Dan Olmsted Autism's privates Tracy 2765

No, it was you who used the term "protective gene."

Nor do you have any evidence of vaccinations in Amish playing any role. As yet, there is not even any evidence that the Amish have a lower incidence of autism than the general public.

The comparison is valid, because the workings of genetics in cattle and humans is identical. The effects a given chemical on mice and humans (or cattle) may not be the same at all.

Sure, why not? Write up a grant proposal. I'm not saying it should not be done, just that it would be difficult. I would also be quite disruptive in the Amish community, but what's a little bad manners in the hope of scientific discovery?

Those who enforce the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act are in the business of ensuring that schools offer educational opportunities for children whose parents demand them. They do not force education on the children of parents who have no interest in "special education." The Amish schools are outside the purview of the local school boards. Nobody is going to go looking for autistic children in the Amish community for the purpose of forcing special education on them.

Science is not under any obligation to take an interest in everything that some anti-vac reporter finds interesting. There is NO evidence, convincing or otherwise, that either the Amish or Homefirst's patients have lower incidences of autism. There is only anecdote and premature conclusion.

Sure, if someone else collects it. I'm not interested in going into the research business to get it, though.

What I mean is, a savvy doctor might recogize symptoms in the spectrum of autism in a patient that has been brought to him for treatment of an ear infection, but not officially diagnose "autism" and place such a diagnosis in his records. He'll treat the ear infection, and let it go at that. If the parents are seeking special education, it's important for the child to get that diagnosis. But if the parents are avoiding special attention, there is no reason for the doctor to respect that, especially in light of the fact that he cannot offer any effective treatment for the disease anyway.

If the doctor has not made an official diagnosis, there is nothing in his records to report. What's illegal is for him to point out to researchers just where they might find Amish families with autistic children.

Don't be silly, until there is a diagnosis, there is no verification of an incidence. That's the big problem with your proposed study of autism in the Amish. To get an accurate count of Amish autistics, you need to go out and find all those AA's that are as yet undiagnosed, and get them examined by someone who is qualified to make such a diagnosis. Since the Amish have no reason to want their children diagnosed, it will be an uphill battle.

Yes, speculation, but if you had ever lived with an autistic child, you would recognize it as an apt one. Encounters with strangers are traumatic to an autistic. An autistic child on a farm might play in the yard for weeks without a stranger ever coming into view. Such isolation in the city is impossible short of shutting a child in a room with the curtains drawn.

Where does he ever say he's positive? For your information, there is nothing wrong with speculation, especially in a newsgroup or a blog. We're not talking about a scientific treatise here. --

--Rich

Recommended websites: