the boy whose brain could unlock autism

Unfortunately we do live in an extroverted world. Extroverts crave external stimuli, with ADHD hyperactive type probably being the most extreme form of extroversion. It could be argued that pure Asperger's is an extreme form of introversion (hypersensitivity, inward looking), but I am not sure if any research has been done on this question.

This might be the one I was thinking of: http://sfari.org/news-and-opinion/news/2014/drug-calms-overly-excitable-brains-in-autism-rodent-models

Not 100% sure, so I will keep searching.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.../   "The Intense World syndrome - an alternative hypothesis for autism" published on-line only in 2007 in Frontiers in Neuroscience.

This paper by Henry and Kamila Markham and Tania Renaldi (at his Brain Mind Institute in Lausanne Switzerland) doesn't make for easy reading, but if you skip to the conclusion you will find the following illuminating statement:

"This perspective of hyper-functionality offers new hope for pharmacological as well as behavioural treatments. For example, while most of the commonly prescribed medication try to increase neuronal and cognitive functioning, we conclude that the autistc brain needs to be calmed down, learning needs to be slowed, and cognitive functions need to be diminished in order to re-instate proper functionality"

In short they propose using sedating drugs to slow down brain activity.

I don't like the sound of that at all. Remember, so far his entire understanding has been based on experiments on rats! At least one has to hope he hasn't been experimenting on his son.

I hope I get this link to the Simons Foundation Autism Research Institute (SFARI) right as it is a long one and I'm having to copy by hand rather than cut-and-paste, but if it doesn't work search Intense World Theory Criticism. It gives you the other side of the story, and some other worrying implications.

www.sfari.org/.../intense-world-theory-raises-intense-worries

One of the things they propose is withdrawing stimulation during infancy - treat kids like Roumanian orphans.

The cricism also points out that they overlook hyposensitivity.

And remember this is a criticism from university academics - not always a good thing - but an important distinction all the same. The Markhams are marketing a cure from their own funded clinic. How often have we seen that?

Is it the theorists themselves who suggest medication though?

Funnily enough (will try to dig it out later) I saw something about medication being used to calm down the autistic brain, although the Intense World theory was not mentioned.

It appears though that it is used to support the view that we are best treated by high levels of sedating medication, on the principle that, if we have less brain activity, we can better engage in social interaction etc.

Is this an outcome you'd want?

I took my username from that particular theory, because I liked it so much.  Being no scientist, I couldn't pull it apart or applaud it with a scientific eye, it just seemed to make such a lot of sense for me and what I have read about others on the spectrum.

I think like any theory, it needs fine-tuning and it could be that some aspects are right and some are wrong, or needing revision.

It could also be, that it explains a part of autism, but if autism involves multiple genes, it only explains some of those genetic influences.

I don't think it explains hyposensitive autistic people either, it only explains hypersensitive autistic people.  But I do think there is something in it, so perhaps it's a part theory rather than a well-rounded one.

I've had a look at the article on the Intense World theory.

Going through it it touches on sound areas but oversimplifies others. The subject is very complex, including very varied individual manifestations, hence the enormous literature seeking explanations.

But I also detect a a lack of attention to the reasons for discounting some factors and focussing on others. Science often tries to simplify problems, and separate factors which are constants or ignorable variables, so as to test only a few specific relationships. The decisions on what to ignore are critical.

In Environmental Sciences we find the world way too complex. So research proceeds by observation and extensive testing of phenomena. I think autism is a bit like environmental science in that respect.

This Intense World is a bit like physics thinking - treating autism as a simple phenomenon, with a formulae that can be derived by excluding some variables deemed not to have an impact, and by excluding things deemed constant or random. This doesn't work for autism.

It just makes value judgements about the role of social interaction or empathy. I'd agree a lot of theories such as theory of mind don't stand up to detailed examination of many individuals. What is often lacking in these researches is real understanding of everyday lives - the test subjects are usually people receiving clinical support for complications like depression.

My own view is that people on the spectrum absorb a lot of information and have difficulty processing it. I can see the argument that this is behind break down in social interaction or stress or empathy issues, rather than these being causal.

But one theory I've read about is Digby Tantam's ideas about bandwidth. That the ability to handle the amount of information coming in is a factor, and this causes sensory overload. If the information is specific and directly usable that works well, hence highly focussed activity. Whereas NT's are better and taking in and sifting and filtering, but not as deeply focussed or analytical.

There's a lot going on. I'm wary of nice neat solutions. I wish the scientists would do more to observe people on the autistic spectrum in their daily lives, rather than small numbers of individuals in a "lab" wired to a device, like rats.

I'm reminded about the old quip - great video - shame about the music.

Don't get overawd by the big scientific fanfares. The ideas are valid, but they are selecting what they consider and what they ignore, without backing up those decisions.

Too many autism theories that look good have ended up on the scrap heap (or being used to peddle pointless cures) because they don't have enough reality.