Autism explained

[miles]

Plus, the fact that even some of  the offspring wild animals have all sorts of birth-defects despite living off 100% raw, natural diets, means that a rawpalaeodiet cannot by itself solve certain birth-defects.

What wild animals do you know of with birth-defects which weren't also eating crops, pesticides and being exposed to all sorts of other man-caused pollutants? Not saying there aren't any, but it's just you say that you know that there are some.

[TylerDurden]

What wild animals do you know of with birth-defects which weren't also eating crops, pesticides and being exposed to all sorts of other man-caused pollutants? Not saying there aren't any, but it's just you say that you know that there are some.

The subject is little researched as virtually all those wild animals with birth-defects die out very quickly after birth, if not before(as I found out a while back:-
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Wildlife-2507/Wildlife-birth-defects.htm

However, it has been pointed out that mutations are a perfectly normal part of ALL life, regardless of the quality of nutrition/pollution, and that mutations have been around for billions of years. So, birth-defects(mutations are usually harmful, sometimes neutral, and very rarely beneficial) have been with us since the dawn of time.

[TylerDurden]

... as is RPD. I'll never understand how you can be so close-minded towards anything outside of the scientific mainstream while at the time advocating eating raw rotten meat.

Actually, an RPD diet is backed up by many scientific studies done on the harmful effect of heat-created toxins from cooking, the negative effects of non-palaeo foods like dairy etc. When scientists make foolish statements such as that a raw diet leads to deficiencies, it is invariably a simple case of wrongly/falsely  blaming all raw diets for the deficiencies caused by raw vegan/fruitarian diets.

The simple fact is that an RPD diet will never be accepted by society unless we adopt a scientific approach and don't make outrageous claims re vaccines/autism and the like. So far, there have been endless studies done on the benefits of bacteria(re  the "hygiene hypothesis") and parasites and enzymes and so on, along with detailed info on the harm done by cooking. So, it is becoming increasingly difficult for mainstream scientists to deny that cooking doesn't cause some harm, which is a start.

[TylerDurden]

TD You are getting in deeper Now autism is caused by incest and incest is rampant in SE Asia. hmmmmm
"I'm afraid your "interpretations" are themselves hopelessly, hypocritically muddled"
If I told you once I told you 1000 times Don't Exagerate"

My points were very clear not muddled at all. You seem to be not capable of grasping what I was talking about because it's beyond you personally, that's all. To make it clear I did not suggest that autism was caused by incest.
I was talking about birth-defects in a general sense, not merely autism. And pointing out how clearly absurd Paleophil's notions were re quoting statistics from different regions as there are so many different factors involved re autism that have nothing to do with diet. The fact that incest is way higher in SE Asia, for example, does indeed mean that there is a higher rate of birth-defects in that area.
As for your mention of the US healthcare system that's utterly irrelevant as any logical person would naturally be aware that SE Asia for example has a much lower standard of health-care on average than in the US.


"Then again, autism diagnoses in poorer countries would be far less prevalent than in richer countries like the US, given lack of sufficient access to doctors etc."

"parents of autistic children are highly motivated to move to certain States"
Now you are going to have to prove and explain that one.

 What I said was self-evident, and not difficult to understand. 1 of the reasons behind the false autism "epidemic" is that parents of autistic children had an incentive to  relocate to States which had better State funding for autism, so that, as a direct result, some States had much higher rates of autism than others:-

"A population-based study of one Minnesota  county found that the cumulative incidence of autism grew eightfold from the 1980–83 period to the 1995–97 period. The increase occurred after the introduction of broader, more-precise diagnostic criteria, increased service availability, and increased awareness of autism.[31]  " taken from:-  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_autism#United_States

As for the points re diet not curing autism, that again is self-evident. Once the damage is done re changes in the brain etc., autism is irreversible.No diet can regrow limbs or change an autistic's brain so that they become like neurotypicals or any such nonsense.

As for claims re HGs, I already previously  pointed out endless examples of ancient societies such as Ancient Rome and Greece practising infanticide, along with evidence of infanticide in the Palaeolithic. It's pretty easy to find via google.

