Aspies For Freedom - hypothesis for cause of autism

um. . .I stumbled on a SCIAM article about mirror neurons and the brain in October and after that and a few other things I came up with a hypothesis as to what may cause autism.

My motives are not for this to be led to a cure, or any sinister thing like that, but to be honest these are the kinds of things I 'snack' on and have been obsessed with since I was really little and it's really joyful to find something new that goes along with your hypotheses.

I'm only 14 years old and not in any medical school or anything and I haven't been able to find anyone interested enough to respond other than 1 autistic girl that I know who has been very helpful in asking questions and making me explain myself but at the same time she repeats a lot of things that I already know. If you see ANY inconsistency let me know.

I believe that autism is caused by an inefficiency in the circulation of cerebrospinal fluid due to irregularities in the cells in and surrounding the ventricles, and that there are more of them as well acting as a sort of buffer.
Since these cells are irregular in that they have less receptors to react to stimuli with it takes longer for the cerebrospinal fluid to circulate through those areas, and when the cerebrospinal fluid reaches the outer parts of the brain (the choroid plexus, where cerebrospinal fluid is made, is located near the rear, on the 'inside' of the brain), because of the pressure the cerebrospinal fluid has accumulated by going through the centre of the brain at a slower pace than it is meant to be going at (I'm assuming the amount of cerebrospinal fluid being made is normal), it goes very quickly when it reaches the outer parts of the brain, causing hypersensitivity and faster processing in areas on the outer part of the brain such as the sensory and motor cortexes, the cerebellum, etc.

Perhaps the reason autistic babies (sometimes) go 'limp' when held, is that there is not enough cerebrospinal fluid in the spinal cord, and when they are lifted and held, the fluid doesn't go through the nerves as it is in a NT body and it just stays in the spinal cord (for example, if you turn over a half-empty water bottle).

I'm also assuming that the ependymal cells in the choroid plexus are smaller and of more in number, possibly causing it to grow 'back' to compensate and in turn make the head circumfrence larger.

Since the symptoms of autism are said to be temporary alleviated during a fever, since the blood vessels dilate during a fever due to an immune reaction cerebrospinal fluid and such possibly circulates better.

Since at birth auties are said to have more B and T cells, I'm assuming this is an evolutionairy response to the more dense concentrations of neurons in the brain (THE most important organ in the body), in order to protect it.

Recently (and I found out from these threads, thank you AFF), Dr. Manuel Casanova dissected brain specimens of auties and NTs and he found that the cells in the autistic brain are smaller and of more in number.

Wow. . .if ONLY I had a picture of the brain to straighten things up a little.

Remember, this is only a hypothesis I've made in my spare time, and if you spot any inconsistencies (of which there are probably many) which I cannot see, PLEASE let me know. Also it would be nice if some of you could direct me to other sources to aid in my research.

Sorry this took so long, but it seemed to provide some comfort to my autistic friend which I mentioned earlier so I'm assuming it may be of some help to you (and even if this hypothesis' wrong at least we know it's wrong).
SB

You know, you could be on to something here. Your explanation sounds a lot more logical than others I have seen, such as "leaky gut" and "heavy metal poisoning" and " reaction to mercury in vaccines".

tenaciouscj Wrote:

You know, you could be on to something here. Your explanation sounds a lot more logical than others I have seen, such as "leaky gut" and "heavy metal poisoning" and " reaction to mercury in vaccines".

Well, since mercury is a heavy metal it could play a role in blocking receptors, or just killing cells off and making it less efficient. . .but I'm no chemist so I wouldn't really know (although there's something for me to look up Big Grin )

Possible, but the mercury theory is, in my opinion, a dangerous one.

Firstly, I have a feeling I said this before elsewhere, but if there was a connection between mercury and autism, then there would also be a higher rate of medical problems associated with medical poisoning in autistic people.

Secondly, the "vaccination" theory is dangerous because it makes parents reluctant to vaccinate their kids. Not to mention, it puts the blame on parents for vaccination. Which is wrong.

Thirdly, so called "treatments" related to either of these theories (Which usually involve the consumption of great amounts of foul-tasting and extremely expensive puree) don't work.

