I am just coming back from an Autism Research Institute Think Tank. I was happy to see many old friends there and to make new ones. The Think Tank has a nondisclosure agreement which does not allow me to disclose details as to any of the presentations or expand on the discussions. This means that unfortunately, I will have to sidestep any of the information I gained while there.
I have been asked to give my opinion on the recent CDC report of an increased prevalence of autism among a select cohort of children within our population. I do believe that the increase in prevalence is real. My own practice and contact with diagnosed individuals extends back to the late 1970’s while performing a mandatory rotation in Pediatrics during my medical school years. It was then that I saw my first child with a diagnosis of autism. My next patient would have to wait several years. Textbooks at the time described the condition as rare, probably only 1 in 10,000 children being so affected. Indeed, I remember reading that the condition was so infrequent that, statistically speaking, I could expect to see only 2 children with the diagnosis during my whole career. This has dramatically changed over the past few decades and can’t be explained away by an expansion in diagnostic criteria or increased awareness. People performing the latest CDC screenings are the same who performed the previous screening, and the ones before that. Neither their perception of the condition nor diagnostic criteria have changed in the last few years. Still, for those people who like data rather than personal opinions, they can read the literature and examine studies such as those coming from the MIND Institute and Irva Hertz-Picciotto. As an aside, I was able to review the records from a state institution in Kentucky whose patients were wards of the state. The patients, both males and females, stayed there from childhood. When I visited the institution, the youngest inmate was in his 40’s as the institution stopped accepting patients years ago. From the many records that we were allowed to examine we could only establish a diagnosis of autism (or change the same from another diagnosis) in about 10 cases, a very small minority of the total. A long time ago, with present day criteria, you had fewer patients with the diagnosis.
I think that our country is facing a health crisis in regards to autism. I could say the same thing about other pressing health problems like gun violence (13,000 deaths per year), suicide (22,000 deaths per year), and opioid addiction (59,000 death per year). Previously I argued that other institutions besides the CDC should be tracking the prevalence (How to follow the rising prevalence rates of autism: an epidemic or a health-related disaster?). However, I do not belittle the role of the CDC. Their work gave rise to laws for protecting the population from the risks of smoking and driving without wearing seat belts. If I have criticisms about the CDC is that they are markedly conservative in their explanations and recommendations. I am not sure if this has all to do with appeasement of the Neurodiversity Community and thus avoiding the use of the word “prevention”. However, when dealing with epidemics, prevention seems to be the alternative of choice when looking to the future. When considering prevention some key initiatives of federal institutions should be identifying the population at risk, researching mechanisms to limit exposure, and minimizing the hazards related to exposure of risk factors- be it environmental or genetic. Ignorance kills and that is the state of knowledge as of present. Unfortunately, the federal government and other funding institutions have seemingly disregarded these initiatives in favor of funding studies (e.g., genetics) that have no bearing on improving the life of patients. On those occasions when there has been a possibility to change this status quo, funding committees are flooded with Neurodiversity proponents that challenge both research and progress. It is sad to say that I do not foresee major changes in the near future.
I put up my website conradsimon.org in April 2000. I soon received many emails asking how soon after birth my son’s umbilical cord was clamped. He was on the other side of the delivery room, white as a sheet.
In the mid 1980s a horrific medical error was made a standard practice, the mandate to clamp the umbilical cord immediately after birth. By the early 1990s the autism rate was beginning to increase.
Cutting off blood-flow from the placenta before it is redirected to the lungs is a catastrophe. Boys are 5:1 more likely to need resuscitation than girls; the metabolism of males is higher throughout life. Asphyxia at birth damages the auditory pathway in the midbrain, which may impede language development.
I have tried for years to point out the dangers of clamping off placental blood-flow before onset of breathing. I will continue to try to point out the error of clamping the umbilical cord.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Some interesting ideas from Eileen there. But as a principal explanation of the autism increase, I would raise at least two objections.