1 of the other things that has been pointed out is that the older people get the more likely they are to pass on extra mutations in the germ-plasm, which is why older people are more likely to have autistic children. Yet more proof re genes:-

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2010/08/6005/

[PaleoPhil]

Interesting stuff, Alphagruis, thanks.

portions of the brain's white matter that are abnormally large in children with autism and developmental language disorder (DLD). The findings confirm that the previously observed overgrowth of white matter occurs after birth and suggest that it may be related to the process of myelination .... Many earlier studies have shown that autistic children often have unusually large brains and experience rapid brain growth in the first years of life. This increased brain volume appears to be concentrated in the white matter.

So it looks like you recognize overgrowth of white brain matter after birth as a clinical symptom of autism that can be used as a diagnostic criterion, if desired, yes? There are other characteristics of autism mentioned at that link, do you wish to add any of them or any others to your list of clinical symptoms/criteria of autism, or do you regard white brain matter overgrowth as the only true symptom of autism?

[PaleoPhil]

And thanks for trying to help, Wolf.

[sabertooth]

If autism is a natural occurrence or some genetic defect, then shouldn't the other great apes suffer similar conditions how many chimps do you see afflicted with this type of brain damage, if its natural to man and not chimp then what makes them immune; that 1 percent genetic difference must be to blame ;or is it environment?

I'm not sure??

[PaleoPhil]

That's an interesting question, and another interesting question is, if HG infants with autism "die out very quickly after birth", how did so much of the autism-related genes survive? Granted, some of the current level of autism is likely due to broader diagnosis, but wouldn't we expect it to be extremely rare, almost unheard of, too small to even gain a political footing to begin with? The only plausible explanation for the significant and sustained survival of autism genes over the millennia is if they provide some survival or procreation advantage. But what advantage?

This question of why such seemingly disadvantageous genes persist has been raised with ADHD too:

"Given the current estimated frequency of ADHD (3% to 5%), it is unlikely that such a "disorder" could be as prevalent in the human species if not maintained within the species by selection forces that conveyed certain advantages to some ADHD characteristics or other associated traits."

The three major diagnostic criteria of hyperactivity, impulsivity and attention differences were examined to see if these traits might actually have helped our ancestors to survive. ....

Russell Barkley, a noted researcher in the field of ADD, recently hypothesized that ADD is caused by genetic mutations.  But his idea is inconsistent   with modern theories of evolution.  Genetic mutations are not passed down from generation to generation on a large scale unless they provide some advantage to the population.  If anything, the reverse is more likely to be true.  Hunter-gatherer genes may have been the original genes, and "normal" or "Farmer" genes may have appeared later as a result of random mutations.http://borntoexplore.org/hunter.htm

[TylerDurden]

Interesting stuff, Alphagruis, thanks.
So it looks like you recognize overgrowth of white brain matter after birth as a clinical symptom of autism that can be used as a diagnostic criterion, if desired, yes? There are other characteristics of autism mentioned at that link, do you wish to add any of them or any others to your list of clinical symptoms/criteria of autism, or do you regard white brain matter overgrowth as the only true symptom of autism?

No, as I'm sure there are other differences in the brains of autistics.

[TylerDurden]

If autism is a natural occurrence or some genetic defect, then shouldn't the other great apes suffer similar conditions how many chimps do you see afflicted with this type of brain damage, if its natural to man and not chimp then what makes them immune; that 1 percent genetic difference must be to blame ;or is it environment?

I'm not sure??

  There is simply insufficient data/studies on birth-defects in wild animals. All that is certain is that mutations(most of which are harmful) occur in every generation of wild animals, no matter how perfect their diet might be.

[TylerDurden]

That's an interesting question, and another interesting question is, if HG infants with autism "die out very quickly after birth", how did so much of the autism-related genes survive? Granted, some of the current level of autism is likely due to broader diagnosis, but wouldn't we expect it to be extremely rare, almost unheard of, too small to even gain a political footing to begin with? The only plausible explanation for the significant and sustained survival of autism genes over the millennia is if they provide some survival or procreation advantage. But what advantage?

