Ummm, if you ever wonder if the AoAers get genetics, no?

A frequent refrain of AoAers and those certain it must have been vaccines that caused their child's autism is that no one in the family has autism, so it can't be genetic. This has always struck me as an obvious indicator that they're clueless, especially when it's one of them posters who you've read alot and you can clearly see the the autism phenotype shining through. But, they love to go on that you can't have genetic epidemics, and other nonsense (at various levels).

Some of their comments over there just have me rolling: "Yet when I look at the parents of all these kids with "genetic" problems, I really don't see parents with the same "genetic" problems. PhD parents with kids who can't spell, can't do math facts, can't sit still, have trouble learning to read? Athletic parents with kids who can't learn to ride a bike or run half a mile? Famous actors with kids who can't speak? Sure genetics could explain all these events, once in a while. But mutations really aren't that common, and Mendel's laws of inheritance must surely still apply generally."

Hahahaha, I mean, really, and they wonder why they're not taken seriously?

There are genes that are additive; the number of additive genes a person gets depends on the genes he gets from his parents. These additive genes add (get it?) to the phenotype. Here's the thing. There's something called epistasis in which these genes interact in ways to produce traits that are not common to any ancestor. OMG!

Do you get it, AoAers? Something I teach in lifespan explains how autism could in fact increase in the population over time. Go figure. Is there probably something environmental going on? Well, yeah, researchers have known that the in utero environment and diseases and teratogens encountered contribute to the development of autism, but you don't listen. You butcher science instead. You assume you understand something as incredibly complex as genetics all while proving that like Tim the Toolman Taylor (Home Improvement was a hell of a show), you take in a little bit of information and butcher it to hell and back, missing the point entirely. And like Tim, you are steadfast in your conviction that you understand something you don't.

And this one: "I know of quite a few children who teetered on the brink of developing autism and somehow righted themselves. Some who virtually no signs of the medical plight, some have residual symptoms which don't appear to relate to autism-- some symptoms relate but only faintly. Reading problems, "spaciness", occasional tantrums and seizures seem to be the big "hold overs". Sometimes we notice traces of ptosis-- eyelids that droop on the outside corners, which may relate to ongoing mitochondrial issues and is tremendously common in autism."

Teetered on it, huh? Wow. I think, having read too many of this person's comments, that someone's into woo and that guy, dang it, whose name escapes me, who's selling autism and other conditions as vaccine injury, and it's all in the eyes. You know who I'm talking about. Shoot. If it weren't late, I'd go hunting for the website.

1 comment:

David said...

I see a fundamental problem with talk of "losing autism". Autism is defined, at least in part, as a path of development. By that standard, it could be said that a child with autistic characteristics who converges with "NT" pathways is still autistic. The analogy that comes to my mind is convergences of marsupial and placental animals, like the "Tasmanian wolf" and actual canines.