Knocking out one key gene leads to autistic traits
rockefeller.edu
rockefeller.edu
so, we're talking about at a very zoomed out level, but the gene responsible is already "implicated" in human neurodevelopmental conditions in the cerebellum.
Never ever will be one gene....For example Parkisons has one gene that affects VMAT2 formation and one involving the GI lining that is involved in taking up dopamine building blocks from GI actions on food.
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/imaging-study-shows-dopa...
There's a lot of important discussion when this sort of topic comes up. I agree that this might be a slippery slope if applied incorrectly, but that isn't a good reason not to conduct the research. I also don't ever see anyone applying that slippery slope argument to, say, blindness research.
Anyway, what's more important to me is that there's always suggestions that autism isn't something that needs to be cured, because all we need is for society to be more accepting of us, and we'll be okay.
That's really only part of the picture. Autism affects every moment of our lives, not just when we're interacting with society. How will society being more accepting stop my sensory overload issues? Or help my executive disfunction, so I can properly take care of myself? How will it help our difficulties connecting with people, even when those people are already accepting and patient with us?
I have to wonder where people who suggest these things fall on the spectrum, to think that the problems living with autism are so limited.
When it comes to autism, at least the more mild forms, it is just a range of characteristics that can be found in non-autistic people. Somebody is less social or can't understand sarcasm or whatever, well that doesn't mean the person is autistic and it doesn't mean they have a medical problem.
We don't say a guy who is 5 feet or 6 foot 5 inches has a medical problem. We say that is fine and within the "acceptable" range. Somebody who has dwarfism does have a medical condition. I think autism is the same. Those with mild forms of autism may see it as an attack on them or their characteristics.
Not sure if that made sense?
Perhaps I should have said 'visual impairment' research, as that sort of thing is also a spectrum. I'm also quite visually impaired, but I'm far less concerned with that because I can live with it.
Still, what about deafness research?
I don't see it in blindness research, but I do see it in deafness research, where it is sometimes claimed that curing deafness will lead to a form of cultural genocide.
2) autism like traits
3) plenty of other cases of “knock out one gene” lead to everything from allergies to neurological problems, to missing limbs and organs. It should not be surprising that someone could find a gene that caused neurological issues, that look similar to autism when you lack all the methods for distinguishing autism from any other neurological disorder.
The estimates now are that autism affects about 1 in 35 people. That’s not a disorder. That’s human diversity. I realize that there are less lucky autistic people who are severely disabled. If this helps them, then good, but I don’t want to be cured. I want to be accepted. And the way our medical system works now, I don’t trust that any treatments will only be used to help those who most need it. Children who simply need acceptance and a little support will be drugged, because that will be the convenient option.
From DSM-2300:
https://www.fysh.org/~zefram/allism/allism_intro.txt
edit: "The underlying trait that makes people allistic is a dysfunction of the parts of the brain dealing with emotion. Allistic people lack the capacity to independently experience emotions. That is not to say they lack emotions: far from it, the allistic mind experiences emotions just like any other. The dysfunction is that the allistic person's emotional state is not determined by eir own thought processes but instead is borrowed from other people that are expressing emotion nearby. Emotional cues in tone of voice, posture, facial expression, and so on, cause the allistic person to automatically and unavoidably experience the same emotion being expressed."
Quick Google of "DSM-2300" yields some vibration monitors and carpets, and I'm only aware of DSM-1 through 5 when it comes to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
I’ll admit that I just skimmed it but it seemed to read like a paper describing autism but with the script flipped such that it’s written from the perspective of someone with autism writing about their observations about people without autism. It appears the same upon closer reading; in the post script it calls itself a parody. (It also claims to invent the term “allism” for the purpose of the paper, which is good to know as someone who’s heard the term, presuming its innocence. I don’t think its use is intended to be particularly kind. Kind of a bummer: I like words and that’s a good one.)
> If you haven't already worked it out: allism is the condition of not being autistic. In current psychiatric practice, it is autism rather than allism that is considered pathological. This article, up to the postscript, has been a parody of conventional psychiatry; the parody would be a serious article in a fictional world where what what we in the real world call autism is considered normal.
Anyway, I seem to have confabulated this, but I got the idea of the paper being written in some hypothetical future where DSM-2300 would kinda make more sense, hence being part of the joke. After looking for it, I found that the page actually mentions DSM-IV specifically, so I really have no clue where 2300 came from. (I do notice that the digits add up to 5 but it’s not clear whether or not that was intentional, nor why it would be written as a set of digits which sum to 5.)
