'we are all on the spectrum'

As a scientist I would assert that all spectra are linear, I'm especially aware of this as I worked in mass spectrometry. What is shown visually as an 'autistic spectrum' is in fact an 'autistic colour wheel'. This is a valid way of looking at autism, but it is not a spectrum. I think that if psychologists were more accurate in their use of 'physical science' terms they would have called autism something like  'Autism Continuum Condition'.

Interestingly, recent research is pointing to two genetic inputs into autism. Firstly, numerous small genetic variants close to specific genes that have been associated with autism. These small variations are very common in the population at large. Secondly, smaller numbers of larger genetic change variants close to genes associated with autism. These larger variations are much, much rarer in the general population.

For the type of autism primarily caused by the common genetic variants, the entire population has these variants and it is only a higher than average concentration of them that causes clinical autism. In this case then it could be reasonably claimed that 'everyone is on the spectrum'.

Interesting comment.  I suspect that your par 2 is based on some recent peer reviewed published work? If so could you post a link?  Many thanks!

Hi, I think it was a preprint report. It might have been through Research Gate, I read it a week or so ago, but cannot find it again. However, there are some similar published papers out there.

Next to creating your own religion, riding a wave of of paranoia and exploiting conspiracy theory dupes must be one of the most lucrative things to do in the modern world. If you have no conscience, that is.

Absolutely. That would have taken great strength of character and conviction.  I find it hard to stomach the fact that Wakefield is still in the US finding an audience with people who have absolutely no scientific credentials or even interest - either religious fundamentalists or Trump supporters.  Apparently he's earning a good living at it.  

I have a 'second-hand connection' to Andrew Wakefield. I used to know one of his ex-PhD students. To his great credit, my old colleague point-blank refused to let his name be added to the author list of the original "Vaccines cause autism" Lancet paper. He told Wakefield that he had no confidence in the results or their interpretation. For a student to take this sort of principled stance with his supervisor took a lot of guts.

OMG what an awful thing for a child to come home with. 

The politicisation of science and all the vacuous idiocy around the concept of "we've had enough of experts" ... scary as all hell.  

I'm not sure that's specifically ASD although possibly some people on the spectrum are more suggestible and vulnerable when it comes to conspiracy theories etc? 

There are a lot of people (I've discovered) who haven't got the diagnosis they "want" and are cross about it.   Perhaps there's a connection.  

Critical thought doesn't seem to feature in education any longer, and people would rather believe something posted by a random gadgy on Twitter than a respected, highly qualiied doctor or scientist. As we now know, the brain (neuro typical or otherwise) prioritises negatives and so do social media algorythms.  

The worst situation is the tiny number of renegade scientists and Andrew Wakefield types; there are 124K qualified doctors in the UK, the overwhelming majority will be more or less competent. But in any group that size there'll be the occasional whack job who slips thro and the damage they can do is out of all proportion to their numbers.   

Don't get me started(!) 

I think that there is a suspicion and a distrust of the scientific world, and of scientists, in the autistic community, and in the general population. A viewpoint that I do not share and have little sympathy for, being a retired biomedical scientist myself. My wife is a biochemist and one of our daughters was asked in primary school, "Are your mum and dad evil scientists?" Which goes far to make my point. 

Yep.   

PersonAnon said:

Trying to rid your mind of any hint or suspicion of bias-confirmation is ... challenging.

Er ~ rather. I always for that reason reserve the right or is it left to be wrong.

OK.  I'm at the stage of trying to drill down to the material that comes from an informed base and relate it to specific elements in my own report.  Quite sobering. 

I keep coming across academic papers which contain something that resonates sharply with my own situation, then wading thro piles of other stuff looking for wider sample sizes or some level of confirmation (or otherwise). 

I don't have your scientific background but I'm fairly used to handling data, peer-reviewed papers, and (to some extent) dry academic language.  Before getting a diagnosis I'd have considered myself mentally-prepared for that process.  However, I find that it takes on a different perspective when it interfaces with a deeply personal and subjective issue(!) 

