Possible Cure For Autism

"Ninereeds" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Feb 23, 3:41 pm, "Jeff" wrote:
" vernon" stilthere@athere wrote in message

So, you assume the retarded or uncivilized or undeveloped or early
evolution must have been black?

People evolved in Africa before they migrated to other parts of the
world.

Jeff *may* be right to point out that those early Africans were not
necessarily black.

Modern native north Africans are Arabs, and not black. The evidence
suggests that modern humans first evolved somewhere near the East
coast of Africa. North and East clearly overlap.

That said, the greatest genetic diversity in our species can be found
in black Africans. And there is also evidence for an evolutionary
'bottleneck' - we lack genetic diversity because our ancestors nearly
went extinct around the time that modern humans evolved. This suggests
that everyone alive today is descended from a very small population of
black Africans around (IIRC) 100 thousand years ago. The modern non-
black races descend from a relatively small subgroup of that
population (the people who migrated), which is why our genetic
diversity is relatively small.

So, in a way, you are both right. You can't just assume our ancestors
were black just because they were African, but nonetheless we know
from other evidence that they almost certainly were.

Not that I agree with Vernons clumsy attempt to discredit you by
accusing you of racism, but there you go.

As for the whole is-autism-a-disease thing, my view is that the
symptoms most directly link to brain injury rather than a disease. But
at the same time, that brain injury may be caused by any of a number
of things, including viral disease processes and genetic disease
processes.

I say 'genetic disease' not just because the problematic combinations
of genes are relatively unusual, but because the resulting symptoms
include real disabilities.

Consider mental retardation. As I'm British, if I was being
politically correct, I'd say 'learning disabilities', but that term is
ambiguous so I won't.

The guideline IQ cutoff for mental retardation is 70. This doesn't
define mental retardation, since there are criteria relating to
practical functioning, but nevertheless the IQ cutoff is significant.

Given the bell curve shape of the IQ distribution, it seems that
mental retardation cannot be considered a disease - its just a part of
the normal variation of human ability. Just as being a genius (with,
by the principle of symmetry, an IQ of over 130) isn't considered a
disease.

But that bell curve is artificially imposed. If you graph the
distribution of actual IQ scores for a sufficiently large population,
you will see that there is a small peak centered around IQ 30 - an
extra bell-curve superimposed on the main one. This bump seems to
represent those who are mentally retarded due to brain injury or
disease.

So many cases of mental retardation (particularly people with IQs
above about 50) result from the normal variation of the human species,
but many others result from brain injury or brain disease. And there
is no reliable way to separate them - and probably no reason to do so
either. They all have the same kinds of problems, and they all need
the same kinds of help.

Similar logic can apply to things like being short - as likely a
result of dietary deficiencies and other environmental factors as it
is a result of genetics.

The same thing probably applies to autism. It may well be possible to
have autism as part of the normal variation in social ability - one
extreme end of a bell curve. But there is already plenty of evidence
stacked up for brain injury and brain disease also causing autism.
Either way, the needs are the same, and the only reason for
identifying the specific mechanism is in order to give treatments that
prevent injury/disease based autism from getting worse.

So again, I think you're both partly right - genetic causes doesn't
necessarily make autism a disease, just because the relevant
combinations of genes are unusual, but for many if not most of us it
almost certainly is anyway.


My point is.

If a cause of a "disease" is found, a cure follows.

A genetic difference is NOT a disease. My point was that blacks do not have
a "disease", just because they are black.
The reason I referenced blacks, beyond the bigot's comprehension, was his
reference to sickle cell anemia. Guess where that base gene runs.

Another point: A symptom is NOT a disease. Several diseases may exhibit
the same or similar symptoms.

The worst example is the "generic" use of the word "cancer".
Well maybe the worst example is "follow the money"

In message , Vernon wrote:

My point is.

If a cause of a "disease" is found, a cure follows.

A genetic difference is NOT a disease.

Tay-Sachs.

--
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |
| e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions --------------+

On Feb 20, 11:48 pm, "Raving" wrote:
On Feb 20, 7:12 pm, "Jan Drew" wrote:

http://science.slashdot.org/article..../02/19/2252244

Possible Cure For Autism

Henry V .009 writes ...

I'm Henry the 5th I am
Henry the 5th, I am, I am
I got married to the widow next door
She's been married seven times before
And every one was an Henry (Henry)
She wouldn't have a Willy or a Sam (no Sam)
I'm her eighth old man, I'm Henry
Henry the fifth I am

~ HH

and HAND :-)

HA! I just heard that on an oldie station locally...lol

Kerry