Firstly, there is a clear major involvement of mercury in most of modern autism, as evidenced in Chapter 3 at http://www.pseudoexpertise.com. It’s not clear how that would result from cord clamping.
Secondly, the data from the Autism Research Institute (Figure 3.1. etc in that Chapter 3) indicates that the increase has been mainly of late-onset autism, which seems less likely to be a result of clamping and more likely a result of regular (cumulative) inhaling of local mercury vapor from birth onwards.
And then there is the alternative, positive evidence that the autism increase has been caused by mercury vapor from non-gamma-2 amalgams, and the resulting confirmed prediction that an increase of mercury-type adult disability would occur concurrently (Figure 5), and further prediction of mercury disability increase 120 yrs earlier due to the original introduction of amalgams – again confirmed with Figure 7.
That’s not to say that that is the entire cause of autism, or that cord clamping has not caused any harm or even autism. And, by the way, I have argued that autism is not something “gone wrong” anyway (with which ironically the most fanatical neurodiversity people would agree!), but rather just a position on a dimension of individual differences. Such that looking for a “bad2 thing is not necessarily the way to go anyway.
PS: I notice that Manuel here states his personal observation of the reality of the autism increase (even though I didn’t think he’d be old enough to have noticed!). So we can add his testimony to that of Bernard Rimland, Lisa Blakemore-Brown, and Sally J Rogers, quite a collection of notables I would suggest! (I will never be in a position to add myself to the list, as while my own autism “research” has spanned 36 years, it has all been done in libraries or their modern equivalent.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
As always you are both kind and wise.
Has anyone done a breakdown of newly diagnosed children,as to just where they are on the spectrum,and how many are in each of the subgroups on the spectrum?I think such a study would be very valuable.
Manuel,do you believe the autism spectrum has been expanded too much,in favor of the very high functioning?I am among those who suspect it may have been,that it was probably a mistake to consider Aspergers a form of autism,rather than its own distinct condition.I do wonder how much of the growth in autism has been at this end of the spectrum,even in children.I would argue that people like Ari Ne’eman,or your friend John Elder Robison,may rightfully deserve DSM diagnosis,but maybe it ought to have been something other than autism.My criticism isn’t so much with individual people,like this,who have gotten an autism diagnosis,but with those who have set the diagnostic criteria in the first place.The diagnostic criteria is so broad,with so few characteristics needed for a diagnosis,it’s no wonder the numbers of those diagnosed on the spectrum continues to grow.
I was diagnosed as a child in 1971,so I have a very different picture of what autism is.My mother’s advocacy was what kept me from being institutionalized.I had serious developmental and learning disabilities,but not classic intellectual disability.Self-injury,wandering,multiple regressions due to underlying metabolic and immune diseases,and more.In 2016-17,I was finally diagnosed with an extremely rare,possibly unique,genetic disorder,that may be the root cause of everything.I have close family members on the spectrum too,as disabled as I am,but in different ways.I do believe we might be better off had the diagnostic criteria for autism remained where it was in the 1970s,and new and independent diagnoses had been created for those who did not meet the classic autism criteria.
I do not know of studies subtyping newly diagnosed children. I agree with you that the criteria has been heavily expanded and that high functioning individuals previously diagnosed as Asperger should not have been joined with autism in general. As I have said before, veru interesting subjects-please consider wirting a blog on the subject.
What should high functioning be classified as? Autism type 1? With severe as autism type 2? The “autismus” is quite there even if it is not as severe. I believe in the change in the DSM 5 of ranking it by severity.
Hans, I consider the entire field of autism diagnostic categories to be laughable. An excerpt of Chapter 2 of my book explains part of why. (I also consider the concept of “disorder” to lack evidential justification.)