This question of why such seemingly disadvantageous genes persist has been raised with ADHD too:

You forgot 1 point. Natural mutations occur all the time in animals as well as humans(eg:- 6 fingers etc.) Since the human brain is so much more complex than that of any other animal, it follows that mutations that affect the brain will be quite common , among mutations in general - and as soon as there is urbanisation, and therefore no natural or unnatural selection, the rates of birth-defects go straight up.

There have been other claims similiar to yours, albeit merely speculative. There was one suggestion that geniuses are more likely to have siblings who were schizophrenics. My own experience of schizophrenics and their families suggests that that claim is seriously flawed, though.

1 thought:- autism's 1 major trait is overgrowth of parts of the brain until  they exceed safe limits. Perhaps on a smaller scale, some people might benefit from that in a smaller way, re increased intelligence/memory etc., without necessarily getting full-blown autism?

[PaleoPhil]

.... I'm sure there are other differences in the brains of autistics.

OK, so you think there are other brain abnormality symptoms of autism, but you don't know what they are, right?

 There is simply insufficient data/studies on birth-defects in wild animals. All that is certain is that mutations(most of which are harmful) occur in every generation of wild animals, no matter how perfect their diet might be.

Yes, but the harmful mutations don't normally persist for generations--it's generally the beneficial or relatively benign ones that do. Mutations that kill off infants quickly, as you hypothesized, tend to die out rapidly and new ones take their place, with relatively beneficial ones persisting into further generations.

You forgot 1 point. Natural mutations occur all the time in animals as well as humans(eg:- 6 fingers etc.) ....

I haven't forgotten that natural mutations occur, I just also haven't forgotten what I was taught in biology that most mutations don't persist generation after generation for millennia unless they provide some sort of advantage, with exceptions for disadvantageous mutations that don't much affect survival to reproductive age, though they tend to be limited to offspring of bottleneck populations, which doesn't appear to be the case with autism--but your hypothesis is that autism kills off infants quickly, so that doesn't explain it.

Natural selection pressures have reduced in recent centuries, so perhaps another possibility is that autism is a recent mutation that hasn't had enough time and selection pressure to be eliminated? Shouldn't we expect the rates of autism to be declining, though? Even if we factor out overdiagnosis, I don't get the sense that it's declining.

1 thought:- autism's 1 major trait is overgrowth of parts of the brain until  they exceed safe limits. Perhaps on a smaller scale, some people might benefit from that in a smaller way, re increased intelligence/memory etc., without necessarily getting full-blown autism?

This seems in conflict with your earlier hypothesis that autistic infants die quickly after birth in primitive societies, unless you're also saying that autism is a recent mutation with advantages in modern society.

Some like Temple Grandin think that autism may provide an advantage that would explain why its genes survive--namely, advanced math and computer ability. This would only appear to be a significant advantage in modern society, so she seems to be suggesting that it is a recent mutation(s). Notice also how the article says that autism is "partly genetic", not completely.

The fact that autism runs in families shows that it is partly genetic in origin, but evolutionary theory suggests genes causing such a debilitating conditions ought to have been weeded out of the population. The Cambridge study hints at why this has not happened, suggesting that with variations in the way they are combined, such genes are beneficial.

On their own, such studies have to be treated cautiously because the numbers involved are small. In the Cambridge study, seven of 378 maths students were found to be autistic, compared with only one among the 414 students in the control group.

Other studies, however, have found similar patterns. Baron-Cohen, whose cousin Sacha Baron Cohen is the comic actor behind the Ali G and Borat characters, said: “Separate studies have shown that the fathers and grandfathers of children with autism are twice as likely to work in engineering. Science students also have more relatives with autism than those in the humanities.” ....

For Baron-Cohen the next step is to find the genes linked with autism; he is working with Professor Ian Craig of King’s College to scan the DNA of hundreds of autistic people - and of mathematicians. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4882699.ece

[miles]

You're assuming at autism is complex. It could be that it's broader and more general so occurs fairly readily. Autism isn't necessarily as specific as you are considering it to be. Someone's already mentioned that the diagnosis criteria have even further expanded recently.

________________

If autism may encourage someone to become particularly skilled in specific areas which can be practised in solitude, perhaps people with autism would get very good at other skills in the past which they could do on their own..

