See:
Aggregation of social and other psychiatric disorder in family relatives
Reseach into patterns of genetic liability associated with the PDDs has been one of the most active area of investigation in autism and related conditions (Rutter, 2000). Studies have consistently shown higher rates of social disabilities or difficulties in family members of individuals with autism (Murphy et. al, 2000; Piven, Palmer, Jacobi, Childress, & Arndt, 1997), given rise to the term "Broader Autism Phenotype", as well as of other psychiatric symptoms including anxiety, mood, and obsessional disorders (Bolton, Pickels, Murphy, & Rutter, 1998; Murphy et al., 2000; Piven & Palmer, 1999).
From >>
Three diagnostic approaches to Asperger Syndrome - implications for research
http://info.med.yale.edu/chldstdy/neuroi...oaches.pdf
-- and --
Heterogeneity and the genetics of autism
Abstract
The objective of this review is to summarize recent data on the genetics of autism, highlight the evidence for genetic heterogeneity and extend the implications of these findings for the identification of susceptibility genes in this disorder. Family studies have shown that autism runs in families and twin studies indicate that the basis of that familial aggregation is genetic. As a result the prospects for the identification of susceptibility genes using either linkage or association studies are quite good. However, recent evidence is accumulating suggesting that the disorder is genetically heterogeneous; higher functioning individuals with autism may arise from separate genetic mechanisms that lower functioning ones. If true, this will make the detection of linkage and association much more difficult.
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerend...d=10212560
(Amongst many other articles....)
"In fact, I have found no evidence, nor has anyone I have asked (and I ask a lot of questions), that Asperger's Syndrome runs in families, which is the hallmark of most genetic diseases/disorders."
I dont know who you have asked, as there are many studies which show it, have a look at the NAS website.
One study cited 90% of autism is genetic, maybe you are in the 10% that has another type of cause, were you born prematurely for example?
Its not really a case of playing into curebies hands, its just a fact, they know it already, hence the AGRE studies and database.
"As I said, a lot of disorders that are "all in the genes" are horrible disorders that cost society and their victims horrible amounts. Do we really want to associate ourselves with them?"
We are what we are, there's nothing wrong or shameful with others who have genetic conditions, such as Retts syndrome, Downs, or Fragile x.
The people you asked may not be aware that aspergers was not diagnosed until the late 80's, so their relatives would be very unlikely to have had a diagnosis. Some people when looking at relatives find aspie traits, or diagnoses of bipolar, depression, or anxiety related conditions.
Also just because a condition is genetic does not mean that its directly heritable, such as Downs babies do not come from Downs parents, but it is genetic. Also conditions can skip a generation, like blue eyes, or red hair.
Not all cancer or diabetes is genetic. I dont understand your main point. Autism is genetic and most people know that, we cannot hide the fact. It would be silly of us to pretend otherwise.
Curebies will try and cure us for whatever reason they choose, sometimes its trying to say that autism doesnt even exist at all and we are just mercury poisoned. Is that any better? We would all require chelation then. :mad:
M said "But risperdal? Come on. Read the side effects. I could not imagine being forced to take this medication."
I see quite a few parents saying that there autistic child is taking risperdal, some as young as eight, and they dont have a choice about taking it if their parents decide to give it.
Iron Man said "If I ever hear one of my relatives is an Aspie, I will shoot them for selling us out. I am serious."
We do not allow violent threat posts such as this, if you need to know why, please view the thread about William Freund in the News forum.
"My point is that every word spoken by a group purporting to represent us is either an asset or a liability. "We do not need a cure because it is genetic" is a massive liability. When public exposure increases, if this kind of statement gets in the hands of diabetes associations, just as one example, it will cost us dearly. They will come back with "I have a genetic disorder that has doctors telling me I will have amputations and blindness if I don't walk in the middle of the road all my life, and you don't want me to have a cure?"."
This is nothing to do with diabetes, so please dont confuse the whole issue, we are not talking about diabetes or cancer, or AIDS, which autism has been compared with in the media, as autism is diametrically different.
"And they will have a point. Hell, I would say that. Diabetes, the childhood kind, has a rate of one in a hundred or thereabouts. It is like a plague, and furious calls to lift the ban on cloning research so that these poor children can have their islet cells back are in force. Speaking purely as an Aspie, I do not want to find myself opposing such a large and well-known group. Do any of you?"
:shock: What on earth has that got to do with it?
"There are far better arguments against curebies out there. My personal favourite is "for twenty-five years, you have abused me, lied about me in front of my face, proposed my extermination, and had the audacity to claim I provoked it simply by being me... if offered a cure, I would refuse it because I do not wish to become you". See how easy that was?"
If you want to do that, ok, it doesnt change the fact that it is genetic. Its just one element in our push to have freedom.