All that said, I think it’s actually worth a read but it is a bit inflammatory. Indeed, that seems to be the point.
As they always say, this is a very broad spectrum disorder and I wouldn’t be surprised to see it subdivided as our understanding improves.
Those who want to continue to live with autism will continue to have that option. But those like my son who struggle want options, too.
I wish there was a name that allowed us to distinguish the "old" autism of the 90s (non-verbal, severely disabled) with the new (apparently helpful?) kind of autism that other people frequently suggest me and many of my colleagues have.
I can't speak for whether this has been a net positive or net negative on the clinical side of things, but culturally, these sorts of conflicts seem to be happening with higher frequently since the merge.
What the...
It's not like I've had an easy life. At times, life has been pure torture. For example, I've barely been able to work at all for the past three years, because of being discriminated against in interviews, not because I was actually unable to work. The toll this took on my life and health has been incalculable.
From one angle, my autism is a superpower. From another, it's a curse. I'm able to solve intractable problems that other people can't. But since my way of solving these problems is impossible for neurotypicals to understand, and I can be kind of odd, I've been essentially unhireable. I've had to go into consulting because that's the only route open to me. And this is just one of many problems I've had fitting into society. It's exhausting to be "high functioning" in a society that doesn't accept what you are.
But yeah, I do agree that merging everything into one spectrum has made things unintentionally confusing.
It wasn't commonly diagnosed during any of these people's lives, so you're not going to find conclusive evidence.
None of them were diagnosed (obviously not Newton).
So you're only going to find people arguing over straws.
What are you arguing?
They have Autism until proven otherwise?
About 0.5% of people were diagnosed with Autism before 1990: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4113600/
If we're making assumptions, statistically, we'd probably want to assume the other way.
Happy to be corrected by someone with more expertise.
Let's hope the research will further improve our understanding and can provide help where needed.
Please, don't conflate these people with the other end of the spectrum, where those suffering are absolutely unable to live any kind of life at all. I have a friend who has an autistic son. The autism makes him a 5-year old hyperactive child in a 20-year old body. He needs help.
> with the other end of the spectrum
I had always figured that the use of "spectrum" here implied that we're all on it, and that some of us are on it in more or less problematic places. Is that not so? Are there people who are not on said spectrum?
Yes.
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD for short) is a neurodevelopment disorder. I'm quoting verbatim from Wikipedia:
"characterized by symptoms of deficient reciprocal social communication and the presence of restricted, repetitive, and inflexible patterns of behavior. Autism generally affects a person's ability to understand and connect with others, as well as their adaptability to everyday situations, with its severity and support needs varying widely across the spectrum."
Within this spectrum you have "high functioning" individuals who are capable of living self-sufficient, productive lives on their own (individuals with what we used to describe as having asperger's syndrom) and on the other end of it you have individuals who will always need constant supervision because they can't communicate effectively enough to hold a job, nor can they be trusted around kitchen appliances.
Common characteristics of ASD are:
- Regular difficulties in social interaction or communication (note the word "regular", everyone struggles from time to time. Someone with ASD experiences this permanently)
- Restricted or repetitive behaviours (examples: not using hand gestures when speaking, rocking motions etc.)
- Resistance to disruptions in routine (many people don't like routine disruptions, someone with ASD usually finds this to be crippling)
- Restricted interests (getting obsessive about hobbies but also really not giving a shit about things that most other people care about, like small talk or even major life events in the lives of loved ones ... like I couldn't give the slightest crap that my sisters got married or that I'm an uncle, and I like my sisters and their kids)
- Not enjoying human touch. I don't like being hugged or kissed, even by my wife or children. Even as a 42 year old adult, I hold my breath when I'm in the company of strangers because I find the idea of inhaling the air that they just exhaled to be gross.
There are more. But someone who is "on the spectrum" will exhibit many of these characteristics and exhibit them permanently throughout their lives. Whereas for "neurotypical" people, these may be fleeting or they may experience one or two in isolation... whereas ASD is a prolongued pattern of many of these characteristics together.
For example, some individuals have high sensitivity to sensory input. On the low end of the spectrum that can mean that some cloths (like pleated cloth) can't be worn because it feels too "weird". On the other end, it can be as extreme as not being able to tolerate almost any food as you can only tolerate some textures and tastes in your mouth.