[PaleoPhil]

You're assuming at autism is complex. It could be that it's broader and more general so occurs fairly readily. Autism isn't necessarily as specific as you are considering it to be. Someone's already mentioned that the diagnosis criteria have even further expanded recently.

Actually, my understanding was that it is broad/general in the human population, so I don't disagree with that and perhaps your assumption about my assumption is off target?

If autism may encourage someone to become particularly skilled in specific areas which can be practised in solitude, perhaps people with autism would get very good at other skills in the past which they could do on their own..

Yes, it's possible. Do you have a hypothesis about what it would be? If true, though, it would seem to invalidate Tyler's hypothesis that autism is so disadvantageous that it kills off autistics in primitive environments before they can be observed.

[TylerDurden]

OK, so you think there are other brain abnormality symptoms of autism, but you don't know what they are, right?

Yes, but the harmful mutations don't normally persist for generations--it's generally the beneficial or relatively benign ones that do. Mutations that kill off infants quickly, as you hypothesized, tend to die out rapidly and new ones take their place, with relatively beneficial ones persisting into further generations.

This is a false assumption. I mentioned, previously, that natural(usually unfavourable) mutations(in genes) regularly occur in every single generation, regardless of whether those with unfavourable mutations die out.

I haven't forgotten that natural mutations occur, I just also haven't forgotten what I was taught in biology that most mutations don't persist generation after generation for millennia unless they provide some sort of advantage, with exceptions for disadvantageous mutations that don't much affect survival to reproductive age, though they tend to be limited to offspring of bottleneck populations, which doesn't appear to be the case with autism--but your hypothesis is that autism kills off infants quickly, so that doesn't explain it.

Again, a false assumption.The rate of mutations is constant even in healthy populations of wild animals fed on 100% raw diets. If, say, autism were a common mutation, even having autistic children usually dying in childhood before being able to breed wouldn't mean that autism would become less prevalent. Who knows, maybe mutations involving the (excessively large) human brain are extremely common?

Natural selection pressures have reduced in recent centuries, so perhaps another possibility is that autism is a recent mutation that hasn't had enough time and selection pressure to be eliminated? Shouldn't we expect the rates of autism to be declining, though? Even if we factor out overdiagnosis, I don't get the sense that it's declining.

Quite the contrary. The very fact that natural selection has died out means that autism rates should be going through the roof, as, in previous times, autistic children would have been eliminated via infanticide well before they could breed.

This seems in conflict with your earlier hypothesis that autistic infants die quickly after birth in primitive societies, unless you're also saying that autism is a recent mutation with advantages in modern society.

Again, false assumptions as usual. I merely suggested that 1 remote possibility might be that the genes for autism might lead to a larger(ie more intelligent human brain) in some cases, whereas , in (most) other cases, it would lead to a seriously oversized brain, with serious autistic symptoms etc. This could mean autism has been around for a very long time.

Some like Temple Grandin think that autism may provide an advantage that would explain why its genes survive--namely, advanced math and computer ability. This would only appear to be a significant advantage in modern society, so she seems to be suggesting that it is a recent mutation(s). Notice also how the article says that autism is "partly genetic", not completely.

Autism simply cannot be a recent, frequent mutation. For something like autism to occur it either has to have occurred from very early on in human history(regardless of diet), or it would have had to have originated in a tiny bottleneck of a specific human population in very recent times, and somehow spread out to the rest of the world. Impossibly unlikely.

[sabertooth]

The human brain is truly a freak of nature, and the genetic mutations that make it possible are very recent and and exist on a razors edge of genetic checks and balances. The Genesis and maintenance of the most complex living structure in the known universe(the human brain) is a very precarious endeavor on the part of the DNA and error is inevitable. The mutations that gives us genus also allow for our decent into madness. Autism might be a sign of the breaking down of this house of cards.

Whether  it is because of man made damage or a natural breakdown is the great controversy here, the truth may lay somewhere between.

