Odd question from another autistic

[WhitewaterWoman]

A simplified description of Polymorphism:

It's actually every pregnant woman's greatest fear - will my baby be normal? The truth is that no baby is "normal" as in a correct copy of the genetic material supplied. Mutations occur in almost every case. If this wasn't true then all of us would be carbon copies of our siblings, looking identical and having identical brains and identical characteristics. Most mutations are small, different coloured eyes or different hair, more freckles. A relatively common mutation is Albinism.

Not quite. In sexual reproduction it is the recombination of the DNA from two parents that produces variety in the offspring, not mutations. Remember each parent has two copies of each gene.

To simplify how this might work in an evolutionary sense consider a large cat living in the wild, it has several kittens from the one mating. Not all of those kittens will be identical. What if one of those kittens had slightly longer legs than it's siblings? If they lived on flat open plains where running speed was an advantage in hunting prey then the cat with longer legs would have an advantage, it would be more likely to survive and pass it's mutated genes on to it's offspring.

If however they lived in a more geologically complicated area such as large boulders, gullies and steep hills then having longer legs would not be an advantage. And if their most common prey was of a type that was likely to fight back then longer legs would be a distinct disadvantage - less power in longer limbs due to extra leverage imposed. In this type of situation the cat with longer legs would be less likely to survive and less likely to have any offspring that would inherit it's genes.

So in short - yes, autism is hereditary, but that doesn't account for all cases. It's also possible for two people with no autism in either of their family's histories to have autistic children.

This would still be a matter of DNA, not mutations, if the genes accounting for autism were recessive and both parents had the recessive genes. This is a much more complicated cross because it is likely that multiple genes are responsible for autism.

 

[Outdated]

Not quite. In sexual reproduction it is the recombination of the DNA from two parents that produces variety in the offspring, not mutations. Remember each parent has two copies of each gene.

I did specify "a simplified description". When you start trying to take in to account all the different factors involved it becomes so complex that it's surprising we manage to procreate at all.

Without polymorphism however, there would be no evolution.

 

[Kit]

Sounds like sloppy wording on his end. Maybe he meant how long you been diagnosed.

 

[WhitewaterWoman]

I did specify "a simplified description". When you start trying to take in to account all the different factors involved it becomes so complex that it's surprising we manage to procreate at all.

Without polymorphism however, there would be no evolution.

I understand. In this case, I worry about the case of a little knowledge being dangerous. We need to know what we don’t know.

 

[Outsider]

Oh, for heaven's sake. If you've studied law on your own, then surely you know that allegations in lawsuits are not evidence. They're just allegations. That's all.

What about the lawsuits that produced positive outcome for the people who brought them up? They are more than just allegations. Both sides brought their expert witnesses and the ones supporting the plaintiffs’ claims have prevailed.

I know how this goes, as an expert witness, I participated in 5 medical malpractice trials (none of them was relevant to autism). First go data analysts like myself, then medical experts. The lawyers who represented victims were medical malpractice lawyers. Environmental lawyers bring up cases of the people who were affected by pesticides, chlorine and other dangerous chemicals.

I haven’t participated in environmental lawsuits, but I know that the court proceedings are the same regarding expert witnesses – statisticians go first and, in the case of environmental lawsuits, go chemists, MDs and occasionally geneticists. Both sides present their findings based on published articles and sometimes their own research (statisticians present their own analysis of pertinent data).

My guess that you, as an expert witness, rather represent environmental pollutions than the victims of their products and chemical waste.

 

[Outsider]

Thank you. It’s good to see the source.

It looks like a very brief description of one human study with significant limitations that was followed by this:

View attachment 141874

Perhaps it would be informative to also consider the prevalence of alcoholism in women with undiagnosed autism and subsequent use during pregnancy.