Definitely with the latest DSM, a lot more people are viewed as having ASD because it widened the definition. Primarily because these symptoms tend to occur together and treatments are basically the same despite the cluster of symptoms.
> But when people talk about autism they talk as if it were a gradient, not a spectrum at all.
> All autistic people are affected in one way or another in most or all of these boxes – a rainbow of traits.
All visible light is comprised of at least one of its spectra. That, to me, is the fundamental thing about spectrums. If being on it means that you embody most or all spectra, you're really in a different mode of thinking altogether.
Better would be to just admit that it's a bit of a catch-all for traits that tend to be found together.
Various factors can lead people to move along a spectrum.
A whole self represents a balancing of the spectrums. Some end up with a propensity to dwell at certain points along the spectrum. This becomes one’s personality.
Personality disorders happen when one is frustrated by their perceptions and a consensus reaction.
This is where there are boundaries and establishing healthy boundaries is considered a way to a whole self.
If someone finds themselves struggling with multiple human interactions they need to evaluate why the interactions aren’t working.
The final thought is that a mature person can evaluate what went wrong and figure out on their own or with healthy communication with others.
An immature person develops coping mechanisms such as avoidant and hopes for the best in the future.
Any attempt to diagnose mental disorders is an attempt to create simple classifications that don't really exist. Much like how species don't exist. Pick yourself and any animal out there. Now imagine a chain of you holding hands with your mother who holds hands with her mother, going all the way back to a single common ancestor. Many species exist along these chains, but these are all fictional groups we use to classify the N number of creatures, with no guaranteed way to map all N to their species. It isn't like atoms, where any atom, even theoretical ones which might one day be created in a lab, can be directly mapped to a single element (maybe as an isotope, but still belonging to that element).
It has been fun watching AI discussions in feature space start to give more rigor to these ideas, as I've questioned them going back to when I first learned about the Kinsey scale and asked "why does it go from 1 to 7 as natural numbers instead of from 0 to 1 with any possible real number, and why only 2 dimensions instead of many more". Or was it 0 to 6. I've done forgot the details.
But here I guess you can understand "autism spectrum" as a part of the whole personality spectrum, similar to how the "visible spectrum" is a part of the EM wave spectrum.
However, only 2% of the US population is on the bipolar spectrum.
This kind of language is awfully eugenics-adjacent, and part of why autistic people resent having neurotypical people tell them how they should feel about it. If he's "not living any kind of life", it's a short hop to saying it would be better if he died, or was never born.
Even if he's a "5-year old child," even children lead meaningful lives.
Further up the chain, somebody also mentioned detecting autism pre-birth. While this could lead to earlier intervention for autistic children, it also would lead to an increase in selective abortion of autistic fetuses, the same as any other condition we screen for. Which is a simple form of eugenics.
So, the help I said he needs is the researchers to keep looking for ways to decrease the impact of his autism, instead of listening to people saying stuff like "autism doesn't need to be cured".
I don't think that it will ever be "cured". But I'm happy for research that helps with symptoms and improves the quality of life of those with autism.
You are completely misunderstanding the point being made by people that push back against this kind of language. Any argument that autism spectrum disorder is something that should be "cured" is directly and significantly contributing to stigmatism surrounding the disorder and is extraordinarily insulting to many people.
Searching for a cure is just trying to improve people's quality of life. If a cure were hypothetically found, nobody would be forced to get it. If someone likes having autism, more power to them!
Again, completely misunderstanding the point. The point in question is arguing that it should be cured. I am not (and am not aware of any mainstream arguments that exist right now) saying that no one should even look for a cure/treatment. These are two entirely different things. There are plenty of people with varying degrees of autism spectrum disorder living completely normal lives that 1) wouldn't choose to accept such a cure and 2) probably would have been forced on such a cure if it existed in their childhoods.
This is what people push back against.
It’s a nuanced discussion that needs a lot of nuance and has affected my life personally and people I care about so I am sorry if my tone is emotional.
There is a lot of Progressive sophistry around this, though. It seems that they are trying to normalize the edges of the normal distribution. The fact remains, however, that there is a normal distribution. And it is no service to the edges to deny them a "cure" that would move them more towards the middle, and more able to integrate with society.
It absolute does not. You must not be aware of prominent ASD voices criticizing organizations like "Autism Speaks" for this exact thing. No one is trying to deny anyone a cure, the argument is that saying it SHOULD be cured is stigmatizing (plus all the second order effects like kids being medicated/treated that wouldn't necessarily need or want it). How is it not?
