• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

do you think autism is genetic?

I never said they weren't diagnosed with something. They had a diagnosis - it just wasn't Autism, when it should have been but it wasn't because they didn't fit Kanner's criteria. Does that make it clearer? The query about meeting an ASD3 is irrelevant here for this reason.

Co-morbids are not Autism. They are called co-morbid for a reason - they need to be treated separate to Autism, not as part of it.
 
Co-morbids are not Autism. They are called co-morbid for a reason - they need to be treated separate to Autism, not as part of it.
They are not autism to you & me, but they are to those who are incompetent about autism. They are wrongly calling severe co-morbids autism. No one is in special education who has autism without severe co-morbids, a.k.a. ASD1. The defining distinction between "short-bus" & "long-bus" autism is the presence or absence of said severe co-morbids.
 
And it has nothing to do with Autism as you say - and it's what we should be going with no matter what anyone who says otherwise claims. Most of those who claim the co-morbids as part of Autism are people who seek to make society scared of Autism, while the rest insist on making Autism a wholly medical issue. It's wrong and we both know that. And ASD1's can have issues with co-morbid conditions. I know that I am starting to have minor eyesight issues - which is totally normal for someone my age. But it is interfering with my mental health as I have to re-adjust. Not in a major way, but enough to be something to consider. That's co-morbidity.
 
Co-morbidity is co-morbidity. Severity levels are a separate thing again. It's important not to conflate these things on a sliding scale because it will only cause confusion - and leave gaps for our enemies to exploit.
 
Acknowledging a subsequent brain injury is not a concession. I would that all autistics --a form of neuro-diversity-- be healthy autistics.
 
An overload (get it right) is not an injury - unless the overload isn't dealt with.
Overload?
Autistics (and gifteds) are prone to having immune dysregulation. That gives us a predisposition to various subsequent anaphylactic injuries that have no such effect on NTs.
 
No that is not correct at all. That is junk science that is put out by our enemies - connecting epilepsy to Autism as an example. Please don't do that. It's offensive.

Overload means sensory overload - as we are sensory sensitive.
 
No that is not correct at all. That is junk science that is put out by our enemies - connecting epilepsy to Autism as an example. Please don't do that. It's offensive.

Overload means sensory overload - as we are sensory sensitive.
Not epilepsy. It is the hypothesis of pediatric neurologist Martha Herbert.
Recognizing immune dysregulation in people who are autistic at birth is in no way offensive. It just points to a contraindication. Do not attempt to politicize this important health issue.
 
Last edited:
There are three main views about autism.
  1. All autism is bad (like Autism Speaks);
  2. All autism is good; and
  3. There is a healthy form of autism [ASD1] and an injured form [ASD2/3].
#3 is not an affront. That dichotomy is more clear in the ICD-11.
 
Last edited:
Not epilepsy. It is the hypothesis of pediatric neurologist Martha Herbert.
Recognizing immune dysregulation in people who are autistic at birth is in no way offensive. It just points to a contraindication. Do not politicize this important health issue.
Herbert's solution is diet - she supports the GFCF diet to treat Autism. She is talking outside her qualifications and should not be heeded in this space at all. It' the very junk science I was talking about.

And there is the fourth option - which is the correct one.

4. Autism is how you make it and how others make it

Invoking the ICD is an affront. It is for diseases. ASD2/3 is not injured. ASD2/3 is sensory overloaded.
 
I think the causes could be genetic, or both genetic and environmental. Almost all human and animal characteristics have a genetic basis, which has not yet been discovered. Genetics is everywhere. An autistic person may have neurotypical siblings and parents, perhaps carriers of autism, and have other autistic relatives in previous generations
 
Herbert's solution is diet...
Herbert's solution is diet for some symptoms, but not for persistent cognitive dysfunction.
Invoking the ICD is an affront. It is for diseases. ASD2/3 is not injured. ASD2/3 is sensory overloaded.
Invoking the ICD-11 is no different than invoking the DSM-5, from whence ASD comes.

You seem to hold view #2 above, while I subscribe to view #3. We will just have to agree to disagree.
 

New Threads

Top Bottom