'Autism Advantage Theory'

[Loomis]

Remember, the article refers to genes being expressed differently in someone with autism. This is not the same thing as having different genes; it has to do with which genes are actually affecting you, and which genes are, as it were, dormant.

No, I must disagree. This article describes the 209 "M12" genes as being abnormally expressed. The lower expression of the 209 "autistic allele" DNA occurs because RNA transcribed from the "autistic alleles" is translated into defective proteins.

This is just one article. The accumulated evidence for the genetic basis of autistic traits is overwhelming. It is the researchers studying and proposing environmental causes for autism who have a much more difficult task.

 

[Ste11aeres]

No, I must disagree. This article describes the 209 "M12" genes as being abnormally expressed. The lower expression of the 209 "autistic allele" DNA occurs because RNA transcribed from the "autistic alleles" is translated into defective proteins.

This is just one article. The accumulated evidence for the genetic basis of autistic traits is overwhelming. It is the researchers studying and proposing environmental causes for autism who have a much more difficult task.

Well I didn't really read it, just opened it and glanced at it.
Lazy me.

But I wasn't denying a genetic base; I was raising the question of what exactly that means.

Re-reading it, the article remains somewhat open and ambiguous on the subject of the root cause of the "lower expression", noting differing views of some researchers in regards to such a root cause.

 

[Loomis]

Well I didn't really read it, just opened it and glanced at it.
Lazy me.

But I wasn't denying a genetic base; I was raising the question of what exactly that means.

Re-reading it, the article remains somewhat open and ambiguous on the subject of the root cause of the "lower expression", noting differing views of some researchers in regards to such a root cause.

Here is the abstract from the original research paper:

"Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a common, highly heritable neurodevelopmental condition characterized by marked genetic heterogeneity. Thus, a fundamental question is whether autism represents an aetiologically heterogeneous disorder in which the myriad genetic or environmental risk factors perturb common underlying molecular pathways in the brain. Here, we demonstrate consistent differences in transcriptome organization between autistic and normal brain by gene co-expression network analysis. Remarkably, regional patterns of gene expression that typically distinguish frontal and temporal cortex are significantly attenuated in the ASD brain, suggesting abnormalities in cortical patterning. We further identify discrete modules of co-expressed genes associated with autism: a neuronal module enriched for known autism susceptibility genes, including the neuronal specific splicing factor A2BP1 (also known as FOX1), and a module enriched for immune genes and glial markers. Using high-throughput RNA sequencing we demonstrate dysregulated splicing of A2BP1-dependent alternative exons in the ASD brain. Moreover, using a published autism genome-wide association study (GWAS) data set, we show that the neuronal module is enriched for genetically associated variants, providing independent support for the causal involvement of these genes in autism. In contrast, the immune-glial module showed no enrichment for autism GWAS signals, indicating a non-genetic aetiology for this process. Collectively, our results provide strong evidence for convergent molecular abnormalities in ASD, and implicate transcriptional and splicing dysregulation as underlying mechanisms of neuronal dysfunction in this disorder."

 

[Ste11aeres]

Here is the abstract from the original research paper:

"Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a common, highly heritable neurodevelopmental condition characterized by marked genetic heterogeneity. Thus, a fundamental question is whether autism represents an aetiologically heterogeneous disorder in which the myriad genetic or environmental risk factors perturb common underlying molecular pathways in the brain. Here, we demonstrate consistent differences in transcriptome organization between autistic and normal brain by gene co-expression network analysis. Remarkably, regional patterns of gene expression that typically distinguish frontal and temporal cortex are significantly attenuated in the ASD brain, suggesting abnormalities in cortical patterning. We further identify discrete modules of co-expressed genes associated with autism: a neuronal module enriched for known autism susceptibility genes, including the neuronal specific splicing factor A2BP1 (also known as FOX1), and a module enriched for immune genes and glial markers. Using high-throughput RNA sequencing we demonstrate dysregulated splicing of A2BP1-dependent alternative exons in the ASD brain. Moreover, using a published autism genome-wide association study (GWAS) data set, we show that the neuronal module is enriched for genetically associated variants, providing independent support for the causal involvement of these genes in autism. In contrast, the immune-glial module showed no enrichment for autism GWAS signals, indicating a non-genetic aetiology for this process. Collectively, our results provide strong evidence for convergent molecular abnormalities in ASD, and implicate transcriptional and splicing dysregulation as underlying mechanisms of neuronal dysfunction in this disorder."

