SoWhatsNextDoc

The condition of autism is entirely genetic whether early onset in infancy or later in life.

This isn't true. Environmental conditions like pre-natal valporic acid exposure and TBI's may also result in autism. Autism isn't a pathology, it's a behavioral description. Part of the reason so many large data sets are awful is because of the pathological heterogeneity of the psychiatric description.

There's really not thousands of genes that impart autistic symptoms either. As mentioned before, autism is NOT pathologically defined and as such GWAS studies end up tagging genes that have nothing to do with the actual symptomology of autism.

Are you making efforts to push for a pathological definition of autism?

This group of genes has undergone evolutionary selection because they impart advantages to society.

That's a pretty bold statement, what specific advantages has autism imparted on "society"?

Are there any neurological, electrical, or chemical processes which are unique to autism?

In what areas of focus is autism research under/over served?

Is the brain the mind, or are they separate entities?

Can you describe what autism is?

From a molecular perspective, what mechanisms create autistic symptomology?

Can autism be cured? Should it be cured?

How has the definition of autism changed since it's inception?

If we assume that nearly all function starts in the cerebellum and the neocortex works as a "social sense" organ, is it fair to think of autism as a sensory disability rather than a psychological one?

In no way am I attempting to argue that autism is a pathological condition nor is it defined as such.

But you stated:

The condition of autism is entirely genetic whether early onset in infancy or later in life.

This implies to me that you're inferring that autism is entirely genetic, am I interpreting this incorrectly?

It can be argued that unusual social behavior and sensory sensitivities provided individual with abilities to see and hear a threatening environment.

There have been a LOT of bad theories regarding autism, including intense world. All of them fail a pretty basic smell test. Again, autism is not a pathology. Creating theories of function based on observed symptomology that changes every 10 to 20 years is pretty much always going to lead to pretty terrible theories. Intense world is one of those theories that only works if you exclude the bulk of autism cases, those with a particularly impaired social sense. I've yet to see a version of this theory that fully accounts for the "spectrum", nor does it do anything about describing actual pathology.

There are substantial neurological differences in the cortex of autistic people. These are variable and widespread. They all relate to differences in neurotransmission in the brain.

Show me. What specific neurological differences exist in the "cortex" of autistic people. Which cortex. How does it work? Is this consistent?

Autism cannot be cured and is a lifelong condition. There is no argument for curing autism and it cannot be rationalized. The brain is wired differently; that is something you cannot change.

I have a few problems with this bit. First, we need to establish that autism is caused by the brain being "wired differently". Not in 1/3rd of our cohort, but all of them. You're hinting at pathology again without being clear about it. What sections of the brain are wired differently in autistic people, and is this a reliable and accurate biomarker?

Second, you're implying that neuroplasticity doesn't exist. That's a very interesting position that sits opposite to most research regarding the brain.

Finally, I'm interested in the argument that "curing" autism can't be rationalized. I believe that improving the quality of life for people heavily impaired by autism is a pretty good rationalization. Is this irrational?

Autism carries significant sensory abilities and disabilities among other traits. Most all psychological problems come not from autism but from struggling to deal with sensory overload and social pressures of being different.

With this again. What percentage of folks with autism have these symptoms co-morbid? Is your description over-fitting autism symptomology? Using your molecular science background can you describe why are these symptoms co-morbid?

I'm looking for specific insights from you, as a result of your intense study of the subject. Are there any unique insights that you can share with us?