Anonymous wrote:[list]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Show of hands as we are talking about the biology behind autism- how many here have sought out a FRAT test for their autistic family members?

I am totally opposed to genetic testing that doesn’t have any benefit. so no, of course not.

NP. My kids have been diagnosed with a genetic syndrome that is associated with autism and they also have been diagnosed with autism. Treating the genetic syndrome with prescription supplements and medication has really improved their autism. There are no targeted gene therapies yet but they are working on it and it will happen soon, in the next couple years or decades. Then other children like mine may be cured.

Ok - but that is likely a completely different scenario than most people here, and possibly better conceptualized as a different diagnosis. Writ large there is absolutely zero reason to believe that there will be gene therapies for autism in the next couple of decades let alone years.

Yeah, so let's just not research genetic links to autism. Must be a waste of time and also if we don't research them you'll be proven correct!

It is a waste of time and money.

DP. I don’t think it’s a waste but it’s crazy how this seems to be the only avenue researchers are/are able to pursue.

What do you think they should pursue?

The ABA industry is valued at billions of dollars paid for from insurance premiums and tax dollars every year, much from companies that coerce families into signing their kid up for 40 hours of treatment weekly delivered by people without college degrees who haven't even completed their RBT certification. The cost of this research is nothing when put into perspective and I think understanding the biology behind autism is pretty important.

They could research the effectiveness of ABA for one thing! or the impact of insurance coverage on ABA companies.

It’s pretty well known that the search for genetic roots of mental health/developmental conditions has been a red herring.

The effectiveness of ABA has been thoroughly researched since at least the 1950s. Insurance coverage started in SC, go look it up yourself, tons of work involved fighting for this- only reason insurance companies granted coverage was BECAUSE of that research.

I will agree with you that insurance coverage has saturated the industry with inexperienced RBTs and pointless requirements. I don’t even take insurance because their asks were going against best practices for my clients.

So find someone that doesn’t take insurance if that’s your complaint, but the field of ABA and supporting research is sound. Stick to BCBA/LBA only providers and background check thoroughly their experience, education, and overall fit with your child’s needs. You can find the best provider but it might just not be a good fit- a good provider will tell you this, just keep looking. Be confident in your choice BEFORE they start working with your child.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I read about the four sub-types in the summary, it really brings to mind the disorder formerly known as “Aspberger’s,” and then ASD level 1–2-3 in that order. I would like to see the “social and behavioral challenges” group that has at least average IQ, reaches developmental milestones, and struggles with anxiety, OCD, ADHD etc. as a completely separate diagnosis from ASD. I get that they are the largest group in terms of size, but their challenges are soooo much different from kids who use communication devices, have multiple learning disabilities, low IQ, can’t be in regular school classes, and so on. And it’s diluting care and resources from those who most need it. I also think ASD is being over-diagnosed in older kids, teens, young adults, and even adults, because it’s somehow easier to accept an autism diagnosis vs. some combination of OCD-anxiety-depression-ADHD giving you a somewhat “difficult” personality.

The kids who need care, need care. Period. No one is more or less deserving of healthcare - regardless of why they need it.

I think it’s interesting to take a cost benefit analysis stance and say that of course all kids deserve care but there’s a subgroup of kids who are “mildly” affected who would definitely benefit from early and skilled behavioral and social skills support and intervention. And that in the long run that this is money well spent. Because the ceiling for improvement is higher than foe someone who is more severely affected.

I’m not sure why anyone would argue against getting the taxpayer funded benefits that come from an early autism diagnosis.

I certainly wish my ADHD son, who may also be on the spectrum, had received such a diagnosis early on. I wish I had pursued one.

But all assumed that his issues were behavioral because in short he was very verbal, bright, outgoing and could make eye contact. When teachers provided assessments for his evaluation he scored as low as you can score on the is this autism scale.

He was often disciplined for being too loud in class, speaking out of turn, getting in to other people’s personal space, and on and on, essentially being a mini bulldozer who lacked the ability to pick up social cues.

It’s really broken him down over time.

