Re: Re: : Big study identifies new genes that may be involved in autism

[Guest guest]

Age of Autism did some stories about this study and the researchers' conflicts of interest if anyone is interested.

From: Diane Rosenstein

Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 2:29 PM

To: sList

Subject: Re: : Big study identifies new genes that may be involved in autism

I always wondered why, if autism WAS as genetic & inheritable as "they" are saying, then why aren't the parents of all these autistic kids also autistic or why arent' their grandparents?

And if autism IS as genetic and inheritable as "they" are saying, then why the sudden outburst of autism throughout the world? Why, in this exact point of time in mankind's evolutionary journey, are genes all of a sudden churning out "autism" everywhere on the planet.?

Are they saying that the exact people whose exact gene mix would be the exact right combination to produce autism all of a sudden are getting married and having kids? Are they saying that THIS is the reason for the autism phenonema? Isn't calling autism "genetic" necessarily saying that this must be true?

The answers to THESE questions, I have never seen answered in any study, "big" or not. Has anybody?

Almost all species of all creatures--from elephants to dogs to rats to ants--have innate social capabilities. How insidious an infliction to have these social capabilities robbed from any creature! Or from any human being! ESPECIALLY from innocent children--OUR children.

Re: : Big study identifies new genes that may be involved in autism

Posted by: " Heifferon" gary00001msn gary0323_44

Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:37 pm (PDT)

Diane, I always thought they were the same. What fascinates me aboutpsychological labels is that it displays a percentage. If a person has acertain psychological condition there is a higher chance a sibling will alsodevelop the problem than the general public. And the percentage goes evenhigher for identical twins. But how do you explain those people in thosegroups who do not develop the problem. I don't think genetics can explain how fast the numbers have grown. If wereally didn't fully understand the problem before and we placed all thosepeople into institutions that means there should be a large decrease ininstitutionalized adults. And speaking of adults, where are they?From: sList [mailto:sList ] OnBehalf Of Diane RosensteinSent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 1:22 AMTo: sList Subject: Re:: Big study identifies new genes that may beinvolved in autismWhat I found most interesting in the blurb about the study was that therewere some children who had gene (alterations or deletions) that theirparents DID NOT have.I've always assumed that "genetic" was the same as "inherited". Obviously,this is not true.

[Guest guest]

Age of Autism did some stories about this study and the researchers' conflicts of interest if anyone is interested.

From: Diane Rosenstein

Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 2:29 PM

To: sList

Subject: Re: : Big study identifies new genes that may be involved in autism

I always wondered why, if autism WAS as genetic & inheritable as "they" are saying, then why aren't the parents of all these autistic kids also autistic or why arent' their grandparents?

And if autism IS as genetic and inheritable as "they" are saying, then why the sudden outburst of autism throughout the world? Why, in this exact point of time in mankind's evolutionary journey, are genes all of a sudden churning out "autism" everywhere on the planet.?

Are they saying that the exact people whose exact gene mix would be the exact right combination to produce autism all of a sudden are getting married and having kids? Are they saying that THIS is the reason for the autism phenonema? Isn't calling autism "genetic" necessarily saying that this must be true?

The answers to THESE questions, I have never seen answered in any study, "big" or not. Has anybody?

Almost all species of all creatures--from elephants to dogs to rats to ants--have innate social capabilities. How insidious an infliction to have these social capabilities robbed from any creature! Or from any human being! ESPECIALLY from innocent children--OUR children.

Re: : Big study identifies new genes that may be involved in autism

Posted by: " Heifferon" gary00001msn gary0323_44

Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:37 pm (PDT)

Diane, I always thought they were the same. What fascinates me aboutpsychological labels is that it displays a percentage. If a person has acertain psychological condition there is a higher chance a sibling will alsodevelop the problem than the general public. And the percentage goes evenhigher for identical twins. But how do you explain those people in thosegroups who do not develop the problem. I don't think genetics can explain how fast the numbers have grown. If wereally didn't fully understand the problem before and we placed all thosepeople into institutions that means there should be a large decrease ininstitutionalized adults. And speaking of adults, where are they?From: sList [mailto:sList ] OnBehalf Of Diane RosensteinSent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 1:22 AMTo: sList Subject: Re:: Big study identifies new genes that may beinvolved in autismWhat I found most interesting in the blurb about the study was that therewere some children who had gene (alterations or deletions) that theirparents DID NOT have.I've always assumed that "genetic" was the same as "inherited". Obviously,this is not true.

[Guest guest]

Age of Autism did some stories about this study and the researchers' conflicts of interest if anyone is interested.

From: Diane Rosenstein

Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 2:29 PM

To: sList

Subject: Re: : Big study identifies new genes that may be involved in autism

I always wondered why, if autism WAS as genetic & inheritable as "they" are saying, then why aren't the parents of all these autistic kids also autistic or why arent' their grandparents?

And if autism IS as genetic and inheritable as "they" are saying, then why the sudden outburst of autism throughout the world? Why, in this exact point of time in mankind's evolutionary journey, are genes all of a sudden churning out "autism" everywhere on the planet.?

Are they saying that the exact people whose exact gene mix would be the exact right combination to produce autism all of a sudden are getting married and having kids? Are they saying that THIS is the reason for the autism phenonema? Isn't calling autism "genetic" necessarily saying that this must be true?

The answers to THESE questions, I have never seen answered in any study, "big" or not. Has anybody?

Almost all species of all creatures--from elephants to dogs to rats to ants--have innate social capabilities. How insidious an infliction to have these social capabilities robbed from any creature! Or from any human being! ESPECIALLY from innocent children--OUR children.

Re: : Big study identifies new genes that may be involved in autism

Posted by: " Heifferon" gary00001msn gary0323_44

Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:37 pm (PDT)

Diane, I always thought they were the same. What fascinates me aboutpsychological labels is that it displays a percentage. If a person has acertain psychological condition there is a higher chance a sibling will alsodevelop the problem than the general public. And the percentage goes evenhigher for identical twins. But how do you explain those people in thosegroups who do not develop the problem. I don't think genetics can explain how fast the numbers have grown. If wereally didn't fully understand the problem before and we placed all thosepeople into institutions that means there should be a large decrease ininstitutionalized adults. And speaking of adults, where are they?From: sList [mailto:sList ] OnBehalf Of Diane RosensteinSent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 1:22 AMTo: sList Subject: Re:: Big study identifies new genes that may beinvolved in autismWhat I found most interesting in the blurb about the study was that therewere some children who had gene (alterations or deletions) that theirparents DID NOT have.I've always assumed that "genetic" was the same as "inherited". Obviously,this is not true.