Because those negatively afflicted with mild autism can still breed, they pass on the genes that could lead to more sever afflictions, or perhaps an autistic mind could lead to a positive condition such as the autistic savant.(Einstein may have been boarderline autistic) discovering what goes wrong with the autistic mind could lead us into the opposite direction which is to develop the human mind to its ultimate

[PaleoPhil]

Ah, too bad, Tyler. You went back to mostly spouting opinions instead of providing evidence. However, you did refute Temple Grandin rather well. I agree with you on that. While Temple has done some admirable work, I think she's on the wrong track there.

Whether  it is because of man made damage or a natural breakdown is the great controversy here, the truth may lay somewhere between.

I see no contradiction there and it sounds like we agree. Both genetics and environment are at work in humans from the moment of conception unto death.

Because those negatively afflicted with mild autism can still breed, they pass on the genes that could lead to more sever afflictions, or perhaps an autistic mind could lead to a positive condition such as the autistic savant.(Einstein may have been boarderline autistic) discovering what goes wrong with the autistic mind could lead us into the opposite direction which is to develop the human mind to its ultimate

Except that, according to Tyler, in a HG society the autistic infants die off quickly, so they never get the chance to reproduce.

Autistic savants can be productive in the modern world, but the case for that gets trickier in a HG society and Stone Age days. Under Tyler's hypothesis, autistic HG youths never get a chance to grow up, much less become productive. I'm not taking any stands myself on the autism question, but I do sniff magical thinking in Tyler's 100% genetic speculations and opinions and I'm skeptical of Temple's hypothesis as well. Not that Tyler's magic couldn't be good magic.

[sabertooth]

I believe in magic
I have been toying with theory's about the intelligence of the DNA and its drive to survive

Perhaps humanity is moving towards a new age where the hive mentality is the preferable model so that the Jack of all trade/ man of the world model is dieing off and being replaced by autistic androids who can be more specialized, allthough less pragmatic and nothing like the hunter gatherer, (which we all revere)

This is the new phase of human evolution(or degeneration). I am not being outrageous here. There is something occurring that needs to be investigated with an open mind.

Studies show an across the board decline in IQ of 10 t0 20 points, universally in developed nations. I see near sighted kids with loopy disinterested dispositions, everywhere. This is where humanity is headed, since independent minded, intelligence and self reliance is no longer required for survival our epegentic expression's are beginning to disregard those traits and allowing them to fade out. Our DNA reacts to the environment and this brave new world is creating a new type of man; a man that I think is a shadow of his past greatness. Autism prevalence is only one of many phenomenon that can be looked on as evidence of this woefull trend.

So, we are beset by our own decadence and now must rely more heavily on technology to help cope with the genetic decay.  

I believe that these trends can be overcome by the spirit of life, which fights against degeneration and is capable of DNA reconstruction,

But with all the mad science that has been let lose along with intentional poisoning of the food water supply by the hidden hands of tyranny, I am a little uncertain about the future of the neo paleos like ourselves and our ability to protect our progeny against these afflictions like autism.

(digression)
Its scary when your 18 month old first born son gets a viral infection that lingers off and on and he starts to act a little different and his eyes dialate: he also got some viral episode where his hip locked up
everything seemed to fade although he seems to have hyperactive episodes from time to time

It makes you wonder how much damage these things do. And then paranoid parrents like me read articles that say that measles and herpes 6 is found in the brains of autistic people(my brother had a severe reaction to the Measles shot (ITP) an developed seizures in later childhood. The more I study the more I believe these paranoid delusions that there are methods being deployed by design to bring about a quickening in the evolution of the autistic androids.

We are being culled!!!!whether or not its by scientific design or scientific ignorance; it is something most would rather not consider.

Fools rush in where angles fear to tread.( I ware this madness on my sleeve)  

[TylerDurden]

Well, PP, you certainly haven't been able to counter effectively the various points I made as to why autism is an issue now whereas HG societies would never have tolerated those afflicted with autism. The main point I was getting across, though, is that the autism epidemic is simply a myth, that diet cannot sort out autism, and that the vaccines-notions are  bogus.

[raw-al]

TD Have you ever been accused of being argumentative?

[TylerDurden]

TD Have you ever been accused of being argumentative?