In hindsight he would have really benefited from the wrap around services that an early autism diagnosis and early intervention would have made him eligible for.

lol. I have a kid like that. What “early intervention and wrap around services” do you think exist? They really don’t. there is no magic intervention for high functioning kids. And even though my kid was dx’d at 6 and got a fair amount of services, his needs are still totally different (greater and lesser in different respects) than in early elementary school. Meanwhile kids with severe autism and their families will need actual intensive care and services their whole lives.

DP I can only speak for our family and a limited perspective of having a younger child but we have absolutely found that OT and social skills classes starting at age 4 have really helped. Saw a ton of progress with that combo.

But that doesn’t require an autism diagnosis. My kid started OT and social interventions years before a diagnosis. But sure if you ignore your kid’s obvious motor delays for 10 years then that may be problematic. As for social skills I truly am a non-believer in didactic adult led social skills instruction for higher functioning kids. Certainly social skills classes once a week at 4 have little bearing on social skills at 13.

It depends on your insurance. Our insurance only pays for OT, ST, and ABA with an ASD daignosis. OT was not helpful at all for us.

Sure, that’s a good reason to get a diagnosis. FWIW the indications that truly require OT (delayed fine motor skills) can be coded by the OT for insurance based on their own evaluation, not requiring a diagnosis of autism. ABA probably requires a diagnosis but we got excellent behavioral therapy/parent training from a child psychologist covered by insurance with no diagnosis of autism. (I wasn’t trying to avoid a diagnosis, it just took a while to get there.) my kid is high functioning so we didn’t need traditional ABA when he was young. Also did not do speech therapy but I feel like speech therapists can probably also code for insurance based on their speech assessment.

insurance covers 12-15 sessions per year per modality unless you have an autism diagnosis. That alone is a great reason to get diagnosed

Depends on your specific plan but yes, a diagnosis can help get services covered by insurance and and help get services and/or accommodations in school that would otherwise not be given.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I read about the four sub-types in the summary, it really brings to mind the disorder formerly known as “Aspberger’s,” and then ASD level 1–2-3 in that order. I would like to see the “social and behavioral challenges” group that has at least average IQ, reaches developmental milestones, and struggles with anxiety, OCD, ADHD etc. as a completely separate diagnosis from ASD. I get that they are the largest group in terms of size, but their challenges are soooo much different from kids who use communication devices, have multiple learning disabilities, low IQ, can’t be in regular school classes, and so on. And it’s diluting care and resources from those who most need it. I also think ASD is being over-diagnosed in older kids, teens, young adults, and even adults, because it’s somehow easier to accept an autism diagnosis vs. some combination of OCD-anxiety-depression-ADHD giving you a somewhat “difficult” personality.

The kids who need care, need care. Period. No one is more or less deserving of healthcare - regardless of why they need it.

I think it’s interesting to take a cost benefit analysis stance and say that of course all kids deserve care but there’s a subgroup of kids who are “mildly” affected who would definitely benefit from early and skilled behavioral and social skills support and intervention. And that in the long run that this is money well spent. Because the ceiling for improvement is higher than foe someone who is more severely affected.

I’m not sure why anyone would argue against getting the taxpayer funded benefits that come from an early autism diagnosis.

I certainly wish my ADHD son, who may also be on the spectrum, had received such a diagnosis early on. I wish I had pursued one.

But all assumed that his issues were behavioral because in short he was very verbal, bright, outgoing and could make eye contact. When teachers provided assessments for his evaluation he scored as low as you can score on the is this autism scale.

He was often disciplined for being too loud in class, speaking out of turn, getting in to other people’s personal space, and on and on, essentially being a mini bulldozer who lacked the ability to pick up social cues.

It’s really broken him down over time.

In hindsight he would have really benefited from the wrap around services that an early autism diagnosis and early intervention would have made him eligible for.

lol. I have a kid like that. What “early intervention and wrap around services” do you think exist? They really don’t. there is no magic intervention for high functioning kids. And even though my kid was dx’d at 6 and got a fair amount of services, his needs are still totally different (greater and lesser in different respects) than in early elementary school. Meanwhile kids with severe autism and their families will need actual intensive care and services their whole lives.

DP I can only speak for our family and a limited perspective of having a younger child but we have absolutely found that OT and social skills classes starting at age 4 have really helped. Saw a ton of progress with that combo.