Yes, there are opposing views about correlation between autism and alcoholism in pregnant women. Some studies deny the existence of correlations, some ascertain it. From my point of view, if someone decides to use alcohol during pregnancy, this is totally on her.
I was kind in a hurry when I was writing my post, so I have chosen not the most convincing argument. I'm more concerned about the correlation between autism and environmental pollution. When I'm not pressed for time, I will provide links to the articles shedding light on this topic.

 

[Mary Terry]

What about the lawsuits that produced positive outcome for the people who brought them up? They are more than just allegations. Both sides brought their expert witnesses and the ones supporting the plaintiffs’ claims have prevailed.

I know how this goes, as an expert witness, I participated in 5 medical malpractice trials (none of them was relevant to autism). First go data analysts like myself, then medical experts. The lawyers who represented victims were medical malpractice lawyers. Environmental lawyers bring up cases of the people who were affected by pesticides, chlorine and other dangerous chemicals.

I haven’t participated in environmental lawsuits, but I know that the court proceedings are the same regarding expert witnesses – statisticians go first and, in the case of environmental lawsuits, go chemists, MDs and occasionally geneticists. Both sides present their findings based on published articles and sometimes their own research (statisticians present their own analysis of pertinent data).

My guess that you, as an expert witness, rather represent environmental pollutions than the victims of their products and chemical waste.

I've practiced law for nearly 40 years, in state and federal courts, most of it as an environmental lawyer representing plaintiffs and in major pharmaceutical products liability claims. I've vetted expert witnesses, direct examined my experts and cross-examined opposing experts on the witness stand in jury trials, argued Daubert motions regarding the admissibility of experts' opinions and whether "experts" really are qualified experts worthy of court consideration, have had opposing experts disqualified by courts, and won a lot of lawsuits and settled a lot of cases when the defendants realize they have a weak defense.

Juries apply the standard of "more likely than not" - not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - in civil litigation. Juries merely find that a preponderance of the evidence supports one side or the other as to whether a particular chemical originated from the defendant, the dose the plaintiff received, the toxicity of the dose, the injuries the plaintiff sustained, whether the injury was caused by the exposure, and how much money would compensate a plaintiff harmed by the defendant. We use scientists and scientific methodologies to determine these things in courts of law.

Juries do not determine if PCBs or PVC or any other potentially toxic substance really cause cancer. They listen to the competing expert opinions, deliberate, and find whether the plaintiff met his/her burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence or not.

Juries don't teach science courses or conduct scientific research and no one - NO ONE - ever cites a jury decision in a scholarly dissertation about toxicity.

 

[Outdated]

Yes, there are opposing views about correlation between autism and alcoholism in pregnant women.

Some people seem to prefer propaganda, fake news and misinformation to hard facts.

Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder is a huge problem in remote parts of Australia. Those children aren't born with autism, they are born severely intellectually handicapped and even as adults they need competent supervision and carers.

What Is FASD? | About Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder | NOFASD Australia

And a side note about pregnant women and alcohol - it's not as evil as you're trying to make out, in moderation. Many years ago I had a friend who was pregnant with her third child and she went in to premature labour at only 7 months. She got to a hospital in time and a doctor gave her a needle that stopped the contractions. Then because it was a hospital in a remote region the doctor asked her how far away from hospital she lived. 1 1/2 to 2 hours away.

Then the doctor told her that the needle he had just given her was diluted ethanol - drinking alcohol. He told her to buy herself a couple of bottles of vodka and have a shot 3 or 4 times a day until she was ready to give birth. It worked. She gave birth to a perfectly healthy and normal little girl at 42 weeks.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

Starting to realize anecdotal evidence and statistical evidence can be one and the same if the anecdote is an anomaly
at the statistical level of 5 sigma or greater. Interesting thought.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

Just got another brain storm, Boolean logic contains the word " but" Orange does not understand this word . Have fun this is a route through the maze. Probably not the answer the neighbour wants, however great for the rest of us.