Oh, but!…..surely the researchers are merely using the terminology officially established in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual), as they should? But this notion is incorrect. The researchers are supposed to be the leading edge of understanding. It is the DSM that is supposed to be following the researchers rather than the other way round. And furthermore, the DSM is very far from being the uncontroversial, evidence-based tome of accumulated competence which it tends to be assumed to be. The book Cracked by James Davies (2013) does a good job of discussing the not-so-impressive reality underlying the DSM. And even the chairman of DSM-3, Allen Frances, came out of retirement to publish a similarly scathing condemnation of DSM-5.
The DSM is profoundly misconceived in another respect. It is trying to serve three distinct purposes and ends up serving none properly. We need:
(a) A (“scientific”) answer to the everyday question of “what is (the proper definition of) autistic”? (or “how does autism manifest itself?”);
(b) A working criterion for researchers to use to sort people into “autistic” and “control” in their studies, for instance studying whether autistic people have longer fingers than controls;
(c) A working criterion for clinicians and administrators to decide who should qualify for disability services and support.
And there is no reason why those three things should be anything like identical. Indeed the latter criterion would properly take major account of the practical impact of any disabilities, which is certainly not any proper part of the other two.
So rather than lumping people into categories (except for those purposes b and c), one should describe them in terms of scores (of autisticness, social disablement, communication, etc).
A bit amusing in this connection was my attempt to get the NHS to make a mercury poisoning diagnosis. While it emerged that the NHS was incapable of diagnosing mercury (arguably the most important factor in psychiatric morbidity), they very enthusiastically moved in the direction of an “autism” diagnosis (in accordance with their underhand agenda of “discovering” the mythical “lost generation” of older “autistic” people (in reality just shy or independent-minded people), so as to pretend the autism increase hadn’t really happened). In this connection I was sent Simon B-C’s questionable questionnaire. As I could easily guess all the answers anyway, I returned it giving myself a 100% empathy (non-autistic) score. Sadly I never heard back and there was no comment in the medical notes.
> “Has anyone done a breakdown of newly diagnosed children,as to just where they are on the spectrum,and how many are in each of the subgroups on the spectrum?I think such a study would be very valuable.”
It is liable to be confounded in that those diagnosed young would tend to be the more severe, while those diagnosed late (and often falsely to pretend autism has not increased) would tend to be less severe or not really autistic at all.
> “Manuel,do you believe the autism spectrum has been expanded too much,in favor of the very high functioning?I”
Ok, I am not Manuel, but I am a cheeky etc, so will say that I suspect that the same mercury which has caused the autism increase, and also caused the higher ratio of late onset, has probably also caused relatively more less disabled, and thus a shift of the distribution towards the less disabled, so that there are now far more “very high functioning” individuals than prior to the 1980s. This would seem to tend to imply that those who have less evidence of mercury involvement or more evidence of genomic involvement, will tend to be the more severe cases. Some PhD-qualified expert could check this out….. Not that anyone cares!
Okay, the diagnostic criteria is flawed, admittedly too many people who have a touch of autismus get diagnosed. I concede that, however there are people who are higher functioning like me who got an aspergers diagnosis (though I don’t even fit neatly in that category, my testing showed I was spectrum but my symptoms were not spread out evenly, and some things are flipped, I have poor inhibition but intact flexibility, it’s normally the opposite) who are legitemately disabled, and do belong diagnosed.
But there is enough in common that people who used to be diagnosed aspergers/pddnos who are with clinical symptoms that they do deserve some diagnosis. And aspergers, pdd-nos, etc. all do share things in common that they are related. I suggest like the bipolar classification into type I and type II as an example, the DSM 5 inclusing of social pragmatic disorder is an example of the laughableness you mention.
And even with aspergers, ppdnos, classic autism, atypical, and all the old classifications, there are people inbetween who don’t occupy a clear type. It wasn’t only autism, the 5 subtypes of schizophrenia were removed too and lumped together. They now say “schizophrenia but with added paranoia/catatonia etc. That could be a better method for autism spectrum disorder classifcation. Autism disorder without speech delay for example.