But that doesn’t require an autism diagnosis. My kid started OT and social interventions years before a diagnosis. But sure if you ignore your kid’s obvious motor delays for 10 years then that may be problematic. As for social skills I truly am a non-believer in didactic adult led social skills instruction for higher functioning kids. Certainly social skills classes once a week at 4 have little bearing on social skills at 13.

It depends on your insurance. Our insurance only pays for OT, ST, and ABA with an ASD daignosis. OT was not helpful at all for us.

Sure, that’s a good reason to get a diagnosis. FWIW the indications that truly require OT (delayed fine motor skills) can be coded by the OT for insurance based on their own evaluation, not requiring a diagnosis of autism. ABA probably requires a diagnosis but we got excellent behavioral therapy/parent training from a child psychologist covered by insurance with no diagnosis of autism. (I wasn’t trying to avoid a diagnosis, it just took a while to get there.) my kid is high functioning so we didn’t need traditional ABA when he was young. Also did not do speech therapy but I feel like speech therapists can probably also code for insurance based on their speech assessment.

insurance covers 12-15 sessions per year per modality unless you have an autism diagnosis. That alone is a great reason to get diagnosed

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I read about the four sub-types in the summary, it really brings to mind the disorder formerly known as “Aspberger’s,” and then ASD level 1–2-3 in that order. I would like to see the “social and behavioral challenges” group that has at least average IQ, reaches developmental milestones, and struggles with anxiety, OCD, ADHD etc. as a completely separate diagnosis from ASD. I get that they are the largest group in terms of size, but their challenges are soooo much different from kids who use communication devices, have multiple learning disabilities, low IQ, can’t be in regular school classes, and so on. And it’s diluting care and resources from those who most need it. I also think ASD is being over-diagnosed in older kids, teens, young adults, and even adults, because it’s somehow easier to accept an autism diagnosis vs. some combination of OCD-anxiety-depression-ADHD giving you a somewhat “difficult” personality.

The kids who need care, need care. Period. No one is more or less deserving of healthcare - regardless of why they need it.

I think it’s interesting to take a cost benefit analysis stance and say that of course all kids deserve care but there’s a subgroup of kids who are “mildly” affected who would definitely benefit from early and skilled behavioral and social skills support and intervention. And that in the long run that this is money well spent. Because the ceiling for improvement is higher than foe someone who is more severely affected.

I’m not sure why anyone would argue against getting the taxpayer funded benefits that come from an early autism diagnosis.

I certainly wish my ADHD son, who may also be on the spectrum, had received such a diagnosis early on. I wish I had pursued one.

But all assumed that his issues were behavioral because in short he was very verbal, bright, outgoing and could make eye contact. When teachers provided assessments for his evaluation he scored as low as you can score on the is this autism scale.

He was often disciplined for being too loud in class, speaking out of turn, getting in to other people’s personal space, and on and on, essentially being a mini bulldozer who lacked the ability to pick up social cues.

It’s really broken him down over time.

In hindsight he would have really benefited from the wrap around services that an early autism diagnosis and early intervention would have made him eligible for.

lol. I have a kid like that. What “early intervention and wrap around services” do you think exist? They really don’t. there is no magic intervention for high functioning kids. And even though my kid was dx’d at 6 and got a fair amount of services, his needs are still totally different (greater and lesser in different respects) than in early elementary school. Meanwhile kids with severe autism and their families will need actual intensive care and services their whole lives.

DP I can only speak for our family and a limited perspective of having a younger child but we have absolutely found that OT and social skills classes starting at age 4 have really helped. Saw a ton of progress with that combo.

But that doesn’t require an autism diagnosis. My kid started OT and social interventions years before a diagnosis. But sure if you ignore your kid’s obvious motor delays for 10 years then that may be problematic. As for social skills I truly am a non-believer in didactic adult led social skills instruction for higher functioning kids. Certainly social skills classes once a week at 4 have little bearing on social skills at 13.

It depends on your insurance. Our insurance only pays for OT, ST, and ABA with an ASD daignosis. OT was not helpful at all for us.