 

[Outsider]

I've practiced law for nearly 40 years, in state and federal courts, most of it as an environmental lawyer representing plaintiffs and in major pharmaceutical products liability claims. I've vetted expert witnesses, direct examined my experts and cross-examined opposing experts on the witness stand in jury trials, argued Daubert motions regarding the admissibility of experts' opinions and whether "experts" really are qualified experts worthy of court consideration, have had opposing experts disqualified by courts, and won a lot of lawsuits and settled a lot of cases when the defendants realize they have a weak defense.

Juries apply the standard of "more likely than not" - not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - in civil litigation. Juries merely find that a preponderance of the evidence supports one side or the other as to whether a particular chemical originated from the defendant, the dose the plaintiff received, the toxicity of the dose, the injuries the plaintiff sustained, whether the injury was caused by the exposure, and how much money would compensate a plaintiff harmed by the defendant. We use scientists and scientific methodologies to determine these things in courts of law.

Juries do not determine if PCBs or PVC or any other potentially toxic substance really cause cancer. They listen to the competing expert opinions, deliberate, and find whether the plaintiff met his/her burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence or not.

Juries don't teach science courses or conduct scientific research and no one - NO ONE - ever cites a jury decision in a scholarly dissertation about toxicity.

I have a question regarding your participation in autism lawsuits – have you represented families who claim that their members have developed autism due to harmful chemicals?

My second question is based on statistical data.

“The risk of a child being autistic if a parent is autistic is significantly higher than in the general population. While the exact percentage varies depending on the specific study and the family's history, studies indicate that the risk ranges from approximately 20 to 32%” This data is compiled by AI.

The risk is less than 100%.

The following article gives more data on the causes of autism:

Does Autism Run in Families?

Does Autism Run in Families?
According to the article, the answer is “Yes”. But this is not my question. The article indicates that the chance of autism in certain groups of families is never 100%.

To me it seems logical to conclude that there are causes of autism other than hereditary in addition to the hereditary ones.

Would you agree that not all causes of autism are hereditary?

Jurors are not experts in the medical field and neither am I, although my statistical training allows me to establish a correlation between unsafe medications and internal injuries (I testified in the supplement cases and an unsafe dental procedure). There is loophole in the US laws that allows supplements to enter the market without FDA approval.

I haven’t participated in environmental trials, but I know that the lawyers representing victims use scientific data in the form of articles and testimonies of experts in the field to support their case. I never had a problem of understanding medical research articles, and I think that the majority of jurors can understand them well.

You mentioned “preponderance of evidence”. I know what it means. To some people a solid statistical data is a preponderance of evidence, but not to me. Probability theory doesn’t establish the cause-and-effect relationship, it only shows a correlation between two variables. If a correlation is strong enough with the correlation coefficient close to 1 or -1, then there is a good reason to conduct further investigation without relying on probability theory. In this case I rely on physiological and genetics article data establishing a causal relationship between a disease and its causes.

 

[Outsider]

A simplified description of Polymorphism:

It's actually every pregnant woman's greatest fear - will my baby be normal? The truth is that no baby is "normal" as in a correct copy of the genetic material supplied. Mutations occur in almost every case. If this wasn't true then all of us would be carbon copies of our siblings, looking identical and having identical brains and identical characteristics. Most mutations are small, different coloured eyes or different hair, more freckles. A relatively common mutation is Albinism.

To simplify how this might work in an evolutionary sense consider a large cat living in the wild, it has several kittens from the one mating. Not all of those kittens will be identical. What if one of those kittens had slightly longer legs than it's siblings? If they lived on flat open plains where running speed was an advantage in hunting prey then the cat with longer legs would have an advantage, it would be more likely to survive and pass it's mutated genes on to it's offspring.

If however they lived in a more geologically complicated area such as large boulders, gullies and steep hills then having longer legs would not be an advantage. And if their most common prey was of a type that was likely to fight back then longer legs would be a distinct disadvantage - less power in longer limbs due to extra leverage imposed. In this type of situation the cat with longer legs would be less likely to survive and less likely to have any offspring that would inherit it's genes.