I think it is applied too loosely to some that even Anthony Hopkins was diagnosed on the spectrum, and so is Dan Akroyd, and I don’t doubt based on videos of them they have a “dash”, but it is not disabling. Meanwhile I would let Chris Packham/John Robison have it since it is affecting functioning. It’s hard to explain, we may not be disagreeing but misunderstanding eachother.
Hans, I agree with you that the “diagnoses” are all very mixed up and not just in respect of autism. Thing is that people make careers out of inventing these words and then publishing articles and even books about “Xyz Syndrome”. “Dr Globbs has written the definitive text about Xyz Syndrome”.
The Figure 3.7 in Chapter 2 at http://www.pseudoexpertise.com leads me to conclude that just about all this aut, schiz, and bipolar are all just variations on an epidemic of mercury poisoning that started 180 years ago. As Hal Huggins said, mercury poisoning produces a different “disease” depending on which nerve it zaps first”.
Hans,” admittedly too many people who have a touch of autismus get diagnosed”
– I don’t think I said that anywhere. What would be the “correct” number being “diagnosed”? I don’t believe there is a non-arbitrary distinction line between those who have and those who have not. Like if you have IQ below xx then you “have” “low IQ”. No, you just have that score.
“I have close family members [….],as disabled as I am,but in different ways.”
— The random element in autism, as was explained in the antiinnatia theory.
Manuel, I googled a bit about rTMS and ASD, (off topic), it seems it’s dropped off the headlines and media. I don’t think anyone wants to look into it anymore, my psychiatrist has even said “it won’t be effective, no use” but he doesn’t realize there is more than one way it can be used, different frequencies, different target areas, different durations. Big pharma has 20x of different antidepressants and they say “try another one” but TMS is already there, so there is nowhere to go?
It is depressing to feel help is not on the way, that breakthroughs won’t happen simply because there is no interest, no desire for funding, and people are preventing it intentionally. And funding and support is based on agendas outside what will help. Minicolumns and rTMS don’t interest certain people or conflicts with their beliefs or the status quo. (Such as admitting autism is a disorder, that it is not a natural way the brain develops, that it is not a static unchanging stable condition, hence they there is no areas or need of treatment therefore nothing is there to treat. Or it’s genetic, if there are too many mutations, nothing can be done, that’s just how the brain is, give some stuff for “comorbidities” and forget about it, and it isn’t going up so no need to worry, there is no motivation to solve the crisis like polio in the early 20th century.)
I feel grief and resentment that the ND movement, and the stubborn misconceptions of science have prevented progress, that there could be treatments that would be available right now helping me and making life easier for those around me, whatever they are. I feel self pity that years go by the way I am now with nothing to ease or provide relief from this condition and that more will come.
I imagine you feel a feeling, seeing millions of lives without anything on the horizon to make a difference for them with dismay, with so much holding things back. Things holding back your own leads and ability to make progress and helping others.
“there could be treatments that would be available right now helping me”
How much selenium do you have? Could try selenomethionine 200mcg, or 400mcg/day. That might be too much or too little. A blood test of selenium (available from City Hospital in uk) may or may not be useful. The science does not appear to be well developed in this arena, beyond certainty that Se is the prime antidote to Hg or more accurately Hg zaps the Se and Se-containing molecules.
Robin, do you know anything about aluminum nanoparticles playing a role? A relative told me about them, saying they cross the blood brain barrier. He also mentioned barium and strontium. I am no geologist, I don’t know about minerals. Any thoughts?
I share your feelings and add a lot of frustration to the mix. I have fought for a phase II trial of TMS and autism now for well over a decade. The only thing I have gotten out of the federal government is frustration, no help nor guidance. It is a pity that so much money is being diverted to initiatives that won’t change the quality of life of patients. Thanks for your comments. You should consider writing a blog about your own thoughts and experiences.
Have you looked outside the USA?
There has to be something that can be done.
Otherwise, right now, that’s it, it’s over. No hope. Maybe it already is over. We don’t have society or anyone on our side at least. With other disorders, they get some comfort knowing people can understand and give validation.