I'm simply leery of the many conspiracy-theories out there and wish to avoid snake-oil-like suggestions that diet can cure absolutely everything. 1 out of every 1,000  conspiracy-theories may well have some truth in them somewhere, but the vast majority such as the vaccines-nonsense are way overblown(I am aware that a very tiny percentage 0.00001 or something might get a  reaction to vaccines but autism is something one gets well before the vaccine-stage, at the very least).

[raw-al]

Broken record time 

[sabertooth]

my brothers adverse reaction was never reported, neither were all the secondary infections I contracted within two weeks of each childhood vaccination, the asthma I suffered etc..
you cant play god with the immune system without adverse reaction.
I SEE THESE THINGS WITH MY OWN EYES, MAYBEE VACIENSE ARE MORE TOLEATED BY THE BRITISH. I LIVE IN KENTUCKY AND THE DAMAGED ARE ALL AROUND ME AND NOne OF US EVER  MAKES IT INTO YOUR .00001 THEORY

The numbers are cooked My wife's grandmother got cancer from the first polio shots that contain es sv40(documented)

Many developed shingles years after the smallpox shots, people I personaly know

My grandmother was 13 when injected and she told me she didnt feel right afterwards

These viruses cause the genetic mutations that allow secondary infections with the geneticaly altered retrovirus that cause things like autism, these are binary weapons that
since there are more than one factor involved there is always plausible deniability.

[PaleoPhil]

TD: you certainly haven't been able to counter effectively the various points I made
- I'm not particularly interested to work on detailed countering of your more extreme opinions that are outside the bounds of science. Where you've been reasonable I've actually agreed with you. I also noticed that you haven't countered any of the more reasonable opinions of Dr. Hyman that I cited other than by sidestepping them with comments to the effect that she has to say those things (implying she is lying, which undercuts your use of her as a source to support your claims).

TD: the autism epidemic is simply a myth
- I agree there has been a change in how it's reported, but it's difficult to ferret out how much of the increase is due to that and how much might be due to environmental factors affecting epigenetics, such as diet, nutrition and lifestyle. To assume based on a study or two and your opinions and assumptions that the entire increase can be written off to changes in reporting and that all other potential variables can be assumed to be nonfactors would be incautious and unscientific and I don't know of a single scientist who does this--and Dr. Hyman certainly doesn't do this. If the increase is due solely to changes in reporting, then we should expect to see autism spectrum rates level off in the near future, unless reporting criteria and methods change dramatically again. I agree with Dr. Hyman that we need more research and that it is OK for parents to carefully try an RPD if they wish. After all, it provides benefits irrespective of any possible effect it might have on the disorders of the autism spectrum, or what you term its minor "issues" and "side effects". If it only helps with the "issues" and "side effects" of the autism spectrum, I can't imagine a parent who wouldn't want that, can you? Don't let your commitment to your hypothesis blind you to the bigger picture.

TD: diet cannot sort out autism
- I don't know what you mean by a vague word like "sort out" and you have a habit of interpreting such vague terms as suits you, with subtle changes as needed. Dr. Hyman remains open minded about potential benefits from dietary therapy and that seems like a reasonable perspective to me, at least until there has been more thorough research. I take no firm stand on the issue, but I do see ruling it out in absolutist fashion as an unscientific step at this time. I can understand trying to discourage reckless adoption of AV's claims and views on autism, but I think you've gone way overboard.

TD: the vaccines-notions are  bogus
- I agree and I think the evidence on that is now sufficiently strong that it's a waste of time to spend significant resources pursuing that angle when there are other more promising angles to pursue, like customized raw Paleo diets. However, it is interesting that single dose vaccines free of thimerosal are again becoming available in this country and given the choice between a vaccine containing thimerosal and one that is thimerosal-free, I would choose the latter (based on the precautionary principle, the simplicity principle, the experience principle and the biological template/milieu principle).

No scientist claims to know what all the genes and epigenetics involved in autism are and none claim to know with certainty what all its underlying causes are, so that alone is worth further research. Surely you can at least agree on that?

TD: I'm simply leery of the many conspiracy-theories out there and wish to avoid snake-oil-like suggestions that diet can cure absolutely everything.
- Agreed, diet cannot "cure absolutely everything." Has anyone here said that it can? Yet another straw man. Your capacity for producing straw men is amazing, but not surprising.