StephanieB, I don't know how correct your theory is, but it sounds interesting.

nyanchan Wrote:

Possible, but the mercury theory is, in my opinion, a dangerous one.

Firstly, I have a feeling I said this before elsewhere, but if there was a connection between mercury and autism, then there would also be a higher rate of medical problems associated with medical poisoning in autistic people.

Secondly, the "vaccination" theory is dangerous because it makes parents reluctant to vaccinate their kids. Not to mention, it puts the blame on parents for vaccination. Which is wrong.

Thirdly, so called "treatments" related to either of these theories (Which usually involve the consumption of great amounts of foul-tasting and extremely expensive puree) don't work.

StephanieB, I don't know how correct your theory is, but it sounds interesting.

I personally don't believe in mercury causing ALL autism, but there were a few cases. . .

I like your theory. I like it a lot. What is impressive about it (and yes you are 14 and not study medicine - but I am not going to condesending give you praise in respect to this), is that your theory identifies aspects of autistic behaviour which are connected to the different parts of the brain and explains how the differences could lead to autism. Very sound theory.
My theory is that the neuro-pathways in the brain which grow almost hedge-like, carrying information and data. New skills, new experiences, different learnt behaviours and the like open up new neuro-pathways. As old skills, memories and the like are not needed, the brain will "prune" them. This is like clearing your computer of unwanted files to make it run better. In the child's formulative years, they are inundated with a large amount of these neuro-pathways. Children with autism/asperger's, grow these pathways at a rate superior than non-autistic children and these pathways are not able to be "pruned". The result is a brain which crammed full of many connections. Therefore the autistic person recieves too much information and has not got filtering or the ability to "prune" to the level of their NT peers. The effects would be overloading, under-responsive, mix messages, confused messages, and missing out on some information.

Oh well that is mine.

rossco Wrote:

I like your theory. I like it a lot. What is impressive about it (and yes you are 14 and not study medicine - but I am not going to condesending give you praise in respect to this), is that your theory identifies aspects of autistic behaviour which are connected to the different parts of the brain and explains how the differences could lead to autism. Very sound theory.
My theory is that the neuro-pathways in the brain which grow almost hedge-like, carrying information and data. New skills, new experiences, different learnt behaviours and the like open up new neuro-pathways. As old skills, memories and the like are not needed, the brain will "prune" them. This is like clearing your computer of unwanted files to make it run better. In the child's formulative years, they are inundated with a large amount of these neuro-pathways. Children with autism/asperger's, grow these pathways at a rate superior than non-autistic children and these pathways are not able to be "pruned". The result is a brain which crammed full of many connections. Therefore the autistic person recieves too much information and has not got filtering or the ability to "prune" to the level of their NT peers. The effects would be overloading, under-responsive, mix messages, confused messages, and missing out on some information.

Oh well that is mine.

The part about the neurons not being able to be pruned is consistent with these findings: [color=red]http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=5146301&nav=menu31(don't worry, Dr.Casanova isn't set on wiping out autism like the article said; there was a thread on this), in that there are more neurons but they are smaller because the same amount of resources must suffice for more of them versus a neurotypical brain? As I said I'm no medical scientist.

Stephanie_B Wrote:

rossco Wrote:

I like your theory. I like it a lot. What is impressive about it (and yes you are 14 and not study medicine - but I am not going to condesending give you praise in respect to this), is that your theory identifies aspects of autistic behaviour which are connected to the different parts of the brain and explains how the differences could lead to autism. Very sound theory.
My theory is that the neuro-pathways in the brain which grow almost hedge-like, carrying information and data. New skills, new experiences, different learnt behaviours and the like open up new neuro-pathways. As old skills, memories and the like are not needed, the brain will "prune" them. This is like clearing your computer of unwanted files to make it run better. In the child's formulative years, they are inundated with a large amount of these neuro-pathways. Children with autism/asperger's, grow these pathways at a rate superior than non-autistic children and these pathways are not able to be "pruned". The result is a brain which crammed full of many connections. Therefore the autistic person recieves too much information and has not got filtering or the ability to "prune" to the level of their NT peers. The effects would be overloading, under-responsive, mix messages, confused messages, and missing out on some information.