> Having any kind of condition is neutral, while stigma is relational. They are unrelated.
This is complete nonsense.
This is the problem I have with ASD voices.
I'll give you a simple example of a treatment my kid does not want. We do occupational therapy and part of it is building up a tolerance to brushing their teeth.
Do you think we should stop this therapy because the kid doesn't want it or it's recommended by Autism Speaks?
ASD voice are valuable, but they are often far to binary in their recommendations and crusades. It's not an all or nothing thing and frankly the individual matters a lot more than these activists ever seem to want to acknowledge.
I certainly agree that acceptance and societal accommodation for autism is necessary. However, there is a loud set of people with ASD who will say that any sort of therapy or treatment harms people with ASD.
Therapy doesn't cure ASD and I've never thought that or been told that as a parent with a child with ASD. Therapy helps a kid cope.
I do understand that early autism therapies were brutal and inhumane, however, those are by and large completely gone from modern autism therapy.
What's extremely insulting is believing that all forms of autism are just societal misunderstandings that need no therapeutic interventions for the individual with ASD.
This sums it up very nicely. Thank you.
I’d very much like to hear what your definitions of “autism” are, for the classroom to see, because I’m sure it’d be illuminating. also no one is really presenting the argument you’re arguing against here, but cool. The terms and language you’re using here at best suggests you’re extremely ignorant and at worst suggests that you clearly hate or hold a lot of stigma against “autistic” people (not the preferred nomenclature) and see them as a societal ill. That’s what a lot of people are pushing back against.
You said elsewhere in these comments:
> plus all the second order effects like kids being medicated/treated that wouldn't necessarily need or want it
Yes, absolutely you and others in this thread have made the argument that therapy and treatments are negative things. Don't pretend like you haven't or you wouldn't have jumped in here to talk about how dangerous the word "cure" is.
The thrust of my argument is that therapy is necessary and desirable despite the individual not wanting it. An example I gave elsewhere is my child is currently in OT and one of the focuses is brushing teeth (which they do not want). They are also in food therapy because they have 3 foods they actually want to eat.
When you come in here talking about how "harmful" words like "cure" are, you are trying to put shame on parents that seek therapy for their kids, even when it's necessary (Or would you like to argue that my kid doesn't need the therapy they are getting?)
There is no "stigma" on therapy except for the stigma you are trying to make. It's not the 90s anymore so stop acting like all therapy is somehow a failing on individuals that receive it.
> hold a lot of stigma against “autistic” people
First off, I never said "autistic people" go reread my comments and stop putting text in my comments.
Second. I hold no stigma against people with autism. It is a spectrum of symptoms which means it's impossible to even tell sometimes when someone has autism.
So apologize for uncharitably reading my comment.
> I’d very much like to hear what your definitions of “autism” are, for the classroom to see
Ok, for the classroom and from my own experience (not even googling it right now). Autism is a cluster of symptoms that present at varying levels in individuals. It includes behavioral, sensory, social implications, and motor control difficulties to varying degrees. Including, but not limited to, food restrictions, sensitivity to light, sound, or textures, and a hard time socially interacting with neurotically individuals. Not all people with autism have all symptoms and not all symptoms present in individuals to the same degree. For example, you can have autism but have no problem socially or behaviorally, you may have have sensory issues and food aversions.
> see them as a societal ill
Quote exactly where I said someone with autism was a social ill or apologize for this offensive comment.
> That’s what a lot of people are pushing back against.
No, what you and another commenter are "pushing back against" is anyone suggesting that therapy is needed and better therapy would be better. And that is toxic behavior that you should be ashamed of. I've had enough of that sort of toxicity here and elsewhere whenever the topic of autism comes up and I'm calling it out.
Stop reading into comments like mine fantasizing what you think I'm saying or implying. Quote what I've said that I should apologize for or bow out for being wrong and an asshole.
Again, I am not saying this. Like at all. Saying things like autism is something that should be cured is harmful. How many times have I repeated this in this thread? Especially when you're saying things like, "even if the individual doesn't want it," precisely demonstrating the issues involved here.
> There is no "stigma" on therapy except for the stigma you are trying to make.
There is stigma against people with autism in no small part caused by the exact arguments you are making here. How is this distinction not clear?
> No, what you and another commenter are "pushing back against" is anyone suggesting that therapy is needed and better therapy would be better.