[Guest guest]

What has to be understood about genetics is that while we all carry certain kinds of genes, an environmental factor has to "activate" them. Parents of autistic children DO carry some genes for autism. And they combined their genes and some created autistic children, yet some children are born with a combination of genes that make them "normal". When the combination of genes from both parents creates a child with genetic coding that can cause them to be autistic, an environmental factor has to occur to stimulate those genes to manifest. That is what the big debate about mercury, or oxytocin, or vaccines, blah, blah, blah, is about. These spectrum children are born with a combination of markers that are triggered at some point and manifest as the neurological anomaly that IS autism. The growing numbers of children diagnosed are related to THIS (of THESE)

particular set of environmental factors that are causing the manifestation of a neurological abnormality that causes our children to BE AUTISTIC. It is like this, I am 5"8. I have the genes to reach a certain range of tallness. But how I am fed, what kinds of activities I partake in, and my over all health at time when I am growing will actually affect HOW TALL I WILL BE. My environment will enhance or decrease my height, based on the range that my genes dictate..An interesting example of this is: In Guatemala, there is a region where the inhabitants carry genes for cleft palate. In time of good harvest, when pregnant mothers are eating well and are healthy, less babies are born with cleft palate. When the harvests are bad, the percentage of cleft palate skyrockets, because the pregnant mothers are undernourished. They are all carrying the genes for cleft palate, but the environment triggers the cleft palate gene to

express itself when the pregnant mothers are undernourished.Our DNA is supplied by our parents. Some of us get genes for high cholesterol and heart disease. Some of us get diabetes, or brain cancer, or whatever. Just because we have the genes doesn't mean it will express itself WITHOUT an environmental factor to "turn it on".As a side note: There are some conditions, like Downs Syndrome, that are gentetic, because there is a specific anomaly that occur in the genes. With these disorders, they are genetically linked, because there is a mutation or deletion in the GENES. But inherited disease and disorders are inherently different, though still linked to genetics. Like cystic fibrosis, or hemophilia, which are specifically attached to genes that may or may not be passed to the child in combination. It is still convoluted whether AUTISM is one or the other.The real question is: What the heck is in our environment so readily

available that 1 in 99 children are on the spectrum?Subject: Re: : Big study identifies new genes that may be involved in autismTo: sList Date: Monday, June 14, 2010, 2:29 PM

I always wondered why, if autism WAS as genetic & inheritable as "they" are saying, then why aren't the parents of all these autistic kids also autistic or why arent' their grandparents?

And if autism IS as genetic and inheritable as "they" are saying, then why the sudden outburst of autism throughout the world? Why, in this exact point of time in mankind's evolutionary journey, are genes all of a sudden churning out "autism" everywhere on the planet.?

Are they saying that the exact people whose exact gene mix would be the exact right combination to produce autism all of a sudden are getting married and having kids? Are they saying that THIS is the reason for the autism phenonema? Isn't calling autism "genetic" necessarily saying that this must be true?

The answers to THESE questions, I have never seen answered in any study, "big" or not. Has anybody?

Almost all species of all creatures--from elephants to dogs to rats to ants--have innate social capabilities. How insidious an infliction to have these social capabilities robbed from any creature! Or from any human being! ESPECIALLY from innocent children--OUR children.

Re: : Big study identifies new genes that may be involved in autism

Posted by: " Heifferon" gary00001@... gary0323_44

Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:37 pm (PDT)

Diane, I always thought they were the same. What fascinates me aboutpsychological labels is that it displays a percentage. If a person has acertain psychological condition there is a higher chance a sibling will alsodevelop the problem than the general public. And the percentage goes evenhigher for identical twins. But how do you explain those people in thosegroups who do not develop the problem. I don't think genetics can explain how fast the numbers have grown. If wereally didn't fully understand the problem before and we placed all thosepeople into institutions that means there should be a large decrease ininstitutionalized adults. And speaking of adults, where are they?From: sList@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:sList@ yahoogroups. com] OnBehalf Of Diane RosensteinSent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 1:22 AMTo: sList@ yahoogroups. comSubject: Re:: Big study identifies new genes that may beinvolved in autismWhat I found most interesting in the blurb about the study was that therewere some children who had gene (alterations or deletions) that theirparents DID NOT have.I've always assumed that "genetic" was the same as "inherited". Obviously,this is not true.

[Guest guest]

Another thought is that the study then seems to indicate autism is a genetic epidemic, which I thought was not possible. Sent from my iPhone

What has to be understood about genetics is that while we all carry certain kinds of genes, an environmental factor has to "activate" them. Parents of autistic children DO carry some genes for autism. And they combined their genes and some created autistic children, yet some children are born with a combination of genes that make them "normal". When the combination of genes from both parents creates a child with genetic coding that can cause them to be autistic, an environmental factor has to occur to stimulate those genes to manifest. That is what the big debate about mercury, or oxytocin, or vaccines, blah, blah, blah, is about. These spectrum children are born with a combination of markers that are triggered at some point and manifest as the neurological anomaly that IS autism. The growing numbers of children diagnosed are related to THIS (of THESE)

particular set of environmental factors that are causing the manifestation of a neurological abnormality that causes our children to BE AUTISTIC. It is like this, I am 5"8. I have the genes to reach a certain range of tallness. But how I am fed, what kinds of activities I partake in, and my over all health at time when I am growing will actually affect HOW TALL I WILL BE. My environment will enhance or decrease my height, based on the range that my genes dictate..An interesting example of this is: In Guatemala, there is a region where the inhabitants carry genes for cleft palate. In time of good harvest, when pregnant mothers are eating well and are healthy, less babies are born with cleft palate. When the harvests are bad, the percentage of cleft palate skyrockets, because the pregnant mothers are undernourished. They are all carrying the genes for cleft palate, but the environment triggers the cleft palate gene to

express itself when the pregnant mothers are undernourished.Our DNA is supplied by our parents. Some of us get genes for high cholesterol and heart disease. Some of us get diabetes, or brain cancer, or whatever. Just because we have the genes doesn't mean it will express itself WITHOUT an environmental factor to "turn it on".As a side note: There are some conditions, like Downs Syndrome, that are gentetic, because there is a specific anomaly that occur in the genes. With these disorders, they are genetically linked, because there is a mutation or deletion in the GENES. But inherited disease and disorders are inherently different, though still linked to genetics. Like cystic fibrosis, or hemophilia, which are specifically attached to genes that may or may not be passed to the child in combination. It is still convoluted whether AUTISM is one or the other.The real question is: What the heck is in our environment so readily

available that 1 in 99 children are on the spectrum?From: Diane Rosenstein <Wamtzembellsouth (DOT) net>Subject: Re: : Big study identifies new genes that may be involved in autismTo: sList Date: Monday, June 14, 2010, 2:29 PM

I always wondered why, if autism WAS as genetic & inheritable as "they" are saying, then why aren't the parents of all these autistic kids also autistic or why arent' their grandparents?

And if autism IS as genetic and inheritable as "they" are saying, then why the sudden outburst of autism throughout the world? Why, in this exact point of time in mankind's evolutionary journey, are genes all of a sudden churning out "autism" everywhere on the planet.?