Oh well that is mine.

The part about the neurons not being able to be pruned is consistent with these findings: [color=red]http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=5146301&nav=menu31(don't worry, Dr.Casanova isn't set on wiping out autism like the article said; there was a thread on this), in that there are more neurons but they are smaller because the same amount of resources must suffice for more of them versus a neurotypical brain? As I said I'm no medical scientist.

oops, it was:
http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=...v=menu31_3

Yes I think that IF his theory is correct, it isn't entirely at odds with my theory. Whilst he says there is "less juice" to power the cells, it may stand to reason that if the was enough juice but far too many "un-pruned" connections to cater for then the effects on the brain would be similar. (ie less "juice" to cater for so many connextions as to compared to less "juice" to cater for a normal amount of connections). It becomes almost a mute point of which is correction if the result is the same.
Again it holds with your theory. I have had to read it three times as in addition to Autism, I have dyslexia as a co-morbid of autism. The other reason it took me three reads is, quite simply your theory is very involved and I am not up on physiological terms and it took me a while to fully comprehend it.
I don't no what "triggers autism but it has a genetic predisposition. My son is autistic but my daughter and my ex-wife aren't.

This stuff is V. Interesting, thank you so much for posting. This is a really interesting theory, and it's great that you're thinking about it. Also, I'm sorry if I say things that you already know, I don't know what you know, all I know is the stuff *I* didn't know when I was 14. I started my neuroscience interest when I was about 13, and I remember, I was 15 when we officially learnt about neurons in school. Very basic and quick, just here's the axon, here's the dendrite, the gap in the middle is the synapse. Customers at my part time work often ask me what I study at uni, and when I say 'Behavioural Neuroscience' roughly half of them (middle aged people) don't know what the 'neuro' bit means. But here you are, pumping out words like 'mirror neuron' and 'choroid plexus', which I only learnt about last year.

I searched up "cerebrospinal fluid and autism" on PyschInfo and Medline.PychInfo gave 35 results, and medline: 21. These are databases of most of the scientific journals out there, which I can access through uni. PubMed is a free one, I think Google Scholar as well, but I don't really know how to use those Tongue

A scientific journal is what published original research reports from a specific field. There is even a journal called "Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders". Done lab reports before? You know, the report about introduction, aims, hypothesis, method, results, discussion, etc. This is what people use to see what past research has been done in their area of research, because maybe somebody has already thought of your hypothesis. Or, looking at previous research to see what would be improved on it. (Sorry if you already know about scientific journals). Though I don't have access to a lot of the full text, so the whole report, I can get bibliographical details and the abstract, which is the summary of the research. Though, I've got access to enough, I guess, for a student. If you want me to search something on it, just ask (just guessing you don't have access to a database. Sorry if you already do!)

Here are some interesting studies I found:
"Cerebrospinal fluid insulin-like growth factors IGF-1 and IGF-2 in infantile autism"

Abstract: There has been little exploration of major biologic regulators of cerebral development in autism. We measured insulin-like growth factors (IGF) -1 and -2 from cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) by radio immunoassay in 25 children with autism (median age 5y 5mo; range 1y 11mo-15y 10mo; 20 males, 5 females), and in 16 age-matched comparison children without disability (median age 7y 4mo; range 1y 1mo-15y 2mo; eight males, eight females). IGF-1 and -2 concentrations were further correlated with age of patients and head size. CSF IGF-1 concentration was significantly lower in patients with autism than in the comparison group. The CSF concentrations of children with autism under 5 years of age were significantly lower than their age-matched comparisons. The head circumferences correlated with CSF IGF-1 in children with autism but no such correlation was found in the comparison group. There was no difference between the two groups in CSF IGF-2 concentrations. No patients with autism had macrocephaly. We conclude that low concentrations of CSF IGF-1 at an early age might be linked with the pathogenesis in autism because IGF-1 is important for the survival of Purkinje cells of the cerebellum. The head growth might be explained by the actions of IGF-1 and -2 reflected in CSF concentrations.

