a genetic component,

> because (I am repeating myself sorry) every illness has a genetic

> component - although I think it is smart to remember that it is not

> necessary to say that the genetic component is significant.

>

> For example, let me tell a story from the future that *could* be

true

> (and this is totally fabricated - I worry this is going to end up on

> some nutter's website as something I said that I think is true).

It's

> only a sort of thought-experiment.

>

> Suppose that, many years from now, scientists had methods in which

> they could analyse hundred of factors contributing to an organism's

> physiological condition. And a bunch of autistic children were

> analysed. They *could* come to the conclusion that:

>

> 1) children given MMR (or DPT - I am not picking on a particular

jab)

> from manufacturer X were given 5 mcg more mercury (or even aluminum)

> than children who were given the jab from manufacturer Y. X made

less

> jabs than Y so the increased risk from this was about 23%

>

> 2) children who lived near areas where airborne lead exceeded X ppm

> had an increased risk of about 17%

>

> 3) children whose mothers had in excess of 12 amalgam surfaces in

> their mouth during their pregnancy had an increased risk of 9%

>

> 4) children who slept on surfaces treated for fire-retardance with

> antimony and arsenic had an increased risk of 7%

>

> 5) children who tested positive for gluten intolerance (so let this

be

> our GENETIC component) had an increased risk of 7%.

>

> In this hypothetical example, it would indeed make sense to say that

> there is a genetic component for autism. But that component only

> raises your overall risk by 7%. Children who have all the risk

> factors would be more likely to be autistic, and those with none

would

> be least likely. The non-genetic components have a much greater

> effect on the overall chances that someone would be autistic.

>

> Now, I have no idea if this is true. And no one else does either.

It

> *could* be the case that the genetic component to autism is

> significant. But it also might NOT be - and it is not nonsensical

to

> talk about the genetic component as possibly being not terribly

> important - and provided the causal model is complex (as I think it

> very likely is). There are probably lots of gene markers - and

maybe

> between them they are significant - but they might not be.

>

>

>

>

>

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > In a message dated 21/01/2008 10:38:14 GMT Standard Time,

> > > > bobsallyeva@ writes:

> > > >

> > > > he's not really , he's talking about a genetic pre-

disposition

> > > and

> > > > inter-action between genes and environment. Both of those

> suggest that

> > > > intervention can work.

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> --------------------------------------------------------------------

----

> > >

> > > No virus found in this incoming message.

> > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.

> > > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.7/1234 - Release Date:

> 20/01/2008 14:15

> > >

> >

>