Broken record time  

Bingo!

[TylerDurden]

TD: you certainly haven't been able to counter effectively the various points I made
- I'm not particularly interested to work on detailed countering of your more extreme opinions that are outside the bounds of science.

  That's hypocrisy as you are a big fan of the "false autism epidemic", which is a notion deried by scientists in the mainstream.


 

Where you've been reasonable I've actually agreed with you. I also noticed that you haven't countered any of the more reasonable opinions of Dr. Hyman that I cited other than by sidestepping them with comments to the effect that she has to say those things (implying she is lying, which undercuts your use of her as a source to support your claims).

You merely "reinterpreted" what Dr Hyman was saying to a certain extent. For example, when she merely made qualifying remarks re autism and diet, which were merely a standard scientific attempt to avoid being too dogmatic, rather than an endorsement of such a view.

TD: the autism epidemic is simply a myth
- I agree there has been a change in how it's reported, but it's difficult to ferret out how much of the increase is due to that and how much might be due to environmental factors affecting epigenetics, such as diet, nutrition and lifestyle. To assume based on a study or two and your opinions and assumptions that the entire increase can be written off to changes in reporting and that all other potential variables can be assumed to be nonfactors would be incautious and unscientific and I don't know of a single scientist who does this--and Dr. Hyman certainly doesn't do this. If the increase is due solely to changes in reporting, then we should expect to see autism spectrum rates level off in the near future, unless reporting criteria and methods change dramatically again. I agree with Dr. Hyman that we need more research and that it is OK for parents to carefully try an RPD if they wish. After all, it provides benefits irrespective of any possible effect it might have on the disorders of the autism spectrum, or what you term its minor "issues" and "side effects". If it only helps with the "issues" and "side effects" of the autism spectrum, I can't imagine a parent who wouldn't want that, can you? Don't let your commitment to your hypothesis blind you to the bigger picture.

I'm basing it on numerous studies and analyses of data which show conclusively that autism diagnoses-rates have gone straight up while previous diagnoses for similiar conditions ahve gone straight down.  This is a fact.

As for curing non-autism-relared conditions such as digestive disorder, I have no issues with people claiming that an RPD diet can help people with digestive disorders or mood or similiar non-autistic trait. But it would be criminally irresponsible for someone to claim that a rawpalaeodiet could help people with autism in a small way, as that would imply that a rawpalaeodiet could cure or relive autism.

TD: diet cannot sort out autism
- I don't know what you mean by a vague word like "sort out" and you have a habit of interpreting such vague terms as suits you, with subtle changes as needed. Dr. Hyman remains open minded about potential benefits from dietary therapy and that seems like a reasonable perspective to me, at least until there has been more thorough research. I take no firm stand on the issue, but I do see ruling it out in absolutist fashion as an unscientific step at this time. I can understand trying to discourage reckless adoption of AV's claims and views on autism, but I think you've gone way overboard.

Not at all, Indeed, I have been specifically avoiding the dubious, extreme claims that people in the autism-cure movement have been making re vaccines being wholely blamed despite autism being blamed on genes by scientists - and then there are mercury-claims in general, chelation-therapy and similiar nonsense. I have been careful to make clear that since autism is related to changes in the brain , well before birth , that autism cannot be cured or relieved after birth. Now, if you were to tone down your extremist claims and suggest that a rawpalaeodiet by both parents might lead to fewer chances of birth-defects in the next generation, and therefore a possible drop in the chances of their children getting autism, that would be OK, as the science of epigenetics could explain some aspects of autism. But anything more than that is simply not supported by science.

TD: the vaccines-notions are  bogus
- I agree

Well, that at least is something.

Agreed, diet cannot "cure absolutely everything." Has anyone here said that it can? Yet another straw man. Your capacity for producing straw men is amazing, but not surprising.

The mere fact that you could even suggest that a rawpalaeodiet could cure or relieve autism means that you clearly believe that a rawpalaeodiet can cure almost anything. Autism is about as irreversible as one can get, barring regrowth of limbs and the like.