I put the abstract of that on, because it sounds a little bit like what you're talking about, or you may be interested. More titles:

"Low levels of insulin-like growth factor-I in cerebrospinal fluid in children with autism."
"Characterization of the various forms of the Reelin protein in the cerebrospinal fluid of normal subjects and in neurological diseases."
"Gluten- and casein-free diets for autistic spectrum disorder. " (This one has full text access)
"Immunity, neuroglia and neuroinflammation in autism. "
"Gangliosides in cerebrospinal fluid in children with autism spectrum disorders."
"CSF monoamines in autistic syndromes and other pervasive developmental disorders of early childhood."

Okay, I think you've had enough, lol. If not, say so. I can email abstracts and articles (if I happen to score access to it, that is) over if you want more information on thing. Also, database results also depend on what terms you search. Autism and autistic disorder can be different. Or cerebrospinal fluid, or CSF.

Now, your hypothesis. Is this 'inefficiency in the circulation' happening during embryonic development (therefore caused changes to parts of the brain), or is it always like that? Same with the irregular cells. A hypothesis like that, I think, is simple to test. Take a brain scan, compare autistic with neurotypical. Or perhaps some other tests, such as looking at cell structure post mortem. Also, we have to think about what the actual fluid does, and what consequences a change is it has. If we took it away, what would happen? Does activity stop? Can neurons send action potentials without it?

I think I understand it that you're saying that flow is fast around the cortex, which explains hypersensitivity. So, in a way, the faster the flow rate of the CSF, the more brain activity in that area. I don't know too much about this, or whether or not it's true. And since the CSF contains a number of proteins, and an oxygen supply, it's possible. Oxygen is a requirement of brain activity. BUT on the other hand, the CSF does not come into contact with most of the brain, and there is a covering over the the cortex anyway. The meninges has three layers, dura mater, arachnoid mater and pia mater. The arachnoid mater, in the middle has a space called the sub arachnoid area, which is where the CSF flows. There is still the pia mater, which is directly attached to the cortex, following the convolutions of the sulci and gyri, so no direct contact between the CSF and the brain. BUT the pia mater is probably permeable to oxygen, maybe other things in the CSF. I don't know. And the CSF doesn't need to be in direct contact with something to put pressure on it.And then you have to define what 'faster processing' means. Are the neurons sending action potentials faster? Or is there a lower threshold for action potential (more sensitive). Or maybe more efficient/specific pathways are formed?

I personally think a general change, such as flow rate (I'm not even sure how the stuff flows, actively or passively), it would probably cause something more drastic than autism, as it would effect the entire cortex. If flow rate has an effect on processing speed in the first place. BUT on the other hand, flow rate itself might not do anything, but flow rate of a protein (maybe a nerve growth factor) within the CFS might do something. Or, the immune cells in the CFS.

Now, about cell differences. A LOT of research already shows a variety of cell differences in various parts of the brain, as well as different activity rates (which is usually concluded from rate of oxygen and glucose consumption in the brain) and anatomical sizes and cell numbers. I am not up to speed on all this research though, and how valid and reliable each study is. What the question is what cells and why? how? If autism is genetic, it must mean there are some proteins somewhere in the body that are different (one gene codes for one protein, a change in the gene changes the protein normally, though not always). One protein has the potential to do a lot, or perhaps nothing at all. I have looked up to see if anyone has connected ependymal cells with autism, and I didn't find anything. That might be an interesting area to look at.

The 'pruning' theory is a good one too(since there is evidence to support it). For an interesting fact, when you weight train, and get stronger, it's not the increase in muscle mass that does it, but having a more specific neural pathway worked out. Practice does this. (of course, later on, it's muscle mass as well). But again, why? Why would cells growing like this be good of 'analytical' stuff, but not social stuff? I don't know how those two types of information is represented in the brain in the first place exactly. And are these cell changes specific to just parts of the brain? (I suppose I could read about this!) And what annoys me most, what is this 'juice' they are talking about!?! I guess that's what you get when reading about this stuff from newspaper type articles, targeted at the general public. I picture orange juice flowing around in the brain Tongue

By what they said about 'long conections' in the brain, they might mean the action potentials gets weaker as it goes a long, and eventually it can't reach threshold in the next neuron. Or maybe oxygen and glucose resorces are limited, or the neurotransmitters are limited? Article's fault (Gah, and six brains per group? Those results couldn't be statistically significant. I sure hope they did more studies, and that was just a pilot.)