No one is saying this! We're talking about a cure. Particularly in your case an involuntary one. Plenty of people are in therapy for this, and get coaching, me included! No one has a problem with that.
FWIW I am on the spectrum and not new to any of these arguments, they're always presented in this same dishonest fashion. Have a good one. You need more help than anyone else, I suspect - You can't seem to have an honest discussion about this, so I'm done. FWIW I work in ASD support groups with people of varying severities and the majority whenever this comes up would opt to not have a cure. No one has a problem with congenitally deaf people opting not to be "cured," so why is there such an issue here? Again, rhetorical question, I know the answer, and I have absolutely zero interest in discussing this further with someone like you.
Quote where I said autism should be cured. I am specifically talking about you flying off the handle because the word cure was mentioned.
> How many times have I repeated this in this thread?
Never. But again, what you have advocated is avoiding unwanted treatment which is the exact binary that's toxic from your world view.
> There is stigma against people with autism in no small part caused by the exact arguments you are making here.
Which argument have I made that stigmatizes autism.
> We're talking about a cure. Particularly in your case an involuntary one. Plenty of people are in therapy for this, and get coaching, me included! No one has a problem with that.
No, we aren't and I did not start this thread suggesting that a "cure" was possible or even desirable. But you jumped in screaming at me for mentioning the word cure. Even now, you are taking sentences I entered out of context because you want to make this conversation about a more safe position, that absolutely "curing" autism is something I want to do or would do.
You accused me of thinking of autism as being a social ill. I never said that. You accused me of trying to force cures on everyone, I never said that. You've accused me of not understanding what autism is, but now you run away when I give a pretty damn good definition of what it is. I have acted in good faith, all be it heated, in this conversation while you have been shifting goal posts and failing to respond to the points I've made. Instead, you fell back on accusations of my thoughts and motivations.
> You need more help than anyone else, I suspect - You can't seem to have an honest discussion about this, so I'm done.
No, you just can't admit to being wrong. You made accusations about what I thought and said and now when you can't actually back up the accusations you run away accusing me of being dishonest. That is dishonest and you know it.
Because you can't address the points I've made you've fallen onto the "Oh, you just are a terrible person that needs help".
> FWIW I work in ASD support groups with people of varying severities and the majority whenever this comes up would opt to not have a cure.
Cool, have you ever asked someone with severe autism this question? What did they say? Oh wait, nothing because if you've worked with ASD groups you know severe ASD folk are incapable of telling you what they think one way or another about treatment or therapy (beyond not liking it).
You have interacted with groups of people with mild to moderate ASD and generalized what that means for severe cases. Which is the entire thrust of the problem I have with people like you and a running theme of my comments. I have never said that someone who can advocate for themselves shouldn't be listened to. But instead of reading that, you want to read into what I've written that I want to shoot a magic cure all at everyone with autism. A position I NEVER TOOK. That is dishonest.
> No one has a problem with congenitally deaf people opting not to be "cured," so why is there such an issue here? Again, rhetorical question, I know the answer, and I have absolutely zero interest in discussing this further with someone like you.
But I'll answer it even though you don't like the answer.
1. I didn't suggest that someone with ASD who can advocate for themselves shouldn't have an active role in any therapy or treatment they receive. But if you respond, I suspect you'll leave this out.
2. Deaf people are fully capable of understanding and advocating for themselves and their needs.
3. People with severe autism are not capable of advocating for themselves or their needs. Further, they are not capable of understanding the implications of treatments or therapies.
That is the key point which you refuse to want to acknowledge is that ASD is a spectrum disorder and there is a huge difference between someone who is mild and someone on the severe end. Anyone that writes ANYTHING about how they don't want treatments or "cures" is definitionally moderate or mild in terms of the autism symptoms.
Can you understand that?
Someone like you does not want to recognize the gradations of autism. Instead, you want to pretend that the self diagnosed internet warriors can represent everyone with ASD in all cases. You are the one taking the nuance out of the discussion because you can't even admit in this comment section that unwanted therapies or drugs are sometimes necessary.
> The thrust of my argument is that therapy is necessary and desirable despite the individual not wanting it.
Do your pedantry elsewhere, this is just directly in the comment I’m responding to most recently. You want to talk about the differences between tthe words “therapy” and “cure” in the context of this discussion, which you have pulled from other comments I’ve made not in direct response of you - completely not interested and only commenting now to expose what a bad faith “Autism speaks” argument typically looks like, because I’ve had this same argument a bazillion times. This doesn’t waste the amount of time you think it does, next I imagine you’ll be asking for links to posts. anyone can read this comment thread.