Trying to read things with an objective frame of mind, uncluttered by emotional 'interference', is difficult, which is a new experience for me (I consider myself to be a pretty rigorous, data-led decision maker, at least as far as any of us can be).  Trying to rid your mind of any hint or suspicion of bias-confirmation is ... challenging.  I probably need to give it time and let some of this stuff mature.  

Thanks for your help, I will check all that out.  BW.   

You are very welcome. If I remember correctly, the preprint suggested that some of the small common genetic variants are linked to higher than average intelligence. Also, that in some autistics, a high concentration of the common variants linked to high intelligence might have compensatory effects for possession of some of the rare larger genetic variants linked to intellectual disability. 

Thanks!

Thanks!

Next to creating your own religion, riding a wave of of paranoia and exploiting conspiracy theory dupes must be one of the most lucrative things to do in the modern world. If you have no conscience, that is.

Absolutely. That would have taken great strength of character and conviction.  I find it hard to stomach the fact that Wakefield is still in the US finding an audience with people who have absolutely no scientific credentials or even interest - either religious fundamentalists or Trump supporters.  Apparently he's earning a good living at it.  

I have a 'second-hand connection' to Andrew Wakefield. I used to know one of his ex-PhD students. To his great credit, my old colleague point-blank refused to let his name be added to the author list of the original "Vaccines cause autism" Lancet paper. He told Wakefield that he had no confidence in the results or their interpretation. For a student to take this sort of principled stance with his supervisor took a lot of guts.

OMG what an awful thing for a child to come home with. 

The politicisation of science and all the vacuous idiocy around the concept of "we've had enough of experts" ... scary as all hell.  

I'm not sure that's specifically ASD although possibly some people on the spectrum are more suggestible and vulnerable when it comes to conspiracy theories etc? 

There are a lot of people (I've discovered) who haven't got the diagnosis they "want" and are cross about it.   Perhaps there's a connection.  

Critical thought doesn't seem to feature in education any longer, and people would rather believe something posted by a random gadgy on Twitter than a respected, highly qualiied doctor or scientist. As we now know, the brain (neuro typical or otherwise) prioritises negatives and so do social media algorythms.  

The worst situation is the tiny number of renegade scientists and Andrew Wakefield types; there are 124K qualified doctors in the UK, the overwhelming majority will be more or less competent. But in any group that size there'll be the occasional whack job who slips thro and the damage they can do is out of all proportion to their numbers.   

Don't get me started(!) 

I think that there is a suspicion and a distrust of the scientific world, and of scientists, in the autistic community, and in the general population. A viewpoint that I do not share and have little sympathy for, being a retired biomedical scientist myself. My wife is a biochemist and one of our daughters was asked in primary school, "Are your mum and dad evil scientists?" Which goes far to make my point. 

Yep.   

PersonAnon said:

Trying to rid your mind of any hint or suspicion of bias-confirmation is ... challenging.

Er ~ rather. I always for that reason reserve the right or is it left to be wrong.

OK.  I'm at the stage of trying to drill down to the material that comes from an informed base and relate it to specific elements in my own report.  Quite sobering. 

I keep coming across academic papers which contain something that resonates sharply with my own situation, then wading thro piles of other stuff looking for wider sample sizes or some level of confirmation (or otherwise). 

I don't have your scientific background but I'm fairly used to handling data, peer-reviewed papers, and (to some extent) dry academic language.  Before getting a diagnosis I'd have considered myself mentally-prepared for that process.  However, I find that it takes on a different perspective when it interfaces with a deeply personal and subjective issue(!) 

Trying to read things with an objective frame of mind, uncluttered by emotional 'interference', is difficult, which is a new experience for me (I consider myself to be a pretty rigorous, data-led decision maker, at least as far as any of us can be).  Trying to rid your mind of any hint or suspicion of bias-confirmation is ... challenging.  I probably need to give it time and let some of this stuff mature.  

Thanks for your help, I will check all that out.  BW.   

You are very welcome. If I remember correctly, the preprint suggested that some of the small common genetic variants are linked to higher than average intelligence. Also, that in some autistics, a high concentration of the common variants linked to high intelligence might have compensatory effects for possession of some of the rare larger genetic variants linked to intellectual disability.