Autism speaks is dead, spectrumnews has gone neurodiverse, nothing left. More and more CNN and news articles celebrating ND. People berating me and others, even outright attacking for not holding those beliefs.
I want someone to tell me this isn’t true, they will not win, progress will happen, people’s lives will change in the coming decade, or year, month, week, tommorow a big blow will happen to this farce. This is all an illusion, deceit, something big is coming.
I though the revelations of Asperger’s atrocities would deal a blow, shake things up, and cause disillusionment, but they didn’t budge a bit.
Manuel, what now? This is not rhetorical, do you have any plans? Anyone?
This must be how the French felt in 1940, except everyone is morally supporting the Germans in this case, and condone it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A counterattack needs to happens, everyone here, continue debating, continue fighting with your words, get out there, find allies in other countries, build connection, Manuel, Robin, Roger, Johnathan, everyone.
Manuel I remember you had a powerpoint demonstration, keep going, keep going to talks, be known. If we all go down, keep a spark lit so even if a hundred generations from now they too will someday fall.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Re Hans here, I wonder if this is over-panicking. The NAS in uk describes autism as a “disability”
The majority of researchers still characterise autism as a “disorder” in line with the conventional terminology of “ASD”.
Meanwhile there is a current trend in latest-thingy circles to “celebrate” autism. But these things can pass. For instance after decades of decrying (selective) grammar schools, there are now plans to reintroduce many here in uk.
The main error I see is mischaracterising as just a genetic “disorder” caused by mutations.
Counter-attack? I would suggest the information in Chapters 2, 3, and 7 at http://www.pseudoexpertise.com could form some of that. I am currently barely functioning with severe hypothyroidism, but hopefully that will be sorted in coming months and then I can get “making things happening” (“publishing” the book etc.).
Truthfully I am not sure how to continue. Thus far I feel isolated. If anything, I believe that many people within the neurodiverse community are misinformed. When exposed to its aims and history, they react by saying, “That can’t be true”. Neurodiversity is now a movement that sells itself by claiming to be the moral right., sidestepping the fact that they are an elitist minority. I will continue to talk and give presentations. We will see. As an aside, I have invited you to write a blog in cortical chauvinism- please consider it.
I wish to, how does it work? I have another email I can use to communicate with you privately. Do I send an email which you repost? The email below i use is defunct anyway so you cannot contact me with that. I also wish to remain anonymous.
Contact me. My email: email@example.com
In response to Hans,further upthread,there is a growing trend do just that,to break autism down into type 1 and type 2 classifications.
Like many who have experienced more severe forms of autism,either personally,or second hand,as parents.teachers,or other care givers,I have strong objections to the current model of the autism spectrum encompassing such a broad range of severity and conditions.I believe the current diagnostic criteria encompasses so few elements,that it may be a major contributing factor to the increased rate of autism.What would the diagnostic rate of autism be,had Asperger’s never been considered a form of autism,had the diagnostic criteria remained what it was forty,fifty years ago?We may have seen an increase,but I doubt it would be the numbers we have been seeing i recent years.Numbers that only feed the crazed paranoia we see from antivaccine zealots.
I am firmly in the camp that believes it was a grave mistake to consider Asperger’s a form of autism,and thus create the modern model of autism spectrum,rather than to consider Asperger’s its own distinct disorder,apart from autism.The extreme rhetoric of certain elements of the neurodiversity movement,with their talk of “autistic pride”,and saying that any measures to treat autism is akin to genocide are two of the main reasons I,and others, hold these beliefs.We may see some discussion of this,with what we now know about Asperger’s Nazi history,but I doubt anything will change much.