Yes the article does lean toward that. But if you read the whole article, it also mentions some researchers who have slightly differing views in regards to some things.

 

[Loomis]

My brain hurts I am going to watch a movie on Netflix. Have a good evening Ste11aeres and a nice day tomorrow.

Kind Regards,

Loomis

 

[Spinning Compass]

Doesn't matter whether you like to think it. Pretty sure someone is paying that actress to say the things she does. There is more money to make off sick people than ones who have immunity to certain horrible diseases. That is my rationale. Vaccines are cheap, medicines are not. I didn't say I know "all about it", and I don't see what knowledge of company names or how someone bribes the FDA into approving stuff has to do with being able to make a simple logical connection like that.

But for the future: folks, I am not trying to offer medical advice. I tend to assume the "this is my opinion" bit is implied and that stating it is redundant.

Pardon me, but your ignorance is showing big time. That is NOT how the system works. By making a blanket statement about bribery, and not substantiating who is doing the bribery and how you know this to be a fact, all you are doing is making a fool of yourself to anyone who does know the business. The very fact that you say "I don't see what knowledge of company names or how someone bribes the FDA" has do to with it, tells me that you really don't know what you are talking about and are making it up on the fly. Yes, I am calling you out on this. I do not like it when people spread ignorance about a field that I have given the better part of my life to working in. Come up with the evidence and the names or shut up.

 

[Ylva]

It's not exactly like you are providing links or sources yourself.

 

[Ylva]

And to answer your question, any organisation that does this: Five Ways the FDA Has Failed Consumers on Genetically Engineered Foods

…has lost the right to ask me to trust it on anything.

 

[Spinning Compass]

Well, I am not the one that is making the claim of bribery, which is a very serious claim. I can tell that you know nothing at all about my industry and are just repeating things that you've heard or read from others. Worse yet, you don't even want to know, because your mind is already made up. May I give you a piece of advice (even though I know you won't take it)? Before you express an opinion on something you really don't know about from the inside, be it Big Pharma or anything else, please make sure that your audience is equally ignorant. Otherwise you really do risk being made to look like a fool. I'm not saying this to be mean. Unfortunately because of confidentiality agreements I cannot talk about what I do in detail, which gives me a disadvantage in your eyes. So if you want to think that that makes you more credible on the subject than someone who has spent thirty some years in the business and knows how things are done, then go right ahead. You will impress some people, I am sure. But your "knowledge" does not impress me in the least.

It's not a matter of "trust"; it's a matter of knowing how the system works. If you have no idea (and don't care to find out) how a drug makes its way from initial discovery (do you even know what that term means?) to the IND (again, do you know what that term means?), then I am sorry, what you have to spout regarding the FDA and how it does business is garbage. Pure unadulterated garbage. And anyone like me who knows the procedures is not going to take you seriously. Supposing you were a mechanic and knew car engines inside and out, and someone started criticizing your business. When you question them, you find out they don't know an oilpan from a bedpan. And yet, they have the nerve to get all defensive when you point that they really do not know what they are talking about, that someone who knew about cars should know the difference--they throw up their hands and say, Well, what difference does it make? I know your business is crooked because . . . So, before you can even start talking about whether the FDA or any other organization is trustworthy, you need to know something about it, just like you need to know the difference between an oilpan and a bedpan before you can start telling a mechanic that he or she doesn't know about cars. And that is where you stand right now, not knowing or caring about the difference between an oilpan and a bedpan, but telling me about my industry and where it is going wrong. You don't have that right, not until you start educating yourself. When you can tell me the steps a new drug must take before it is approved, then I will listen to you. Until then, I will not. Now I have to get back to work.