Aspies For Freedom

This article seems very strange to me, I don't know how they have come to a conclusion such as this, and how can it apply to a spectrum condition?

"Autism is 'two separate illnesses'

Autism, the devastating mental illness that affects thousands of UK children every year, is not a single psychological condition, scientists have discovered.

Researchers have found the ailment is really a combination of two separate illnesses, each controlled by different sets of genes.

The discovery, outlined yesterday at the British Psychological Society conference, is expected to cause intense interest among psychologists. Many believe prospects of uncovering the condition's genetic causes and finding new treatments have been significantly boosted.

'In effect, we're saying there is no such thing as autism, but two separate conditions which - if they occur at the same time in the same child - give rise to symptoms that we associate with autistic individuals,' said Professor Robert Plomin, of the Institute of Psychiatry, London. 'That has tremendous implications for helping these children.'

Autism sufferers display rigid, obsessive behaviour and largely lack an ability to relate to family members. More worryingly, numbers of cases have been rising rapidly in recent years - with more than 2,000 children being diagnosed in Britain every year. Scientists are still unsure why this rise is occurring, however.

Typically sufferers - who start to display symptoms around the age of two or three - are compulsive, withdrawn and have explosive outbursts.

'Diagnoses depend on two observations,' said Dr Angelica Ronald, of the Institute of Psychiatry. 'First, the social component: autistic children do not understand that other people have minds of their own. They are tactless and uncommunicative. Second, there is the non-social aspect. Children are obsessive about objects and pre-occupied with details of places or events.'

In the past, psychologists assumed these two sets of symptoms had the same cause. But a major study led by Ronald and Plomin of 4,000 pairs of twins has found this to be incorrect. Autism's two sets of symptoms are actually acquired quite separately.

'The two sets of symptoms are associated with two completely different sets of genes,' Ronald said. 'Only when a person inherits extreme versions of both do they exhibit the symptoms of full autism.'

We have not been able to pinpoint these genes,' Plomin said. 'Now we know why. We have been looking at two conditions, not one.'
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/s...33,00.html

I had the same thought as I was reading the article.  

The article never states exactly how they came to this conclusion.  I see that it is based on diagnosis requiring observation of two seperate symptoms for diagnosis...but do they actually have any scientific proof to back up this claim of "two seperate illnesses"?  

When Roland says "extreme versions" and "full autism", I think it implies that Autism is a Spectrum Disorder.  It seems to say that there are different degrees of Autism, which would contradict the claim of "two seperate illnesses"...right?

Assuming Researchers are correct about their conclusions and there are two sets of genes, would that mean that Aspies won't meet the genetic criteria for Autism and would not be threatened by Prenatal testing, if it is ever developed?

As far as the prenatal testing for autism, if this theory is in any way right, then they would test for both sets of genes and inform the parents if either set were there, as presumably they would say that your child has ONE of the illnesses that lead to autism, or BOTH.

Parents hearing that would still not want to take a risk, and what is the effect of one if the illnesses on its own? Restricted social communication, or restricted interests and routine.

Their strange conclusions are based on nothing but assumptions. It's not a theory, or even a hypothesis, but pure speculation.

First of all, they claim that autism is comprised of two different 'psychological illnesses', which are caused by two different sets of faulty genes.

This is ridiculous for several reasons. Autism isn't a mental illness, but is neurological. They are making up the two 'illnesses', because to separate the different 'symptoms' like that is crazy. It's like saying that the cold is really three different illnesses, that the cough, the runny nose and the fever are all caused by different viruses, and that these symptoms should be treated separately.

Pure, unscientific nonsense. Totally unproven speculation.

The idea seems good in principle because 'one' condition simply does not do the variety of symptoms and groups of symptoms and comorbids justice. But only two?

Well, that is why AS is considered a 'syndrome'. The reason simply is, that no two people ever appear to have the exact same set of symptoms. So, there are a number of possible symptoms, which any given person on the autism spectrum may or may not exhibit.

And as for 'comorbid' conditions, well, they are just that. They are separate entities, which autistic people may or may not have.

Taking myself, I have Tourette Syndrome, a heavy touch of ADD, a lighter one of OCD, as well as dyscalculia and CAPD. Also, I have rather severe problems with sensory integration and balance as well as fibromyalgia, asthma and a lot of allergies (as well as many lesser problems, too numerous to mention).

Not everybody here has all those problems accompanying their AS, but might have others that I don't have a problem with.

But the core problems are the same.

*** psychiatrists again!  I echo what Uschi said - it is pure speculation and it backs up what I said before - all they have to go on is what they see - which is nothing like how it really is - and nowadays it seems they dont even need to bother proving their theories.

It does seem that when a group of scientists, psychologists etc come up with an idea they want to get publicity for that idea, and propose it as a theory.
This may be to get more funding to start research on that theory, and to show that they are producing results to whoever is already funding them.

The huge problem is that we are often seeing half-baked notions presented as 'fact' because it is coming from a professional body which gives it credence.

But then it is still autism, as autism is the name given to those conditions. The word autism doesn't apply to the conclusion of what caused it, so whatever theory they stick to it, it's still autism.

Am I right?

You are right, they seem to be over-dramatising their point.