I believe the diagnostic criteria for autism OUGHT to include such things as intellectual and learning disabilities,developmental delays (especially missed developmental milestones in a child),seizures,regressions,GI disease (given what we now know about the gut/brain axis),and childhood onset metal illness.Say maybe two or more of these things.Then maybe secondarily.you could factor in such items as visual or hearing impairment,being unable to speak,and underlying metabolic and immune disorders into the diagnosis.I do believe in a more enlightened world,screening for metabolic and immune disorders would also be a part of the diagnostic process for autism.While this would exclude almost all of the very high functioning from obtaining an autism diagnosis,my ideal scenario described here would have created a separate and distinct diagnostic label for these individuals.
Hans,you are wrong where you say there have not been any advances in treatments of autism.Research into treatments for autism continues to advance in site of the neurodiversity loudmouths. My own example of cerebral folate deficiency,and folate receptor alpha autoantibodies being one of the obvious examples.Another is advances in treating disorders of redox metabolism.
And tetrahydrobioterin metabolism
Then there is transcranial magnetic stimulation,most famously advocated by our friend John Elder Robison,which,like cerebral folate deficiency,has a growing body of evidence in its effectiveness in treating autism.
I also know a woman,through Facebook,who is also a sometime blogger,and enemy of the neurodiverse,who reversed her autism in her 40s,by being diagnosed with a genetic form of Mast Cell Activation Disorder.
These are just some of the successful treatments that have been discovered.Because the autism diagnosis has been applied with such a generalized manner,with so few criteria,there are many different causes,and no one method to treat every individual.
> “In response to Hans further upthread, there is a growing trend do just that, to break autism down into type 1 and type 2 classifications. [link to sci-am]”
There might be a “trend” of fashion but there is not the slightest scientific evidential basis that the autistic syndrome can be meaningfully divided thus (or any other major way other than identified genomics). Notably the alleged world’s leading expert SBC there goes on for so many words without citing any such evidence.
> “I have strong objections to the current model of the autism spectrum encompassing such a broad range of severity and conditions.”
But you don’t cite any scientific evidence either. Strongly objecting does not constitute scientific evidence. The concept of “human” encompasses a far greater range of conditions (the helpless disabled baby, the powerful warlord, the saint, the sadist…..). So what? So we should abandon the concept of “human”? I strongly object to the mole on my arm but that doesn’t make it any less real!
A mass murderer and a person who steals a paper clip are both criminals, and it makes no difference to that that the paperclip thief doesn’t like to share a common label with the mass murderer. Likewise autism.
I have already explained in other comments here the basis for concluding that there is precisely one single autistic syndrome (a characteristic of a population, not something an individual can “have” or be “diagnosed” “with”), united (and gloriously EXPLAINED) by the causal phenomenon of high level of antiinnatia factors. No-one has ever shown any flaw in any of that and it remains the unchallenged least flawed and most comprehensive theory of autism. There is no serious competing autism theory that doesn’t collide substantially with incompatible facts.
Just as a person can be slightly big or very big, so a person can have just a slight hint of autistic syndrome or a very profound indication. No-one has published any evidence that there is some sort of distinct multimodal distributions within the syndrome. Indeed Tony Attwood the author of a notable book about AS has expressed the view that there is not a clear justification for a distinction.
> “We may have seen an increase”
There is very substantial evidence that there definitely has been an increase of about 10-fold – Chapter 3 at http://www.pseudoexpertise.com and subsequent confirmed predictions therefrom. This is far beyond the endless mere debunked speculations that for instance awareness or diagnosis or road pollution may have caused it.
> “Numbers that only feed the crazed paranoia we see from antivaccine zealots.”
Most of the blame for their paranoia lies with the lies from the corporate system, not least the abysmal pseudostudies published in “prestigious” journals, and the deceitful character-assassination project against Wakefield including “retraction” of a conclusion his paper didn’t state anyway. (Wakefield was mistaken but being wrong about science can never justify such a vile deceitful campaign of vilification.)
> “I am firmly in the camp that believes it was a grave mistake to consider Asperger’s a form of autism”
But again, you supply not a whit of evidence. There’s plenty of evidence they are both within the same syndrome of elevated antiinnatia.