Also a cause for autism may not mean a cure for autism. Though, even worse, if the gene is found, it may lead to autism testing and termination in pregnant women (which has been discussed on these forms somewhere). The changes may be irreversible. But the changes in brain structure caused by autism may be treated. So this way, perhaps language problems or communication problems may be treated without changing the 'autistic personality'. Finding a cause is more knowledge, and I can't say no to that. It may help us further understand how the brain works. How language is processed, and how non verbal communication is processed.

nervous_neuron Wrote:

This stuff is V. Interesting, thank you so much for posting. This is a really interesting theory, and it's great that you're thinking about it. Also, I'm sorry if I say things that you already know, I don't know what you know, all I know is the stuff *I* didn't know when I was 14. I started my neuroscience interest when I was about 13, and I remember, I was 15 when we officially learnt about neurons in school. Very basic and quick, just here's the axon, here's the dendrite, the gap in the middle is the synapse. Customers at my part time work often ask me what I study at uni, and when I say 'Behavioural Neuroscience' roughly half of them (middle aged people) don't know what the 'neuro' bit means. But here you are, pumping out words like 'mirror neuron' and 'choroid plexus', which I only learnt about last year.

I searched up "cerebrospinal fluid and autism" on PyschInfo and Medline.PychInfo gave 35 results, and medline: 21. These are databases of most of the scientific journals out there, which I can access through uni. PubMed is a free one, I think Google Scholar as well, but I don't really know how to use those Tongue

A scientific journal is what published original research reports from a specific field. There is even a journal called "Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders". Done lab reports before? You know, the report about introduction, aims, hypothesis, method, results, discussion, etc. This is what people use to see what past research has been done in their area of research, because maybe somebody has already thought of your hypothesis. Or, looking at previous research to see what would be improved on it. (Sorry if you already know about scientific journals). Though I don't have access to a lot of the full text, so the whole report, I can get bibliographical details and the abstract, which is the summary of the research. Though, I've got access to enough, I guess, for a student. If you want me to search something on it, just ask (just guessing you don't have access to a database. Sorry if you already do!)

Here are some interesting studies I found:
"Cerebrospinal fluid insulin-like growth factors IGF-1 and IGF-2 in infantile autism"

Abstract: There has been little exploration of major biologic regulators of cerebral development in autism. We measured insulin-like growth factors (IGF) -1 and -2 from cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) by radio immunoassay in 25 children with autism (median age 5y 5mo; range 1y 11mo-15y 10mo; 20 males, 5 females), and in 16 age-matched comparison children without disability (median age 7y 4mo; range 1y 1mo-15y 2mo; eight males, eight females). IGF-1 and -2 concentrations were further correlated with age of patients and head size. CSF IGF-1 concentration was significantly lower in patients with autism than in the comparison group. The CSF concentrations of children with autism under 5 years of age were significantly lower than their age-matched comparisons. The head circumferences correlated with CSF IGF-1 in children with autism but no such correlation was found in the comparison group. There was no difference between the two groups in CSF IGF-2 concentrations. No patients with autism had macrocephaly. We conclude that low concentrations of CSF IGF-1 at an early age might be linked with the pathogenesis in autism because IGF-1 is important for the survival of Purkinje cells of the cerebellum. The head growth might be explained by the actions of IGF-1 and -2 reflected in CSF concentrations.

I put the abstract of that on, because it sounds a little bit like what you're talking about, or you may be interested. More titles:

"Low levels of insulin-like growth factor-I in cerebrospinal fluid in children with autism."
"Characterization of the various forms of the Reelin protein in the cerebrospinal fluid of normal subjects and in neurological diseases."
"Gluten- and casein-free diets for autistic spectrum disorder. " (This one has full text access)
"Immunity, neuroglia and neuroinflammation in autism. "
"Gangliosides in cerebrospinal fluid in children with autism spectrum disorders."
"CSF monoamines in autistic syndromes and other pervasive developmental disorders of early childhood."