Are they saying that the exact people whose exact gene mix would be the exact right combination to produce autism all of a sudden are getting married and having kids? Are they saying that THIS is the reason for the autism phenonema? Isn't calling autism "genetic" necessarily saying that this must be true?

The answers to THESE questions, I have never seen answered in any study, "big" or not. Has anybody?

Almost all species of all creatures--from elephants to dogs to rats to ants--have innate social capabilities. How insidious an infliction to have these social capabilities robbed from any creature! Or from any human being! ESPECIALLY from innocent children--OUR children.

Re: : Big study identifies new genes that may be involved in autism

Posted by: " Heifferon" gary00001msn gary0323_44

Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:37 pm (PDT)

Diane, I always thought they were the same. What fascinates me aboutpsychological labels is that it displays a percentage. If a person has acertain psychological condition there is a higher chance a sibling will alsodevelop the problem than the general public. And the percentage goes evenhigher for identical twins. But how do you explain those people in thosegroups who do not develop the problem. I don't think genetics can explain how fast the numbers have grown. If wereally didn't fully understand the problem before and we placed all thosepeople into institutions that means there should be a large decrease ininstitutionalized adults. And speaking of adults, where are they?From: sList@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:sList@ yahoogroups. com] OnBehalf Of Diane RosensteinSent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 1:22 AMTo: sList@ yahoogroups. comSubject: Re:: Big study identifies new genes that may beinvolved in autismWhat I found most interesting in the blurb about the study was that therewere some children who had gene (alterations or deletions) that theirparents DID NOT have.I've always assumed that "genetic" was the same as "inherited". Obviously,this is not true.

[Guest guest]

Another thought is that the study then seems to indicate autism is a genetic epidemic, which I thought was not possible. Sent from my iPhone

What has to be understood about genetics is that while we all carry certain kinds of genes, an environmental factor has to "activate" them. Parents of autistic children DO carry some genes for autism. And they combined their genes and some created autistic children, yet some children are born with a combination of genes that make them "normal". When the combination of genes from both parents creates a child with genetic coding that can cause them to be autistic, an environmental factor has to occur to stimulate those genes to manifest. That is what the big debate about mercury, or oxytocin, or vaccines, blah, blah, blah, is about. These spectrum children are born with a combination of markers that are triggered at some point and manifest as the neurological anomaly that IS autism. The growing numbers of children diagnosed are related to THIS (of THESE)

particular set of environmental factors that are causing the manifestation of a neurological abnormality that causes our children to BE AUTISTIC. It is like this, I am 5"8. I have the genes to reach a certain range of tallness. But how I am fed, what kinds of activities I partake in, and my over all health at time when I am growing will actually affect HOW TALL I WILL BE. My environment will enhance or decrease my height, based on the range that my genes dictate..An interesting example of this is: In Guatemala, there is a region where the inhabitants carry genes for cleft palate. In time of good harvest, when pregnant mothers are eating well and are healthy, less babies are born with cleft palate. When the harvests are bad, the percentage of cleft palate skyrockets, because the pregnant mothers are undernourished. They are all carrying the genes for cleft palate, but the environment triggers the cleft palate gene to

express itself when the pregnant mothers are undernourished.Our DNA is supplied by our parents. Some of us get genes for high cholesterol and heart disease. Some of us get diabetes, or brain cancer, or whatever. Just because we have the genes doesn't mean it will express itself WITHOUT an environmental factor to "turn it on".As a side note: There are some conditions, like Downs Syndrome, that are gentetic, because there is a specific anomaly that occur in the genes. With these disorders, they are genetically linked, because there is a mutation or deletion in the GENES. But inherited disease and disorders are inherently different, though still linked to genetics. Like cystic fibrosis, or hemophilia, which are specifically attached to genes that may or may not be passed to the child in combination. It is still convoluted whether AUTISM is one or the other.The real question is: What the heck is in our environment so readily

available that 1 in 99 children are on the spectrum?From: Diane Rosenstein <Wamtzembellsouth (DOT) net>Subject: Re: : Big study identifies new genes that may be involved in autismTo: sList Date: Monday, June 14, 2010, 2:29 PM

I always wondered why, if autism WAS as genetic & inheritable as "they" are saying, then why aren't the parents of all these autistic kids also autistic or why arent' their grandparents?

And if autism IS as genetic and inheritable as "they" are saying, then why the sudden outburst of autism throughout the world? Why, in this exact point of time in mankind's evolutionary journey, are genes all of a sudden churning out "autism" everywhere on the planet.?

Are they saying that the exact people whose exact gene mix would be the exact right combination to produce autism all of a sudden are getting married and having kids? Are they saying that THIS is the reason for the autism phenonema? Isn't calling autism "genetic" necessarily saying that this must be true?

The answers to THESE questions, I have never seen answered in any study, "big" or not. Has anybody?

Almost all species of all creatures--from elephants to dogs to rats to ants--have innate social capabilities. How insidious an infliction to have these social capabilities robbed from any creature! Or from any human being! ESPECIALLY from innocent children--OUR children.

Re: : Big study identifies new genes that may be involved in autism

Posted by: " Heifferon" gary00001msn gary0323_44

Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:37 pm (PDT)

Diane, I always thought they were the same. What fascinates me aboutpsychological labels is that it displays a percentage. If a person has acertain psychological condition there is a higher chance a sibling will alsodevelop the problem than the general public. And the percentage goes evenhigher for identical twins. But how do you explain those people in thosegroups who do not develop the problem. I don't think genetics can explain how fast the numbers have grown. If wereally didn't fully understand the problem before and we placed all thosepeople into institutions that means there should be a large decrease ininstitutionalized adults. And speaking of adults, where are they?From: sList@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:sList@ yahoogroups. com] OnBehalf Of Diane RosensteinSent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 1:22 AMTo: sList@ yahoogroups. comSubject: Re:: Big study identifies new genes that may beinvolved in autismWhat I found most interesting in the blurb about the study was that therewere some children who had gene (alterations or deletions) that theirparents DID NOT have.I've always assumed that "genetic" was the same as "inherited". Obviously,this is not true.