> “The extreme rhetoric of certain elements of the neurodiversity movement,with their talk of “autistic pride”,and saying that any measures to treat autism is akin to genocide are two of the main reasons I,and others, hold these beliefs.”
But sadly none of that is factual evidence let alone anything amenable to scientific study.
> “I believe the diagnostic criteria for autism OUGHT to….”
Who cares what I *believe* (or you)? I have already explained (Chapter 2 at http://www.pseudoexpertise.com why the whole concept of “diagnostic criteria” is a pile of unscientific nonsense anyway. The facts are that people are more or less autistic, and then that in many ways. For practical reasons the bureaucrats have to categorise people for care and support but that is not a scientific facts matter.
I agree with Roger’s last sentence. The syndrome has multiple causal factors and multiple outcome features, and accordingly variation in therapy results can be understood.
What is your opinion of schizophrenia (mainly the developmental forms, not drug induced) since it seems to mirror autism in many ways, some symptoms seem to overlap while others seem to be counterparts. What do you think causes it?
To everyone else: It’s not just Autism disorders, research into health both mental and physical is taking a beating. There is this obsession with thinking everything is genetic and they continue to run more sequences for all manners of disease. But of them I believe Autism has the worst situation, especially because of ND.
Hans, your question about schizophrenia. Firstly I consider this yet another valid psychiatric category, though in this case an actual disorder (whereas autistic is not a disorder per se). Actually I produced a theory of schizophrenia shortly after the antiinnatia theory of autism, but it takes a huge amount of time to do the “library research” to make a paper acceptable by a journal and I have never had the time to get it to publication (too many other problems in my life and not enough energy).
Schiz is not the opposite of autism. Opposite of autism is low antiinnatia which is “ordinary” low IQ (mental retardation, learning disabled), and also characterised by a rough “ugly” facial appearance (very noticeable among most educationally challenged).
Schiz is the most complex, you need to first study my autism theory AND manic-depressive theory, as schiz combines concepts from both. In 1976 I think, was an important book by Eysenck titled “Psychoticism”. This is a dimension of personality alongside extraversion and neuroticism. People with high P are more at risk of schizophrenia. I consider Eysenck’s term incorrect, would have been better named “hostilicism”, H.
High P (H) individuals are more at home in hostile situations (Iraq rather than Iceland). Their innatons emphasise such as:
-suspicion of others
-not caring about others (low empathy)
-indifference to the mess that fighting causes
-being courageous /not being very careful about self-injury, which manifests in dangerous drugs and sports.
-randomised behaviour such as people adopt when an enemy is trying to kill them.
In the manic theory I showed how innatons form a vicious circle of positive (=bad) feedback. Perceptions of success cause increased confidence which causes increased perceptions of success which….
And the other way round. Hence getting stuck in depression or mania.
In schiz, a schiz episode is caused by a similar positive feedback. Perceptions of hostility increase suspicion which increases perception of hostility which….. Hence getting stuck in a paranoid or catatonic or hebephrenic (“mad”) state.
There is also an opposite insanity, of being too trusting, but this is not recognised as a psychiatric problem. Mozart is an example, he was so trusting he allowed his rival and murderer Salieri to become his best “friend”. He even played out sections of his final work such that Salieri was able to write them down after his death. But note that as with the pressured suicide of Tschaikovsky, many people are in emotional denial about this – in their fantasy world great geniuses are only ever given the greatest of respect and certainly never directed to suicide or murdered.
As for causal factors, there is the genetic P predisposition, and there is the social context of hostility, but there is also the same mercury factor which caused the autism increase. See graphs 3.5 amd 3.7 in Chapter 3 at http://www.pseudoexpertise.com
My conclusion from this evidence is that schiz, along with aut and manic and neuroses and much else, are basically mainly variations on the theme of mercury poisoning.
