Dad
10-26-2001, 11:52 AM
In the largest study of its kind, researchers in 1995looked at 45 pairs of twins in which at least one twin had autism. 25 sets were monozygotic (identical) who shared all the same genetic stock. 20 sets were dizygotic (fraternal) which came from two separate fertilized eggs and had no more chance of identical genes that siblings born of different pregnancies. The results were 15 of the 25 sets of identical twins had both children autistic (60%). In the fraternal twins 0 sets had both children autistic.
While the second set's findings might seem on the surface to hint that autism IS genetic, this conclusion cannot be reached. The environmental factor is not necessarily limited to in utero. The history of Pink disease will attest to that.
On the other hand, looking at the first set's findings we see something even more interesting. 40% of children with exactly the same genes only had one autistic child. If autism is strictly limited to genetics, or in utero environmental factors, how is it possible that only one identical twin develops autism? Clearly we can see that some other outside factor is coming into play, a factor that only one twin could have received.
And even more interesting is the notion that 60%concordance with autism DOES NOT PROVE THAT AUTISM IS GENETICS EITHER. We cannot determine if it was genes or that BOTH twins suffered from the same environmental trigger. In the absence of a clear genetic marker (such as Fragile X, Rhett's Tourette's, etc.) we can only hypothesize about the genes involved. First there was talk of isolating the gene. To date every gene they think they have found turns out to be as prevalent, or even more so in the non-autistic population than in autistics. Then they theorized it was a combination of up to 6 genes, but this too is failing them. Now there is talk that it is even more, possibly dozens of genes which need to be in place for a child to be autistic.
And it may turn out in the end that it is neither genetics nor environmental trigger, but BOTH which need to be present. The genetics may not be a predisposition to autism like having blue eyes or red hair. It could be that the genes involved cause your metabolism to be weakened in just the right way for the MMR to turn your bodies immune system against the myelin sheaths of your neurons (Singh's disease). It could be that the genes make your body incapable of excreting toxic metals as NT's can, causing the person instead to retain all the mercury callously included in vaccines. It could be that genetics make the child become injured more readily by the overload of triple live viruses, or from the pertussis toxins which are every bit as deadly in the dead cell as in the live one.
I will tell you something that I do find interesting however… In 3 ˝ years of conversing with literally hundreds and hundreds of parents of autistic children, I have only run into 3 so far whose children NEVER got vaccinated. Of course, I forgot to ask how many of the mommys got jabs while pregnant, and how many had older, crumbling amalgam fillings while their babies were developing.
While the second set's findings might seem on the surface to hint that autism IS genetic, this conclusion cannot be reached. The environmental factor is not necessarily limited to in utero. The history of Pink disease will attest to that.
On the other hand, looking at the first set's findings we see something even more interesting. 40% of children with exactly the same genes only had one autistic child. If autism is strictly limited to genetics, or in utero environmental factors, how is it possible that only one identical twin develops autism? Clearly we can see that some other outside factor is coming into play, a factor that only one twin could have received.
And even more interesting is the notion that 60%concordance with autism DOES NOT PROVE THAT AUTISM IS GENETICS EITHER. We cannot determine if it was genes or that BOTH twins suffered from the same environmental trigger. In the absence of a clear genetic marker (such as Fragile X, Rhett's Tourette's, etc.) we can only hypothesize about the genes involved. First there was talk of isolating the gene. To date every gene they think they have found turns out to be as prevalent, or even more so in the non-autistic population than in autistics. Then they theorized it was a combination of up to 6 genes, but this too is failing them. Now there is talk that it is even more, possibly dozens of genes which need to be in place for a child to be autistic.
And it may turn out in the end that it is neither genetics nor environmental trigger, but BOTH which need to be present. The genetics may not be a predisposition to autism like having blue eyes or red hair. It could be that the genes involved cause your metabolism to be weakened in just the right way for the MMR to turn your bodies immune system against the myelin sheaths of your neurons (Singh's disease). It could be that the genes make your body incapable of excreting toxic metals as NT's can, causing the person instead to retain all the mercury callously included in vaccines. It could be that genetics make the child become injured more readily by the overload of triple live viruses, or from the pertussis toxins which are every bit as deadly in the dead cell as in the live one.
I will tell you something that I do find interesting however… In 3 ˝ years of conversing with literally hundreds and hundreds of parents of autistic children, I have only run into 3 so far whose children NEVER got vaccinated. Of course, I forgot to ask how many of the mommys got jabs while pregnant, and how many had older, crumbling amalgam fillings while their babies were developing.