Okay, I think you've had enough, lol. If not, say so. I can email abstracts and articles (if I happen to score access to it, that is) over if you want more information on thing. Also, database results also depend on what terms you search. Autism and autistic disorder can be different. Or cerebrospinal fluid, or CSF.

Now, your hypothesis. Is this 'inefficiency in the circulation' happening during embryonic development (therefore caused changes to parts of the brain), or is it always like that? Same with the irregular cells. A hypothesis like that, I think, is simple to test. Take a brain scan, compare autistic with neurotypical. Or perhaps some other tests, such as looking at cell structure post mortem. Also, we have to think about what the actual fluid does, and what consequences a change is it has. If we took it away, what would happen? Does activity stop? Can neurons send action potentials without it?

I think I understand it that you're saying that flow is fast around the cortex, which explains hypersensitivity. So, in a way, the faster the flow rate of the CSF, the more brain activity in that area. I don't know too much about this, or whether or not it's true. And since the CSF contains a number of proteins, and an oxygen supply, it's possible. Oxygen is a requirement of brain activity. BUT on the other hand, the CSF does not come into contact with most of the brain, and there is a covering over the the cortex anyway. The meninges has three layers, dura mater, arachnoid mater and pia mater. The arachnoid mater, in the middle has a space called the sub arachnoid area, which is where the CSF flows. There is still the pia mater, which is directly attached to the cortex, following the convolutions of the sulci and gyri, so no direct contact between the CSF and the brain. BUT the pia mater is probably permeable to oxygen, maybe other things in the CSF. I don't know. And the CSF doesn't need to be in direct contact with something to put pressure on it.And then you have to define what 'faster processing' means. Are the neurons sending action potentials faster? Or is there a lower threshold for action potential (more sensitive). Or maybe more efficient/specific pathways are formed?

I personally think a general change, such as flow rate (I'm not even sure how the stuff flows, actively or passively), it would probably cause something more drastic than autism, as it would effect the entire cortex. If flow rate has an effect on processing speed in the first place. BUT on the other hand, flow rate itself might not do anything, but flow rate of a protein (maybe a nerve growth factor) within the CFS might do something. Or, the immune cells in the CFS.

Now, about cell differences. A LOT of research already shows a variety of cell differences in various parts of the brain, as well as different activity rates (which is usually concluded from rate of oxygen and glucose consumption in the brain) and anatomical sizes and cell numbers. I am not up to speed on all this research though, and how valid and reliable each study is. What the question is what cells and why? how? If autism is genetic, it must mean there are some proteins somewhere in the body that are different (one gene codes for one protein, a change in the gene changes the protein normally, though not always). One protein has the potential to do a lot, or perhaps nothing at all. I have looked up to see if anyone has connected ependymal cells with autism, and I didn't find anything. That might be an interesting area to look at.

The 'pruning' theory is a good one too(since there is evidence to support it). For an interesting fact, when you weight train, and get stronger, it's not the increase in muscle mass that does it, but having a more specific neural pathway worked out. Practice does this. (of course, later on, it's muscle mass as well). But again, why? Why would cells growing like this be good of 'analytical' stuff, but not social stuff? I don't know how those two types of information is represented in the brain in the first place exactly. And are these cell changes specific to just parts of the brain? (I suppose I could read about this!) And what annoys me most, what is this 'juice' they are talking about!?! I guess that's what you get when reading about this stuff from newspaper type articles, targeted at the general public. I picture orange juice flowing around in the brain Tongue

By what they said about 'long conections' in the brain, they might mean the action potentials gets weaker as it goes a long, and eventually it can't reach threshold in the next neuron. Or maybe oxygen and glucose resorces are limited, or the neurotransmitters are limited? Article's fault (Gah, and six brains per group? Those results couldn't be statistically significant. I sure hope they did more studies, and that was just a pilot.)