[Guest guest]

Another thought is that the study then seems to indicate autism is a genetic epidemic, which I thought was not possible. Sent from my iPhone

What has to be understood about genetics is that while we all carry certain kinds of genes, an environmental factor has to "activate" them. Parents of autistic children DO carry some genes for autism. And they combined their genes and some created autistic children, yet some children are born with a combination of genes that make them "normal". When the combination of genes from both parents creates a child with genetic coding that can cause them to be autistic, an environmental factor has to occur to stimulate those genes to manifest. That is what the big debate about mercury, or oxytocin, or vaccines, blah, blah, blah, is about. These spectrum children are born with a combination of markers that are triggered at some point and manifest as the neurological anomaly that IS autism. The growing numbers of children diagnosed are related to THIS (of THESE)

particular set of environmental factors that are causing the manifestation of a neurological abnormality that causes our children to BE AUTISTIC. It is like this, I am 5"8. I have the genes to reach a certain range of tallness. But how I am fed, what kinds of activities I partake in, and my over all health at time when I am growing will actually affect HOW TALL I WILL BE. My environment will enhance or decrease my height, based on the range that my genes dictate..An interesting example of this is: In Guatemala, there is a region where the inhabitants carry genes for cleft palate. In time of good harvest, when pregnant mothers are eating well and are healthy, less babies are born with cleft palate. When the harvests are bad, the percentage of cleft palate skyrockets, because the pregnant mothers are undernourished. They are all carrying the genes for cleft palate, but the environment triggers the cleft palate gene to

express itself when the pregnant mothers are undernourished.Our DNA is supplied by our parents. Some of us get genes for high cholesterol and heart disease. Some of us get diabetes, or brain cancer, or whatever. Just because we have the genes doesn't mean it will express itself WITHOUT an environmental factor to "turn it on".As a side note: There are some conditions, like Downs Syndrome, that are gentetic, because there is a specific anomaly that occur in the genes. With these disorders, they are genetically linked, because there is a mutation or deletion in the GENES. But inherited disease and disorders are inherently different, though still linked to genetics. Like cystic fibrosis, or hemophilia, which are specifically attached to genes that may or may not be passed to the child in combination. It is still convoluted whether AUTISM is one or the other.The real question is: What the heck is in our environment so readily

available that 1 in 99 children are on the spectrum?From: Diane Rosenstein <Wamtzembellsouth (DOT) net>Subject: Re: : Big study identifies new genes that may be involved in autismTo: sList Date: Monday, June 14, 2010, 2:29 PM

I always wondered why, if autism WAS as genetic & inheritable as "they" are saying, then why aren't the parents of all these autistic kids also autistic or why arent' their grandparents?

And if autism IS as genetic and inheritable as "they" are saying, then why the sudden outburst of autism throughout the world? Why, in this exact point of time in mankind's evolutionary journey, are genes all of a sudden churning out "autism" everywhere on the planet.?

Are they saying that the exact people whose exact gene mix would be the exact right combination to produce autism all of a sudden are getting married and having kids? Are they saying that THIS is the reason for the autism phenonema? Isn't calling autism "genetic" necessarily saying that this must be true?

The answers to THESE questions, I have never seen answered in any study, "big" or not. Has anybody?

Almost all species of all creatures--from elephants to dogs to rats to ants--have innate social capabilities. How insidious an infliction to have these social capabilities robbed from any creature! Or from any human being! ESPECIALLY from innocent children--OUR children.

Re: : Big study identifies new genes that may be involved in autism

Posted by: " Heifferon" gary00001msn gary0323_44

Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:37 pm (PDT)

Diane, I always thought they were the same. What fascinates me aboutpsychological labels is that it displays a percentage. If a person has acertain psychological condition there is a higher chance a sibling will alsodevelop the problem than the general public. And the percentage goes evenhigher for identical twins. But how do you explain those people in thosegroups who do not develop the problem. I don't think genetics can explain how fast the numbers have grown. If wereally didn't fully understand the problem before and we placed all thosepeople into institutions that means there should be a large decrease ininstitutionalized adults. And speaking of adults, where are they?From: sList@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:sList@ yahoogroups. com] OnBehalf Of Diane RosensteinSent: Sunday, June 13, 2010 1:22 AMTo: sList@ yahoogroups. comSubject: Re:: Big study identifies new genes that may beinvolved in autismWhat I found most interesting in the blurb about the study was that therewere some children who had gene (alterations or deletions) that theirparents DID NOT have.I've always assumed that "genetic" was the same as "inherited". Obviously,this is not true.

[Guest guest]

I've actually heard evolution as a reason for asd. In relation to bigger brains, though I'm aware you weren't referring to our kids' bigger head size, the cause is said to be neuroinflammation, not a bigger and or more useful brain.Sent from my iPhone

And also why, mostly, all of a startling sudden?

Also, They are saying gene mutation or deletions. Not just plain old height genes or cleft palate gene.

Actually, the reason humans have intelligence in the first place is because of a gene mutation. A gene "defect" greatly weakened our jaw strength, and left a whole lot of room in our skull for a big brain to grow. A gorilla's skull if mostly filled with jaw muscle. I think.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cPZh8MFjZU4J:www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm%3Fart%3D887+gorilla+jaw+muscle & cd=1 & hl=en & ct=clnk & gl=us

So maybe the boom of autistic children is evolution. Please! Don't throw anything at me!

Re: : Big study identifies new genes that may be involved in autism

Posted by: "tiffany thomsen" dreamstar52 dreamstar52

Mon Jun 14, 2010 5:17 pm (PDT)

The real question is: What the heck is in our environment so readily available that 1 in 99 children are on the spectrum?

[Guest guest]

I've actually heard evolution as a reason for asd. In relation to bigger brains, though I'm aware you weren't referring to our kids' bigger head size, the cause is said to be neuroinflammation, not a bigger and or more useful brain.Sent from my iPhone

And also why, mostly, all of a startling sudden?

Also, They are saying gene mutation or deletions. Not just plain old height genes or cleft palate gene.

Actually, the reason humans have intelligence in the first place is because of a gene mutation. A gene "defect" greatly weakened our jaw strength, and left a whole lot of room in our skull for a big brain to grow. A gorilla's skull if mostly filled with jaw muscle. I think.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cPZh8MFjZU4J:www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm%3Fart%3D887+gorilla+jaw+muscle & cd=1 & hl=en & ct=clnk & gl=us

So maybe the boom of autistic children is evolution. Please! Don't throw anything at me!

Re: : Big study identifies new genes that may be involved in autism

Posted by: "tiffany thomsen" dreamstar52 dreamstar52

Mon Jun 14, 2010 5:17 pm (PDT)

The real question is: What the heck is in our environment so readily available that 1 in 99 children are on the spectrum?

[Guest guest]

I've actually heard evolution as a reason for asd. In relation to bigger brains, though I'm aware you weren't referring to our kids' bigger head size, the cause is said to be neuroinflammation, not a bigger and or more useful brain.Sent from my iPhone

And also why, mostly, all of a startling sudden?

Also, They are saying gene mutation or deletions. Not just plain old height genes or cleft palate gene.

Actually, the reason humans have intelligence in the first place is because of a gene mutation. A gene "defect" greatly weakened our jaw strength, and left a whole lot of room in our skull for a big brain to grow. A gorilla's skull if mostly filled with jaw muscle. I think.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cPZh8MFjZU4J:www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm%3Fart%3D887+gorilla+jaw+muscle & cd=1 & hl=en & ct=clnk & gl=us

So maybe the boom of autistic children is evolution. Please! Don't throw anything at me!