As with other fields I have studied, a great deal of nonsense has meanwhile been published by others who don’t have the intellectual level required for competent original scientific discoveries and which a bureaucratic “qualification” of PhD can never substitute for.
I doubt if I will ever “publish” this schiz theory because to get it accepted one has to FIND TIME to read and cite a huge amount of evidence along with discussing the ocean of other peoples’ half-baked ideas, and even if could find time to spend a year or more doing that, my publication would still be ignored by the small people whose brains can only see excellence in PhD “qualifications” and so-called “centres of excellence”.
“There is this obsession with thinking everything is genetic”
As I explained in Chapter 2 of my book, if you blame a product (such as asbestos or dental mercury) then the manufacturers are liable to attack you for your slanderous research. By contrast, if you blame a gene, not only can the gene not sue you, but you can also patent tests and therapies relating to the gene, and generate huge income thereby and also generate a whole jobspiel of people doing sequencing or developing yet more techniques. “Successful” research tends to become defined as generating more “research” rather than finding actual solutions (which end the research field and thus end the jobs). Professional science is a bit of a self-contradiction because the whole point of (genuine) science is to find solutions which thereby make the profession redundant. Some non-professional scientists have included Copernicus, Faraday, Darwin, Mendel, Einstein…..
Tms was hyped for a while but if you google it and ask any professional part of the mainstream, they will say nothing of it or it is useless.
It’s dead. Even my psych said it doesn’t work and is sure of it. Meanwhile he speaks of eye gaze technology and better behavioural therapy…it’s such a pity.
To Roger, I don’t consider Aspergers an absolutely separate disorder, it’s more like the two types of bipolar. Plus I know a person on the spectrum in the middle, I see them as strong clusters, and a person can vary throughout lifetime. I know a person who seems to sit in the middle of the two.
My diagnosis used to be AS but even then testing showed I didn’t fit it perfectly; I don’t relate to other AS people nor with the classically autistic.
The DSM was flawed before; to me the lumping was going out of one frying pan into another.
The newer unreleased edition of the ICD looks imperfect but better than the DSM. Mind you it is not only the autism spectrum that was lumped, it was also done to schizophrenia, I don’t know any schizophrenics to ask their feelings. Bipolar people seem okay with their system, so I favor that as much as Baron Cohen annoys me, he is suggesting something alright.
Robin,it sounds to me like you are making the claim that we hear from many neurodiversity advocates that all autism is created equal.That severity of diagnosis and coexisting conditions do not matter.We know this is not the case.To make such statements defies both logic and science.I hope this was not the point you were making.
Not all autism is genetic.There are prenatal exposures,teratogenic elements,otherwise normal fetuses are exposed to in the womb,drugs,toxic chemicals,etc that can lead to autism.I also suspect some cases of autism may be due to fetal exposures to mercury,from the mother’s amalgam dental fillings.Unlike vaccines,it is well documented mercury from dental fillings can damage the fetus,because of the prolonged exposure over nine months,and the higher doses from multiple fillings.
It is now known that pregnant women who live near where the pesticide chlorpyrifos is sprayed are far more likely to have children with autism or ADHD.
I don’t believe all of the prenatal exposures that can lead to autism have been documented yet.Some like acetaminophen still remain controversial.
I also don’t believe anybody really knows what percentage of autism truly is genetic.Genetic as in caused by a single gene .The estimates do keep creeping up as more and more autistic children and adults undergo improved genetic testing,like next generation whole exome sequencing.Many of the single gene forms of autism that are being discovered this way,are due to extremely rare gene mutations,like the one I have,or unique expressions of rare cancer genes.It would make for interesting speculation as to why we see so many mutations of very rare genes popping up.Is it better detection,or is it spontaneous mutations brought about by prenatal exposures?
These environmental factors can cause non-autistic disorders too, ADHD, the schizophrenia more common in male, chromosomal disorders, and learning disabilities are too. If I wanted a neat answer, I imagine genes may determine which disorder(s) you get, but they don’t doom a person to one.