29 Marbles

As far as I know, all of the arguments about the increase in autism diagnoses being too rapid to be purely genetic are based on an assumption of randomness in the process. From that perspective I must admit that it seems unlikely that you could explain the increase in autism diagnoses purely to genetics.

But is this really a random process?

This thought occurred to me yesterday when I heard a teaser for yesterday’s Talk of the Nation on NPR, on which they had a segment titled Genetically Engineering a ‘Perfect’ Baby. In the teaser, they played a quote from one of the guests in which he said something along the lines of:

We’ve been engaged in genetic engineering for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. It happens every night in bars and clubs and every where around the world, when men and women ’select’ the mate they want to help parent their child.

Which got me thinking: What if we (humans) have been engaged in a process of informal genetic engineering - maybe more appropriately referred to as selective breeding - over the past hundred years that has contributed to the increase in autism during that time, especially of the “high-functioning”, Asperger’s type of autism? I can hear many of you, even as I type this: What the hell are you talking about? And you can bet I’ve got my fire-suit on for all the flames that are sure to come my way. But I’m serious.

Consider this: Over the past 100 years or more, the engineers, scientists, mathematicians and other technically oriented people have become more important to the success and progress of our society. As these people’s importance has grown, so has their power and their desirability as a mate. As a result, these “geeks” have more opportunities to reproduce and further the survival of geek genes. When two geeks get together, especially if they are geeky in different ways, that is even more geekiness that passes down to their children.

Or, as a good friend once put it, “Geeks are breeding more now than they used to.” I apologize for the bluntness of the statement, or if it offends, but this is how she said it. (I’ve actually used that quote before, in an August 2005 post discussing the article Scientists begin to trace autism’s genetic roots in my hometown newspaper the St. Louis Post Dispatch.)

Does anyone know of any studies that address the non-randomness of mate selection and potential impact on genetic diversity, especially as it may relate to autism? I did a quick Google search, but didn’t really come up with much.

(Back on the subject of the Talk of the Nation segment, make sure you check it out. You can also join the conversation on the subject on their blog. Some very interesting comments so far.)

The anecdote The Family Doctor , published by Julie Obradovic on Age of Autism a couple of months back, is a well told story of how she finally succeeds in converting her brother, a pediatrician, to her understanding that vaccines are bad and likely a cause for autism. If you are new to the question of autism and its causes, and come across this story early on in your search for answers, chances are it might be pretty influential.

But something has been bugging me about the story since I first read it. I couldn’t quite put my finger on it, so I haven’t written about it until now. It was a discussion I had with Autistic Bitch From Hell in the comments to my recent post A View From the Middle that made me realize what was so troubling to me about the story.

Here are Obradovic’s brother’s thoughts on autism and an autistic child:

“I tell you, I would rather she got Polio than Autism. At least her mind would be in tact. At least she could talk to me, experience life with me. No offense, but some of the stories you send me about these kids? Well, if they were horses, they’d be put down just to ease their misery. What parent can watch that, or live with that? What child deserves that?”

In other words, an autistic life is not worth living. And an autistic child is not worth parenting. With this mind-set, it is no wonder that they want to find a way to eradicate autism.

I just hope those of you trying to learn more about autism take this attitude into account when you read stories and opinions about vaccines as the cause of autism.

In a comment to Lisa Jo Rudy’s brief examination of some of the issues in the autism-vaccine debate, Dadvocate had this to say:

Rather, it is that some, in their zeal to promote public health may be erroneously accepting a level of adverse reaction risk that is too high (and possibly avoidable by reverting to a more conservative schedule)….

The obvious (to me) question from this is, “Given that the current vaccine schedule results in an unacceptably high risk of autism in vaccinated children, what level of risk is acceptable? If the current risk is 1-in-150 (which, I should note is actually the prevalence and not the odds of being autistic), what risk is acceptable? 1-in-500? 1-in-1000? 1-in 10,000? None?”

This question is really for those who believe that vaccines are to blame for autism, and is but one strand in a much more complex thread. Among other things, the risk of individuals becoming autistic would need to be weighed against the risk to the public at large of reducing vaccinations.

At the risk of retreading old ground, exactly where do you think the balancing point would be between protection of individuals from autism and protection of society from communicable diseases? (If you don’t think this is a valid question, by all means let me know. I’m interested in that possibility as well.)

I had lunch with an old friend recently, and the topic of conversation wound its way to autism. I, of course, am the parent of an autistic son. As it turns out, his nephew is also autistic. He wanted to understand autism, and I wanted to help him understand. But I didn’t know where to start.

Sure, there are many angles from which to approach the question. I could start with: Vaccines cause autism, once they have it, it’s a long struggle to recover them. Or how about: Nothing “causes” autism, it is just another aspect of this neurodiverse world we live in.

As far as treatment: Chelation, to get rid of the mercury and other metals. Or: A special diet that is almost impossible, and incredibly expensive, to adhere to. Or: ABA. Or: (add your favorite treatment here).

To tell the truth, I don’t know what to believe about autism. And it is not for a lack of trying. This post, according to my WordPress stats, is my 201st posting to 29 Marbles. I have covered a lot of autistic ground in the last 3 years. Over the course of those 3 years, and 200 posts, and numerous comments to other blogs by parents, autistics, and others with an interest in autism, I’ve considered a lot of different ideas and seen my beliefs and thoughts about autism oscillate a bit as I considered new things. I always seem to come back to the middle though, where I don’t really know what to think.

