Published on 12, July, 2020
Why do people say this? We aren't otherwise there would be no need for a diagnosis.
The spectrum isn't linear. It's not most autistic to least autistic.
FFS this kind of thing annoys me so much
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.