Also a cause for autism may not mean a cure for autism. Though, even worse, if the gene is found, it may lead to autism testing and termination in pregnant women (which has been discussed on these forms somewhere). The changes may be irreversible. But the changes in brain structure caused by autism may be treated. So this way, perhaps language problems or communication problems may be treated without changing the 'autistic personality'. Finding a cause is more knowledge, and I can't say no to that. It may help us further understand how the brain works. How language is processed, and how non verbal communication is processed.

Thank you SO MUCH for posting, I've never had this intricate of a response from ANYONE before, not even my science teachers Big Grin
As to my information sources I actually haven't used Google scholar or anything like that before; I mainly go by internet news reports and SCIAM magazines; sort of primitive compared to what you mentioned. I'll try those sources in the future Smile

As to my hypothesis I'll just go 1 by 1, since I have a really bad attention span (which is why I whenever possible use coloured fonts and space my paragraphs out a lot):

>I meant the 'inability to circulate cerebrospinal fluid' to be caused by (my grammar sucks I know) developmental differences with the cells, meaning that during development something happened that IN TURN caused the cerebrospinal fluid to cycle differently, not just cycling irregularly in development.

>What I meant by hypersensitivity was that the cells have a lot more resources available to them (or in this case going by more quickly) and in turn when they receive stimulation they act on it a lot more quickly and severely than the cells in the middle of the brain.
>Basically I think that Cerebrospinal fluid is meant to maintain homeostasis (like the pressure and all that) and though neurons could send signals with less of it/without it, it would be a LOT more difficult. . .like breathing on top of a mountain versus ground level. Having it go more quickly would allow neurons to act more efficiently.

If you spot any inconsistencies in these explanations (and it's very possible since other than you peoples nobody's really responded to me), PLEASE let me know! I'm a total perfectionist and it would really bug me to have something not click.

PS (did I put this in the wrong category? Like would it have fared better in the research thread??)

The colourisation makes it difficult for me, so I am going to have to print this and read it in chunks.

If anyone want full-text articles, I have paid membership for some academic and professional journals, and staff access at the university where I work part-time, so send me the details and I will attempt to download them.

The leaky gut thing actually feeds into the cerebrospinal hypothesis (I think I just made a joke). The concept of leaky gut is that food particles exit the gut through its walls. They are then treated as foreign bodies: as infection. The blood-brain barrier is affected as is the central nervous system.

Is there actually any real medical proof that food particles exit the gut through its walls? I would be somewhat doubtful on this one.

I know you keep bringing up the fact again, and again, and again...who is continually dismissing you have Asperger's Syndrome. Especially in this old thread. The person that keep bringing it into question appears to be you. You are here in AFF purporting to be an Aspie and mate that is well and truly good enough for me.

As for growing at a superior rate. It is not elitist. By superior I meant faster. If it was that growing these pathways made it better for us then yes I would be holding myself and all others as better than non-autistics - this would in did be elitism.
Did I do this - no. In fact toward the end of the quote on this thread you see plainly that someone experiencing those types of poorly filtered info, not in any way elite or superior. Maybe you might need to re-read what I have written if you are critical of my supposed elitism Batman55. Not only is it in no way my intention but I believe I in no way even indicated this may be the case.

Batman55 Wrote:

rossco Wrote:

I know you keep bringing up the fact again, and again, and again...who is continually dismissing you have Asperger's Syndrome. Especially in this old thread. The person that keep bringing it into question appears to be you. You are here in AFF purporting to be an Aspie and mate that is well and truly good enough for me.

As for growing at a superior rate. It is not elitist. By superior I meant faster. If it was that growing these pathways made it better for us then yes I would be holding myself and all others as better than non-autistics - this would in did be elitism.
Did I do this - no. In fact toward the end of the quote on this thread you see plainly that someone experiencing those types of poorly filtered info, not in any way elite or superior. Maybe you might need to re-read what I have written if you are critical of my supposed elitism Batman55. Not only is it in no way my intention but I believe I in no way even indicated this may be the case.

Yeah, sorry about that.��There was no point in my using the word "elitist," it's just not the right word.

Apologies.

No. My apolgies Batman55. I over-reacted. Cringe-worthy stuff. Very emotional - not my best side