Over this time, I’ve also had the opportunity to observe how the views of others have evolved. In most cases, it seems, the longer someone has been blogging and thinking about autism the more their beliefs, and their blogging, have gone toward the extremes of the debate. Just check out Age of Autism (for the extreme view of the bio-med position) or Neurodiversity.com (for the extreme view of neurodiversity).

The thing is, I don’t really believe any of those things. Or, maybe it would be more accurate to say I believe in all of those things. Autism is, after all, a spectrum of disorders, so it only makes sense that the causes and cures (assuming either exist) would constitute a spectrum as well.

For someone to say that all autism is nothing more than mercury poisoning is irresponsible, though I don’t doubt that at least one case of autism could be traced directly to mercury. To say that all autistics live miserable lives and will never be happy or able to live and function on their own is simply untrue, though it goes without saying that there are some autistics whose life will be exactly like that.

On the other hand, to say that all autism is solely the result of genetic factors - with no influence from environmental triggers - is irresponsible, though I sincerely believe that some cases of what we call autism are indeed purely genetic manifestations. To say that all autistics have the potential to live happy lives and live and function on their own is as untrue as the opposite example above, though obviously some autistics will find happiness and success on their own.

Some will say I’m just wishy-washy, a waffler, a flip-flopper. I prefer to think that I’m simply staying open minded, because when you get right down to it not all the evidence is in. Not even enough evidence is in to say anything specific about autism in general.

And that, I think, is my point on this, World Autism Awareness Day. If you are new to autism, because you have a newly diagnosed child or you are just curious, enjoy the view from the middle for a while. Listen to what the extremists and fundamentalists have to say and think about it for yourself. Pay attention to your own instincts. Get to know your child - as he or she is, not how you wish they were - and figure out what YOU think is best. Not just for the child, but for you. For your spouse. For your other children.

There is no simple answer, no matter what you hear, and there is no simple path to follow as you make your way through the world of autism.

While wandering the aisles in the local Borders book store, I saw Donna Nakazawa’s new book, The Autoimmune Epidemic: Bodies Gone Haywire in a World out of Balance and the Cutting Edge Science that Promises Hope. This description is from the book’s official site:

Multiple sclerosis, lupus, Type 1 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and nearly a hundred other chronic autoimmune illnesses are part of this devastating epidemic, in which the human body, acting on misread signals, literally begins to destroy itself. Alarmingly, the occurrence of many of these diseases has more than doubled in the last three decades, signaling a disturbing trend that can be directly tied to environmental factors in everyday modern life—including our daily exposure to a dizzying array of toxic chemicals.

With the conversation around a recent post fresh in my mind, I was drawn to the book to see what the author had to say about autism in the context of this autoimmune epidemic. There is one section, consisting of two pages, where she mentions the possible relationship of autoimmune issues, vaccines, and heavy metals (specifically mercury in the form of thimerosol) to autism. I don’t recall the specific wording, but she basically left it as, “We’ll have to wait and see what comes of the research.”

Has anyone had a chance to read this book yet? Any thoughts?

Last week I asked the question: What would it take to change your mind? I figured I should probably think of an answer for myself, this post includes some thoughts from my contemplation. This is not a complete argument for or against anything that I haven’t already stated, just some thoughts in process. Any thoughts of yours are certainly welcome.
= = == === =====

I don’t believe that autism is mercury poisoning, I’ve said that before. As for the number / types of vaccines being a trigger (I don’t believe it is a cause in the Newtonian sense), I’ve been thinking about it lately but haven’t seen any data to help me make a my mind.

Along those lines, the Age of Autism (which is, I must note, very openly of the opinion that mercury in the form of thimerosol in vaccines and/or the number of vaccines given to kids is the primary cause of most autism) yesterday pointed to the 2008 pediatrics vaccination schedules (0-6 years and 6 years and over).

WOW!!

That was about all I could think when I looked at the schedule. The schedule in and of itself doesn’t lead me to believe anything different than what I knew before, but it does give me an extra data point. The human immune system is an incredible, incredibly intelligent, incredibly complex system. (Though I’m sure there are many books specifically on the subject, The Genius Within includes a very description of how the process works.)

The challenge with a complex system (as opposed to a merely complicated system) is that the outcome of any given input to the system can not be predicted and that a specific cause for a measured outcome cannot be identified. From Dave Snowden (who thinks about complexity a lot):

• Complex systems can not be predicted, they are non-causal (taking cause in its normal Newtonian sense) in nature they evolve and the same thing will not happen again twice, we can predict aspects of the system and different aspects of time but never the outcome of the whole system
• The concept of a non-causal system is a very difficult one to grasp as the west abandoned the idea at the time of the Enlightenment (Vico and others were prophetic in arguing against this).
• A complex system can be simulated - which increases understanding but simulation should not (although it is often) confused with prediction
• We can understand starting conditions as a complex system evolves and we can influence their evolution if we focus on barriers and attractors (1st and 2nd order constraints) but not if we look at the end point (so attempting to predict makes things worse not better)
• Humans tend to premature convergence (seeing a pattern too quickly before it is stable) and also to retrospective coherence (implying past causality where there was none). Both of these tendencies are pervasive and dangerous

Which brings me to a very interesting dilemma:

• If autism (has a cause and) is indeed caused by an insult to the immune system, we can not predict which vaccine or combination of vaccines will cause it; and,
• Once autism is caused in an individual we can not look back through their vaccination history to determine which vaccine it was that did the causing.

And this doesn’t even bring into play the complexity of the interaction between the immune system and the rest of the body or the role of genetics, and genetic predisposition.
===== === == = =