Re: : Big study identifies new genes that may be involved in autism

Posted by: "tiffany thomsen" dreamstar52 dreamstar52

Mon Jun 14, 2010 5:17 pm (PDT)

The real question is: What the heck is in our environment so readily available that 1 in 99 children are on the spectrum?

[Guest guest]

,

I respectfully disagree. The only source for diagnosing mental disorders should be the DSM, and there is there is no ASD in the DSM.

Liz

To: sList Sent: Wed, June 16, 2010 1:49:42 AMSubject: Re: : Big study identifies new genes that may be involved in autism

Liz,

Did you know that ASD stands for autism spectrum disorder (less commonly known as pervasive developmental disorders?). And that there are FIVE of these autism spectrum disorders:

1) autism

2) aspergers

3) PDD-NOS

4) Rett's

5) Childhood Diintegrative Disorder

Re: Re:: Big study identifies new genes that may be involved in autism Juli and other readers, Retts is not part of ASD and must not be confused with ASD. Retts and autism are both Pervasive Developmental Disorders, that's all what they have in common. Retts is very different from ASD, and typically visible due to the baby's large head and severe psychomotor difficulties at a very young

age.

[Guest guest]

As a therapist with a clinical background, this was also my

understanding and how I always explained it to those interested in learning

more about my daughter’s diagnosis. However, I have found that within

the Autism community, many people (professionals included) see it as just one diagnosis

of Autism with the degree determining the diagnosis. For example, if you were

high functioning, you might be diagnosed with Aspergers or PDDNOS and low

functioning - Autism. I don’t think Retts or CDD were included in this though.

Not saying one way is right and the other wrong but just agreeing with Diane

based on my own education. In any case, I am not sure how it happened this

way but it seems that this is even where the DSM is now headed.

From: sList [mailto:sList ] On Behalf Of Diane Rosenstein

Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010

12:33 PM

To: sList

Subject: Re: : Big

study identifies new genes that may be involved in autism

Autism Spectrum Disorders (or ASD) IS the umbrella term

that is used to cover the 5 Pervasive Developmental Disorders.

You're right, the 2000 DSM-IV uses the term " Pervasive

Developmental Disorders " as the umbrella term which was formerly called

" Autism Spectrum Disorder " .

However, it seems that you are incorrectly using

" ASD " to describe just autism (or autistic order)

Autism is one of the 5 ASD (now called PDD, but certainly

used interchangably) diagnoses.

And as my other E-mail stated, the other 4 ASD (or PDD)

are Aspergers, CDD, Retts, and PDD-NOS.

[Guest guest]

As a therapist with a clinical background, this was also my

understanding and how I always explained it to those interested in learning

more about my daughter’s diagnosis. However, I have found that within

the Autism community, many people (professionals included) see it as just one diagnosis

of Autism with the degree determining the diagnosis. For example, if you were

high functioning, you might be diagnosed with Aspergers or PDDNOS and low

functioning - Autism. I don’t think Retts or CDD were included in this though.

Not saying one way is right and the other wrong but just agreeing with Diane

based on my own education. In any case, I am not sure how it happened this

way but it seems that this is even where the DSM is now headed.

From: sList [mailto:sList ] On Behalf Of Diane Rosenstein

Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010

12:33 PM

To: sList

Subject: Re: : Big

study identifies new genes that may be involved in autism

Autism Spectrum Disorders (or ASD) IS the umbrella term

that is used to cover the 5 Pervasive Developmental Disorders.

You're right, the 2000 DSM-IV uses the term " Pervasive

Developmental Disorders " as the umbrella term which was formerly called

" Autism Spectrum Disorder " .

However, it seems that you are incorrectly using

" ASD " to describe just autism (or autistic order)

Autism is one of the 5 ASD (now called PDD, but certainly

used interchangably) diagnoses.

And as my other E-mail stated, the other 4 ASD (or PDD)

are Aspergers, CDD, Retts, and PDD-NOS.

[Guest guest]

As a therapist with a clinical background, this was also my

understanding and how I always explained it to those interested in learning

more about my daughter’s diagnosis. However, I have found that within

the Autism community, many people (professionals included) see it as just one diagnosis

of Autism with the degree determining the diagnosis. For example, if you were

high functioning, you might be diagnosed with Aspergers or PDDNOS and low

functioning - Autism. I don’t think Retts or CDD were included in this though.

Not saying one way is right and the other wrong but just agreeing with Diane

based on my own education. In any case, I am not sure how it happened this

way but it seems that this is even where the DSM is now headed.

From: sList [mailto:sList ] On Behalf Of Diane Rosenstein

Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010

12:33 PM

To: sList

Subject: Re: : Big

study identifies new genes that may be involved in autism

Autism Spectrum Disorders (or ASD) IS the umbrella term

that is used to cover the 5 Pervasive Developmental Disorders.

You're right, the 2000 DSM-IV uses the term " Pervasive

Developmental Disorders " as the umbrella term which was formerly called

" Autism Spectrum Disorder " .

However, it seems that you are incorrectly using

" ASD " to describe just autism (or autistic order)

Autism is one of the 5 ASD (now called PDD, but certainly

used interchangably) diagnoses.

And as my other E-mail stated, the other 4 ASD (or PDD)

are Aspergers, CDD, Retts, and PDD-NOS.

[Guest guest]

Don't forget about walking upright.

From:

sList [mailto:sList ] On Behalf

Of Diane Rosenstein

Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 5:07 PM

To: sList

Subject: Re: : Big study identifies new genes that may be

involved in autism

Tina

Terri,

What

I said is that the reasons that HUMANS INTELLIGENTLY evolved was due to a gene

mutation which reduced our jaw strength and allowed more interior skull room

for brain growth.

Re: : Big study

identifies new genes that may be involved in autism

Posted by:

" Tina Terri Austin " austintandt@...

austintandt

Wed

Jun 16, 2010 8:30 am (PDT)

I've actually heard evolution as a reason for asd. In relation to

bigger brains, though I'm aware you weren't referring to our kids'

bigger head size, the cause is said to be neuroinflammation, not a

bigger and or more useful brain.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 16, 2010, at 2:09 AM, " Diane Rosenstein "

wrote:

> And also why, mostly, all of a startling sudden?

>

> Also, They are saying gene mutation or deletions. Not just plain

> old height genes or cleft palate gene.

>

> Actually, the reason humans have intelligence in the first place is

> because of a gene mutation. A gene " defect " greatly weakened our

> jaw strength, and left a whole lot of room in our skull for a big

> brain to grow. A gorilla's skull is mostly filled with jaw muscle.

> I think.

>

> http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cPZh8MFjZU4J:www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm%3Fart%3D887+gorilla+jaw+muscle & cd=1 & hl=en & ct=clnk & gl=us

>

>

> So maybe the boom of autistic children is evolution. Please! Don't

> throw anything at me!