> Cool, have you ever asked someone with severe autism this question? What did they say? Oh wait, nothing because if you've worked with ASD groups you know severe ASD folk are incapable of telling you what they think one way or another about treatment or therapy (beyond not liking it).
Yes. I have. Including a relative of mine, and including a person I have coached. In my experience, they don’t really tend to think anything is wrong with them, or don’t understand - they just react to how other people treat them, and ultimately just want acceptance or no hassle, from the exact type of people making the statements you are making publicly here.
As for the rest of your post it is hysterical drivel, blatant misrepresantation and sealioning, and deserves no response.
Like, honestly. If you’re actually interested in learning more about this I urge you to join a ASD support group online somewhere and read what people have to say there. Much of what you’re saying has been thoroughly discussed to the point it’s laughed at, and by the way, to address your “show me where I said I think autism is a societal ill”, I just think it oozes off of your tone and posting and overall point here. I acknowledge you literally didn’t say that. hope that helps!
Go learn how to read. Therapy isn't curing people and you from previous comments know that. You can't quote me saying what you want so now you resort to a strawman and "Well you are just being pedantic". No, it's not fucking pedantry, it's what I'm saying that you can't understand because you can't admit to being wrong.
> Yes. I have. Including a relative of mine, and including a person I have coached.
There, you do not understand the autism spectrum if you think you've had a conversation with someone with severe autism. You haven't because DEFINITIONALLY people with severe autism cannot communicate. You have had conversations with people that have mild or moderate autism. Because, definitionally, those are the only people capable of having that conversation. Unless you are pitching facilitated communication bullshit, which is extremely toxic.
The thrust of my argument is clear, therapy is essential and sometimes required even when the individual receiving it does not want it. I gave clear examples, but you run away from those because you don't want to admit to strawmaning what I'm saying or advocating. It further flies in the face of what I know you advocate. So bury your head in the sand and pretend like there aren't severe consequences if you don't force a kid to brush their teeth or do food therapy.
Lol, this is definitively wrong and loaded with stigma. Like, I’m only engaging with you now for blog content because this is bog standard autism speaks stigma shit. It’s a clear hatred and misrepresentation of who “autistic” people actually are - and again, I have worked with severely autistic people, they struggle communicating but also can usually understand communication themselves - they aren’t mongoloids like how you are presenting them over and over here. And again there are literally millions and millions of people in between that extreme and people like me, and then the people like you making everyone think they’re all non-communicative.
again, for like the fiftieth time - I am not against therapy. I promote therapy. I have in my posts, I’ve said myself I go to therapy for that. I am against the idea, again, for the fiftieth time, that I am pushing back in the context of this entire thread, against the idea that autism is something that always should be cured. Can you just acknowledge that that’s my point? therapy has nothing to do with this. you’re either projecting your own personal issues onto this conversation given the fact you keep arguing against points I’m not making, or you are delusional/crazy, or just outright trolling. Again at this point I’m only responding to highlight elsewhere how ignorant and terrible people like you are.
Just say the quiet parts out loud. you resent your kid and you hate autistic people. again, it oozes out of your posting here. I’d be ashamed to make such thoughts public, personally.
Please quote where I even hinted at the notion that autism is something that can be cured. Kindly consider how offensive your comment is to me, someone that does in fact advocate for the rights and well-being of those with autism. Who, as you couldn't know, has a child with severe autism that is currently in a myriad of therapies, not to cure, but to help cope.
I do not mourn my child. I do work to give my child the best life they can have after I'm gone.
And frankly, I'm frustrated by comments like this because every time I mention severe autism I get a comment just like this that tries to suggest that actually no, it's not that severe and no, it's not that bad. This kind of comments try to deny the existence of severe autism or the impact it has on those that have it. It is akin to trying to say "Actually, people that have vision problems don't need glasses, society needs larger letters".
Some of us do. I'm glad for any research in this field.
It is broadly underappreciated that most gene knockout experiments in mice are not replicated across multiple genetic backgrounds, which can have significant impact on phenotypic expression.
(Sadly, I don't have the lyrical skills for the rest of the song.)
"Every sickness is cured in mice / every illness is cured in mice / we can treat it for a price in mice, mice, mice!"