So in short - yes, autism is hereditary, but that doesn't account for all cases. It's also possible for two people with no autism in either of their family's histories to have autistic children.

"So in short - yes, autism is hereditary, but that doesn't account for all cases. It's also possible for two people with no autism in either of their family's histories to have autistic children."

It is possible that autistic parents don't have autistic children.

I didn't rule out hereditary causes of autism completely; there are neurological variations pertinent to several forms of autism, as I wrote at a different thread. At the same time statistical data indicates that the majority of the forms of autism are not hereditary.

 

[Crossbreed]

@Outsider, not everyone who compiles these statistics agrees on the definition of autism. So many sources only mean ASD2 & 3.

Sites like this one include ASD1, which is not considered to be pathological.

 

[Outdated]

It is possible that autistic parents don't have autistic children.

Possible but highly unlikely if both parents are autistic.

Myself and my brother and sister are all autistic. Our father is autistic. His father was autistic. It seems to be a dominant genetic line in our family, all of us kids also have blue eyes where as my mother's side of the family all have brown eyes. I never had any kids but my brother and sister did. My brother's only daughter is autistic. My sister has two daughters, one of them is autistic and the other isn't.

It might make an interesting poll, to find out how many members of this forum believe that at least one of their parents was also autistic.

On Monday I'm donating genetic samples to a study being carried out in Australia to try and determine the exact genetic traits that are associated with several different types of neurodivergence. I'm looking forward to seeing what comes from this. It's possible that in the future we could be diagnosed from a simple cheek swab instead of trusting the word of dodgy psychologists.

"Briefly, the aim of this research project is to establish a ‘recall by genotype’ (RbG) cohort in South Australia who will consent to: (i) provide a biosample for the purposes of generating and storing their personal genotype data, and (ii) be recontacted, or ‘recalled’, to participate in future research studies based on their genetic data. Generally, these future studies would be aiming to investigate the impact of genetics on human traits. My personal interest is in the mental health area, but in principle, the RbG cohort could be used to investigate a wide variety of traits of interest."

 

[Mary Terry]

@Outsider - In the early 1980's I was retained by some parents of autistic children to explore the possibility that childhood vaccinations caused autism. I collected baby teeth and hair from babies' first haircut from those parents who had them, in case some kind of testing would become available and useful. I looked at the research, spoke with respected researchers and physicians, and concluded that there was no admissible scientific evidence that vaccines cause autism and explained it to my clients when I terminated my representation of them for that purpose.

I don't know what causes autism. It may have multiple possible causes and contributing factors. But the statistical evidence is compelling that autism runs in families.

About jurors. They usually are just ordinary, common people, often uneducated, often with their own biases. A skillful attorney - and skillful experts' testimony - teaches them in a manner that they can understand.

"Preponderance of the evidence" is a legal standard, not a scientific standard.

 

[WhitewaterWoman]

Information for a jury or the general population is dumbed down often to the point of being wrong.

 

[Hypnalis]

Starting to realize anecdotal evidence and statistical evidence can be one and the same if the anecdote is an anomaly
at the statistical level of 5 sigma or greater. Interesting thought.

This is true OFC ... but knowing that an event is 5 standard deviations away from the mean implies enough knowledge of the domain to quantify the frequency.
This is a lot more than the common annoying claims based on making up obviously low-probability (possibly zero-probability) scenarios to prove or disprove a claim.

A rhetorical example I use IRL sometimes:

Q1: What is the probability of "intelligent life" (assuming that humans are actually intelligent) in the universe.
Clearly the answer is 100%.
Q2: What is the probability of other "intelligent life" than earth-human in the universe?
Correct answer: Unknown. You can't make any further inferences from a single, self-selecting data point.

Yet a lot of people, many of whom should know better, make estimates based on unprovable assumptions /lol.