>

[Guest guest]

Hi,The formal criteria for mental disorders can only be found in DSM-4. It is great to discuss ideas with others, but the DSM is the authority or the source, and provides the formal criteria for autism. Criteria for a mental health diagnosis cannot be left up to organizations or individuals in private practice.The term ASD (autism spectrum) does not appear in the DSM, and so therefore ASD cannot possibly be an umbrella term. PDD is the umbrella term. Autism is a Pervasive developmental disorder. Retts is another pervasive developmental disorder. Aspergers and Autism are two different diagnoses according to the DSM. The main difference between the two diagnosis is that young children with Aspergers do not have significant language delays. I

personally see many kids who I immediately think of as Aspergers kids. They behave and talk very differently from kids with classical autism. However, the kids I am thinking of all had "significant" language problems in preschool, and therfore would not meet the DSM criteria for Aspergers. Like it or not.A few years ago, I had the opportunity to discuss the diagnosis with the county team leader for school psychologists. At that time, he said they did not label anyone with Aspergers. They only used the label "Autism". His point was that the label Autism gives the child right to ESE services, which was the idea anyway. I do not think that the label Asperger's has an ESE code and therfore can qualify for ESE services. I too feel that more criteria needs to be added to the diagnosis, and perhaps autism is too vague...LizTo: sList Sent: Thu, June 17, 2010 1:36:16 PMSubject: RE: Re: : Big study identifies new genes that may be involved in autism

As a therapist with a clinical background, this was also my

understanding and how I always explained it to those interested in learning

more about my daughter’s diagnosis. However, I have found that within

the Autism community, many people (professionals included) see it as just one diagnosis

of Autism with the degree determining the diagnosis. For example, if you were

high functioning, you might be diagnosed with Aspergers or PDDNOS and low

functioning - Autism. I don’t think Retts or CDD were included in this though.

Not saying one way is right and the other wrong but just agreeing with Diane

based on my own education. In any case, I am not sure how it happened this

way but it seems that this is even where the DSM is now headed.

From: sList@ yahoogroups. com [mailto: sList@ yahoogroups. com ] On Behalf Of Diane Rosenstein

Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010

12:33 PM

To: sList@ yahoogroups. com

Subject: Re: : Big

study identifies new genes that may be involved in autism

Autism Spectrum Disorders (or ASD) IS the umbrella term

that is used to cover the 5 Pervasive Developmental Disorders.

You're right, the 2000 DSM-IV uses the term "Pervasive

Developmental Disorders" as the umbrella term which was formerly called

"Autism Spectrum Disorder".

However, it seems that you are incorrectly using

"ASD" to describe just autism (or autistic order)

Autism is one of the 5 ASD (now called PDD, but certainly

used interchangably) diagnoses.

And as my other E-mail stated, the other 4 ASD (or PDD)

are Aspergers, CDD, Retts, and PDD-NOS.

[Guest guest]

Hi,The formal criteria for mental disorders can only be found in DSM-4. It is great to discuss ideas with others, but the DSM is the authority or the source, and provides the formal criteria for autism. Criteria for a mental health diagnosis cannot be left up to organizations or individuals in private practice.The term ASD (autism spectrum) does not appear in the DSM, and so therefore ASD cannot possibly be an umbrella term. PDD is the umbrella term. Autism is a Pervasive developmental disorder. Retts is another pervasive developmental disorder. Aspergers and Autism are two different diagnoses according to the DSM. The main difference between the two diagnosis is that young children with Aspergers do not have significant language delays. I

personally see many kids who I immediately think of as Aspergers kids. They behave and talk very differently from kids with classical autism. However, the kids I am thinking of all had "significant" language problems in preschool, and therfore would not meet the DSM criteria for Aspergers. Like it or not.A few years ago, I had the opportunity to discuss the diagnosis with the county team leader for school psychologists. At that time, he said they did not label anyone with Aspergers. They only used the label "Autism". His point was that the label Autism gives the child right to ESE services, which was the idea anyway. I do not think that the label Asperger's has an ESE code and therfore can qualify for ESE services. I too feel that more criteria needs to be added to the diagnosis, and perhaps autism is too vague...LizTo: sList Sent: Thu, June 17, 2010 1:36:16 PMSubject: RE: Re: : Big study identifies new genes that may be involved in autism

As a therapist with a clinical background, this was also my

understanding and how I always explained it to those interested in learning

more about my daughter’s diagnosis. However, I have found that within

the Autism community, many people (professionals included) see it as just one diagnosis

of Autism with the degree determining the diagnosis. For example, if you were

high functioning, you might be diagnosed with Aspergers or PDDNOS and low

functioning - Autism. I don’t think Retts or CDD were included in this though.

Not saying one way is right and the other wrong but just agreeing with Diane

based on my own education. In any case, I am not sure how it happened this

way but it seems that this is even where the DSM is now headed.

From: sList@ yahoogroups. com [mailto: sList@ yahoogroups. com ] On Behalf Of Diane Rosenstein

Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010

12:33 PM

To: sList@ yahoogroups. com

Subject: Re: : Big

study identifies new genes that may be involved in autism

Autism Spectrum Disorders (or ASD) IS the umbrella term

that is used to cover the 5 Pervasive Developmental Disorders.

You're right, the 2000 DSM-IV uses the term "Pervasive

Developmental Disorders" as the umbrella term which was formerly called

"Autism Spectrum Disorder".

However, it seems that you are incorrectly using

"ASD" to describe just autism (or autistic order)

Autism is one of the 5 ASD (now called PDD, but certainly

used interchangably) diagnoses.

And as my other E-mail stated, the other 4 ASD (or PDD)

are Aspergers, CDD, Retts, and PDD-NOS.

[Guest guest]

Hi,The formal criteria for mental disorders can only be found in DSM-4. It is great to discuss ideas with others, but the DSM is the authority or the source, and provides the formal criteria for autism. Criteria for a mental health diagnosis cannot be left up to organizations or individuals in private practice.The term ASD (autism spectrum) does not appear in the DSM, and so therefore ASD cannot possibly be an umbrella term. PDD is the umbrella term. Autism is a Pervasive developmental disorder. Retts is another pervasive developmental disorder. Aspergers and Autism are two different diagnoses according to the DSM. The main difference between the two diagnosis is that young children with Aspergers do not have significant language delays. I

personally see many kids who I immediately think of as Aspergers kids. They behave and talk very differently from kids with classical autism. However, the kids I am thinking of all had "significant" language problems in preschool, and therfore would not meet the DSM criteria for Aspergers. Like it or not.A few years ago, I had the opportunity to discuss the diagnosis with the county team leader for school psychologists. At that time, he said they did not label anyone with Aspergers. They only used the label "Autism". His point was that the label Autism gives the child right to ESE services, which was the idea anyway. I do not think that the label Asperger's has an ESE code and therfore can qualify for ESE services. I too feel that more criteria needs to be added to the diagnosis, and perhaps autism is too vague...LizTo: sList Sent: Thu, June 17, 2010 1:36:16 PMSubject: RE: Re: : Big study identifies new genes that may be involved in autism

As a therapist with a clinical background, this was also my

understanding and how I always explained it to those interested in learning

more about my daughter’s diagnosis. However, I have found that within

the Autism community, many people (professionals included) see it as just one diagnosis

of Autism with the degree determining the diagnosis. For example, if you were

high functioning, you might be diagnosed with Aspergers or PDDNOS and low

functioning - Autism. I don’t think Retts or CDD were included in this though.