"We do not need a cure because it is genetic"
When has anyone ever used this as a serious argument?
We don't need cured because there are positive traits, if it wasn't genetic that wouldn't matter. I should remind you that having blue eyes is also genetic 
Iron Man said "If I ever hear one of my relatives is an Aspie, I will shoot them for selling us out. I am serious."
We do not allow violent threat posts such as this, if you need to know why, please view the thread about William Freund in the News forum.
Nobody here has made a threat.
Saying you might shoot someone is not a type of post we allow. Simple.
Oh, and there too is your answer, Gareth. I thought it was exclusively normie behaviour to say something at one moment and then say "I didn't say that" as if addressing a five year old moments later.
Not a good way of making a point to say something is NT behaviour because you dont agree with an argument.
Given that this is my family I am talking about, I fail to see how anyone could see me determining that them declaring themselves to be Aspies would get reprisals as sell-outs from me could be seen as a threat. I do not make threats, I tell facts.
If those facts are shooting people, do not say it here, ever, I wont say it again.
It is an even worse way to make an argument to say one thing with your public face and then claim something totally different in private. I have since sent that statement to four friends who are also aware of my diabetes, one of whom is an Aspie. Not one of them agrees the statement should remain like that. The Aspie even said they are scared if that is what people purporting to advocate for them want the public to think.
There are lots of advocate sites, and autism and asperger related sites, if they dont like this one, they can read another, or make one of their own.
There are lots of conditions in the world, diabetes is one that means something to you personally, others mean different things to others, but I have no intention of feeling differently about my life because some people in another group may feel something. No-one from any group has complained about the genetic phrase, you seem to be worrying about it as if its a major deal. People with diabetes chasing us up trees? I am more worried about being forced to take a prenatal test for autism, sorry.
I am far from a patient man, after all that is what being held down and abused for twenty years does to you, and I have no wish to wait for this to blow up in my face. If you are going to present something to the public, at least have the nerve not to cower in renunciation when someone you purport to argue for is horrified with it.
Cower where? Be patient or not, its up to you. Be horrified if you wish, or just keep being somewhat overdramatic.
I prefer to worry about what is already happening, not what other groups completely unrelated may do.
If you are afraid of being forced to take prenatal tests for autism, then I have this much to tell you: you are going the right way about making it happen.
Ok, you may feel like that. But did you see the MSNBC article 'Would you allow Bill Gates to be born?' It mentioned aspies for freedom and was highlighting the consequences of a prenatal test for autism, I think that shows that we are moving in a positive direction for increasing awareness.
Were I writing the thing, and I write professionally at times, "we do not need a cure because its genetic" is the last thing I would write in there. I would write "a world without Aspies would be a world without thinking outside of the box, without world-changing discoveries... without men like Albert Einstein for starters". An example of this kind of "world without" writing is available at http://www.xenu.net/archive/world_without/. A much better one simply because it is non-confronting and tells the bland facts (which in the case of this particular subject matter, are ugly).
Many things have been written about the positive traits, about Einstein, and others, have you seen the great pages at Neurodiversity.com? We only have a small piece on the front page, but people can read the forums to get more info, or read the wiki, or articles, and find out more about aspergers.
Hmmm... okay, take my example of how horrified diabetics would be to be told their condition needs no cure because it is genetic and blow it up to look like the sum of my entire statement. I think I made a big mistake believing I could get help coping with what is still an extremely abusive environment here.
No-one is telling diabetics what they should or shouldnt do.
We did not write the Bill Gates article, in case that wasnt clear, it was written by a man called Caplan. Some people think Gates is an aspie, some dont.
Gates's bad points come from an excess of greed which isn't an aspie trait (this is not to say he is not an aspie - what it means is that this particular trait does not come from AS).
I say an excess of greed because he is so obessed with making more money that he is willing to destroy the industry in order to do so. This no more reflects on aspies as a whole than hitler reflects upon vegetarians however.
energeia said "1. Cause--Is autism genetic or acquired?
In saying that autism is innate, as opposed to acquired, one could in principle argue that autism is solely genetic in etiology. However, a likelier possibility is that autism is caused by some combination of genetic predispositions and the specific microenvironment of the developing brain prior to birth. If it were "just genetics" then monozygotic twins should both be autistic if one of them is. Lots of human characteristics are caused by genetics-with-environment combos--e.g., intelligence.
But whether autism is acquired or genetic, if you are autistic, then that is a fact about yourself that has implications for how your life is lived, for better or for worse."
On the NAS website they have a study on monozygotic twins, and it roughly says that whilst both are not autistic to the same degree, the other twin is on the spectrum somewhere too, such as autistic traits but not enough for a diagnosis.
One major study put the figure at autism being 90% genetic.
I agree, I cannot see how it would be possible.