Here's where you can get to if you play the game of "zeroes and infinities":
Zeno's paradoxes - Wikipedia
Boltzmann brain - Wikipedia

The first stops time (so it's a "hidden zero" trick.
The second assumes infinite time is worth taking seriously at human time scales.

 

[Hypnalis]

"So in short - yes, autism is hereditary, but that doesn't account for all cases. It's also possible for two people with no autism in either of their family's histories to have autistic children."

It is possible that autistic parents don't have autistic children.

I didn't rule out hereditary causes of autism completely; there are neurological variations pertinent to several forms of autism, as I wrote at a different thread. At the same time statistical data indicates that the majority of the forms of autism are not hereditary.

You keep making mistakes that disprove your assertions.

This is false in several ways (only one of which I'll address here):

At the same time statistical data indicates that the majority of the forms of autism are not hereditary.

The one that's already been pointed out already is that ASD is known (with 100% certainty) to be more than 50% hereditary.


This one is true, but it does not directly support your environment-centric positions:

It is possible that autistic parents don't have autistic children.

You've mentioned statistical training, but your posts suggest you have a lot to learn.

Just for the record:

* Mutagenic chemicals exist. It's not impossible that some cases of ASD are exacerbated by, or even caused by them.
* Random mutations occur in humans, and almost certainly affect the presence of, or severity of, some cases of ASD.

It looks to me that you have some valid points. But so far you've based your arguments on false claims, which makes it impossible to accept your conclusions, and not worth checking your sources.

I suggest you look at what you're doing as an exception to an exception in a domain where the data is incomplete, difficult to analyze, and obfuscated by "people with an agenda" who "spin" their data and conclusions.

As far as I can make out, what you're trying to show (or perhaps discuss?) is real, but one among many contributory causes of ASD. But you're approaching it from the wrong angle (for example by implying that your favorite subset is much more common than the data shows).

You'll never find a comfortingly simple cause and effect relationship working from the top down.

Why not start from your preferred area of interest, given that it's very probably real, instead?

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

I have my own take on zeno's paradox see my physics thread. no such thing as absolute length.

 

[RemyZee]

Possible but highly unlikely if both parents are autistic.

Myself and my brother and sister are all autistic. Our father is autistic. His father was autistic. It seems to be a dominant genetic line in our family, all of us kids also have blue eyes where as my mother's side of the family all have brown eyes. I never had any kids but my brother and sister did. My brother's only daughter is autistic. My sister has two daughters, one of them is autistic and the other isn't.

It might make an interesting poll, to find out how many members of this forum believe that at least one of their parents was also autistic.

On Monday I'm donating genetic samples to a study being carried out in Australia to try and determine the exact genetic traits that are associated with several different types of neurodivergence. I'm looking forward to seeing what comes from this. It's possible that in the future we could be diagnosed from a simple cheek swab instead of trusting the word of dodgy psychologists.

"Briefly, the aim of this research project is to establish a ‘recall by genotype’ (RbG) cohort in South Australia who will consent to: (i) provide a biosample for the purposes of generating and storing their personal genotype data, and (ii) be recontacted, or ‘recalled’, to participate in future research studies based on their genetic data. Generally, these future studies would be aiming to investigate the impact of genetics on human traits. My personal interest is in the mental health area, but in principle, the RbG cohort could be used to investigate a wide variety of traits of interest."

My two brothers, 3 of my nephews and most likely both of my grandparents were autistic. One of the main things I remember about both of them is that they almost never talked, so they were a good fit. But with autism at 1 in every 36 people, I do wonder if part of the problem is that people are calling Environmental conditions or injuries autism--when that's not really what they are if we really do define autism as a genetic condition. If someone has a child with fetal alcohol syndrome, that's what they have--,even though they might have qualities of autism. It doesn't really help to not percieve the
difference in what's caused by what's environmental and what's caused by hereditary. I'm sure some people can appear autistic when they aren't. And it does damage because an environmental conditions and autism may need to be treated differently.