Not saying one way is right and the other wrong but just agreeing with Diane

based on my own education. In any case, I am not sure how it happened this

way but it seems that this is even where the DSM is now headed.

From: sList@ yahoogroups. com [mailto: sList@ yahoogroups. com ] On Behalf Of Diane Rosenstein

Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010

12:33 PM

To: sList@ yahoogroups. com

Subject: Re: : Big

study identifies new genes that may be involved in autism

Autism Spectrum Disorders (or ASD) IS the umbrella term

that is used to cover the 5 Pervasive Developmental Disorders.

You're right, the 2000 DSM-IV uses the term "Pervasive

Developmental Disorders" as the umbrella term which was formerly called

"Autism Spectrum Disorder".

However, it seems that you are incorrectly using

"ASD" to describe just autism (or autistic order)

Autism is one of the 5 ASD (now called PDD, but certainly

used interchangably) diagnoses.

And as my other E-mail stated, the other 4 ASD (or PDD)

are Aspergers, CDD, Retts, and PDD-NOS.

[Guest guest]

I believe the confusion is because the school board does not 'diagnose' the condition. They have their own classifications. For example, Other Health Impaired includes kids who have ADD/ADHD. The classification of Autism Spectrum Disorders covers, in general, our kids who have been diagnosed (or not) as having Autistic Disorder, Pervasive Developmental Disorder, NOS, Asperger's Syndrome, etc. A formal diagnosis is not even necessary when our kids reach school age. They, and many do, can go through their entire educational career, with no formal diagnosis, only a school classification.

The way the school board 'classifies' is different than the way clinicians 'diagnose' using the DSM.

I also think that for some, myself included, it became easier to just say "my son has autism," or "an asd," or "an autism spectrum disorder," as opposed to saying "my son has a pervasive developmental disorder, not otherwise specified," which is really what he has and is really what many of our kids are diagnosed with.

I was already a licensed clinical social worker when my son was diagnosed by a neurologist, not the school board. Since everything autism was still kind of new to me at that time, I initially began stating he had a pervasive developmental disorder, not otherwise specified. All of my colleagues knew exactly what I was talking about but I received strange looks from others, not in the field. Shortly thereafter, I began to say, "he has autism." Then, everyone seemed to know. I think it's just words and the formality of it and who is allowed to diagnose and who is not that causes confusion.

From: Cohane

Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 10:28 PM

To: sList

Subject: RE: Re: : Big study identifies new genes that may be involved in autism

I am in the same thinking as this…not sure if that came across in the last e-mail. PDD is the umbrella and there are 5 different diagnosis’s under that umbrella. However, even if is the correct thinking and the DSM is the source, I have encountered many who see it across one broad spectrum of the same diagnosis. I just feel it ends up being subjective even though there are criteria to make an appropriate diagnosis. This leaves people in limbo. I know I questioned my daughter’s diagnosis because of it. This was very difficult in the beginning but now I just try to deal with the symptoms that prevent her success, embrace those that qualities that make her unique and special, and try not focus too much on what the diagnosis is supposed to be.

From: sList [mailto:sList ] On Behalf Of Lizzie BergSent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 9:19 PMTo: sList Subject: Re: Re: : Big study identifies new genes that may be involved in autism

Hi,The formal criteria for mental disorders can only be found in DSM-4. It is great to discuss ideas with others, but the DSM is the authority or the source, and provides the formal criteria for autism. Criteria for a mental health diagnosis cannot be left up to organizations or individuals in private practice.The term ASD (autism spectrum) does not appear in the DSM, and so therefore ASD cannot possibly be an umbrella term. PDD is the umbrella term. Autism is a Pervasive developmental disorder. Retts is another pervasive developmental disorder. Aspergers and Autism are two different diagnoses according to the DSM. The main difference between the two diagnosis is that young children with Aspergers do not have significant language delays. I personally see many kids who I immediately think of as Aspergers kids. They behave and talk very differently from kids with classical autism. However, the kids I am thinking of all had "significant" language problems in preschool, and therfore would not meet the DSM criteria for Aspergers. Like it or not.A few years ago, I had the opportunity to discuss the diagnosis with the county team leader for school psychologists. At that time, he said they did not label anyone with Aspergers. They only used the label "Autism". His point was that the label Autism gives the child right to ESE services, which was the idea anyway. I do not think that the label Asperger's has an ESE code and therfore can qualify for ESE services. I too feel that more criteria needs to be added to the diagnosis, and perhaps autism is too vague...Liz

From: Cohane <thecohanescomcast (DOT) net>To: sList Sent: Thu, June 17, 2010 1:36:16 PMSubject: RE: Re: : Big study identifies new genes that may be involved in autism

As a therapist with a clinical background, this was also my understanding and how I always explained it to those interested in learning more about my daughter’s diagnosis. However, I have found that within the Autism community, many people (professionals included) see it as just one diagnosis of Autism with the degree determining the diagnosis. For example, if you were high functioning, you might be diagnosed with Aspergers or PDDNOS and low functioning - Autism. I don’t think Retts or CDD were included in this though. Not saying one way is right and the other wrong but just agreeing with Diane based on my own education. In any case, I am not sure how it happened this way but it seems that this is even where the DSM is now headed.

From: sList@ yahoogroups. com [mailto: sList@ yahoogroups. com ] On Behalf Of Diane RosensteinSent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 12:33 PMTo: sList@ yahoogroups. comSubject: Re: : Big study identifies new genes that may be involved in autism

Autism Spectrum Disorders (or ASD) IS the umbrella term that is used to cover the 5 Pervasive Developmental Disorders.

You're right, the 2000 DSM-IV uses the term "Pervasive Developmental Disorders" as the umbrella term which was formerly called "Autism Spectrum Disorder".

However, it seems that you are incorrectly using "ASD" to describe just autism (or autistic order)

Autism is one of the 5 ASD (now called PDD, but certainly used interchangably) diagnoses.

And as my other E-mail stated, the other 4 ASD (or PDD) are Aspergers, CDD, Retts, and PDD-NOS.

[Guest guest]

Hi,I have to chime in on this one:"Evolution" IS still a theory although taught in schools and is NOT proven. Christians believe in "creation."Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:01:49 -0400To: <sList >Subject: Re: Re: : Big study identifies new genes that may be involved in autism evolution has been proven, its not a theory and most people who believe in god "believe" in evolution.From: MKelley Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 1:47 PMTo: sList Subject: Re: : Big study identifies new genes that may be involved in autism is evolution still taught in schools because that is just so utterly idiotic--are you guys just joking, because i find all of this very amusing.glad my son is on his way to recovering, though not through evolution, but he grace of Godkind regards> > > And also why, mostly, all of a startling sudden?> >> > Also, They are saying gene mutation or deletions. Not just plain > > old height genes or cleft palate gene.> >> > Actually, the reason humans have intelligence in the first place is > > because of a gene mutation. A gene "defect" greatly weakened our > > jaw strength, and left a whole lot of room in our skull for a big > > brain to grow. A gorilla's skull if mostly filled with jaw muscle. > > I think.> >> > http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cPZh8MFjZU4J:www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm%3Fart%3D887+gorilla+jaw+muscle & cd=1 & hl=en & ct=clnk & gl=us> >> >> > So maybe the boom of autistic children is evolution. Please! Don't > > throw anything at me!> >> >> > Re: : Big study identifies new genes that may be involved in autism> >> > Posted by: "tiffany thomsen" dreamstar52@... dreamstar52> >> > Mon Jun 14, 2010 5:17 pm (PDT)> >> >> > The real question is: What the heck is in our environment so readily > > available that 1 in 99 children are on the spectrum?> >> >>

[Guest guest]

Leave it up to the school district to come up with their own

classifications. Perhaps the confusion starts there.call it what it is.

Otherwise a wrong classification may lead you to a wrong conclusion.

From:

sList [mailto:sList ] On Behalf

Of austintandt@...

Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 2:15 PM

To: sList

Subject: Re: Re: : Big study identifies new genes that may

be involved in autism

I

believe the confusion is because the school board does not 'diagnose' the

condition. They have their own classifications. For example, Other

Health Impaired includes kids who have ADD/ADHD. The classification of

Autism Spectrum Disorders covers, in general, our kids who have been diagnosed

(or not) as having Autistic Disorder, Pervasive Developmental Disorder, NOS,

Asperger's Syndrome, etc. A formal diagnosis is not even necessary when

our kids reach school age. They, and many do, can go through their entire

educational career, with no formal diagnosis, only a school

classification.

The

way the school board 'classifies' is different than the way clinicians

'diagnose' using the DSM.

I

also think that for some, myself included, it became easier to just say

" my son has autism, " or " an asd, " or " an autism

spectrum disorder, " as opposed to saying " my son has a pervasive

developmental disorder, not otherwise specified, " which is really what he

has and is really what many of our kids are diagnosed with.

I

was already a licensed clinical social worker when my son was diagnosed by a

neurologist, not the school board. Since everything autism was still kind

of new to me at that time, I initially began stating he had a pervasive

developmental disorder, not otherwise specified. All of my colleagues

knew exactly what I was talking about but I received strange looks from others,

not in the field. Shortly thereafter, I began to say, " he has

autism. " Then, everyone seemed to know. I think it's just words

and the formality of it and who is allowed to diagnose and who is not that

causes confusion.

From:

Cohane

Sent: Thursday, June 17,

2010 10:28 PM

To: sList

Subject: RE:

Re: : Big study identifies new genes that may be involved in autism

I

am in the same thinking as this…not sure if that came across in the last

e-mail. PDD is the umbrella and there are 5 different diagnosis’s under

that umbrella. However, even if is the correct thinking and the DSM is

the source, I have encountered many who see it across one broad spectrum of the

same diagnosis. I just feel it ends up being subjective even though

there are criteria to make an appropriate diagnosis. This leaves people

in limbo. I know I questioned my daughter’s diagnosis because of it.

This was very difficult in the beginning but now I just try to deal with

the symptoms that prevent her success, embrace those that qualities that make

her unique and special, and try not focus too much on what the diagnosis is

supposed to be.

From: sList

[mailto:sList ] On Behalf Of Lizzie Berg

Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 9:19 PM

To: sList

Subject: Re: Re: : Big study identifies new genes that may

be involved in autism

Hi,

The formal criteria for mental disorders can only be found in

DSM-4. It is great to discuss ideas with others, but the DSM is the authority

or the source, and provides the formal criteria for autism. Criteria for

a mental health diagnosis cannot be left up to organizations or individuals in

private practice.

The term ASD (autism spectrum) does not appear in the DSM, and so therefore ASD

cannot possibly be an umbrella term. PDD is the umbrella term. Autism is a

Pervasive developmental disorder. Retts is another pervasive developmental

disorder.

Aspergers and Autism are two different diagnoses according to the DSM. The main

difference between the two diagnosis is that young children with Aspergers do

not have significant language delays.

I personally see many kids who I immediately think of as Aspergers kids.

They behave and talk very differently from kids with classical autism. However,

the kids I am thinking of all had " significant " language

problems in preschool, and therfore would not meet the DSM criteria for

Aspergers. Like it or not.

A few years ago, I had the opportunity to discuss the diagnosis with the county

team leader for school psychologists. At that time, he said they did not label

anyone with Aspergers. They only used the label " Autism " . His point

was that the label Autism gives the child right to ESE services, which was the

idea anyway. I do not think that the label Asperger's has an ESE code and

therfore can qualify for ESE services.

I too feel that more criteria needs to be added to the diagnosis, and perhaps

autism is too vague...

Liz

To: sList

Sent: Thu, June 17, 2010 1:36:16 PM

Subject: RE: Re: : Big study identifies new genes that may

be involved in autism

As

a therapist with a clinical background, this was also my understanding and how

I always explained it to those interested in learning more about my daughter’s

diagnosis. However, I have found that within the Autism community, many

people (professionals included) see it as just one diagnosis of Autism with the

degree determining the diagnosis. For example, if you were high

functioning, you might be diagnosed with Aspergers or PDDNOS and low

functioning - Autism. I don’t think Retts or CDD were included in this

though. Not saying one way is right and the other wrong but just agreeing

with Diane based on my own education. In any case, I am not sure

how it happened this way but it seems that this is even where the DSM is now

headed.

From: sList@

yahoogroups. com [mailto: sList@ yahoogroups. com ] On Behalf Of Diane

Rosenstein

Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 12:33 PM

To: sList@ yahoogroups. com

Subject: Re: : Big study identifies new genes that may be

involved in autism

Autism Spectrum

Disorders (or ASD) IS the umbrella term that is used to cover the 5 Pervasive

Developmental Disorders.

You're right, the

2000 DSM-IV uses the term " Pervasive Developmental Disorders " as the

umbrella term which was formerly called " Autism Spectrum Disorder " .

However, it seems

that you are incorrectly using " ASD " to describe just autism (or

autistic order)

Autism is one of

the 5 ASD (now called PDD, but certainly used interchangably) diagnoses.

And as my other

E-mail stated, the other 4 ASD (or PDD) are Aspergers, CDD, Retts, and PDD-NOS.