Sure, that’s a good reason to get a diagnosis. FWIW the indications that truly require OT (delayed fine motor skills) can be coded by the OT for insurance based on their own evaluation, not requiring a diagnosis of autism. ABA probably requires a diagnosis but we got excellent behavioral therapy/parent training from a child psychologist covered by insurance with no diagnosis of autism. (I wasn’t trying to avoid a diagnosis, it just took a while to get there.) my kid is high functioning so we didn’t need traditional ABA when he was young. Also did not do speech therapy but I feel like speech therapists can probably also code for insurance based on their speech assessment.

Why are you so dug into trying to stop parents from getting a diagnosis?

FYI OT focused on executive functioning, play skills and social skills has been immensely helpful for my child. OTs are trained support people with everyday tasks, not just fine motor skills. Some OTs (like ours, thankfully, even though we didn't know we needed it at the time) have a ton of expertise and experience with autism. The notion that OT is only indicated for fine motor issues is an excuse used by insurers like Kaiser to avoid paying for services.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I read about the four sub-types in the summary, it really brings to mind the disorder formerly known as “Aspberger’s,” and then ASD level 1–2-3 in that order. I would like to see the “social and behavioral challenges” group that has at least average IQ, reaches developmental milestones, and struggles with anxiety, OCD, ADHD etc. as a completely separate diagnosis from ASD. I get that they are the largest group in terms of size, but their challenges are soooo much different from kids who use communication devices, have multiple learning disabilities, low IQ, can’t be in regular school classes, and so on. And it’s diluting care and resources from those who most need it. I also think ASD is being over-diagnosed in older kids, teens, young adults, and even adults, because it’s somehow easier to accept an autism diagnosis vs. some combination of OCD-anxiety-depression-ADHD giving you a somewhat “difficult” personality.

The kids who need care, need care. Period. No one is more or less deserving of healthcare - regardless of why they need it.

I think it’s interesting to take a cost benefit analysis stance and say that of course all kids deserve care but there’s a subgroup of kids who are “mildly” affected who would definitely benefit from early and skilled behavioral and social skills support and intervention. And that in the long run that this is money well spent. Because the ceiling for improvement is higher than foe someone who is more severely affected.

I’m not sure why anyone would argue against getting the taxpayer funded benefits that come from an early autism diagnosis.

I certainly wish my ADHD son, who may also be on the spectrum, had received such a diagnosis early on. I wish I had pursued one.

But all assumed that his issues were behavioral because in short he was very verbal, bright, outgoing and could make eye contact. When teachers provided assessments for his evaluation he scored as low as you can score on the is this autism scale.

He was often disciplined for being too loud in class, speaking out of turn, getting in to other people’s personal space, and on and on, essentially being a mini bulldozer who lacked the ability to pick up social cues.

It’s really broken him down over time.

In hindsight he would have really benefited from the wrap around services that an early autism diagnosis and early intervention would have made him eligible for.

lol. I have a kid like that. What “early intervention and wrap around services” do you think exist? They really don’t. there is no magic intervention for high functioning kids. And even though my kid was dx’d at 6 and got a fair amount of services, his needs are still totally different (greater and lesser in different respects) than in early elementary school. Meanwhile kids with severe autism and their families will need actual intensive care and services their whole lives.

DP I can only speak for our family and a limited perspective of having a younger child but we have absolutely found that OT and social skills classes starting at age 4 have really helped. Saw a ton of progress with that combo.

But that doesn’t require an autism diagnosis. My kid started OT and social interventions years before a diagnosis. But sure if you ignore your kid’s obvious motor delays for 10 years then that may be problematic. As for social skills I truly am a non-believer in didactic adult led social skills instruction for higher functioning kids. Certainly social skills classes once a week at 4 have little bearing on social skills at 13.

It depends on your insurance. Our insurance only pays for OT, ST, and ABA with an ASD daignosis. OT was not helpful at all for us.

Sure, that’s a good reason to get a diagnosis. FWIW the indications that truly require OT (delayed fine motor skills) can be coded by the OT for insurance based on their own evaluation, not requiring a diagnosis of autism. ABA probably requires a diagnosis but we got excellent behavioral therapy/parent training from a child psychologist covered by insurance with no diagnosis of autism. (I wasn’t trying to avoid a diagnosis, it just took a while to get there.) my kid is high functioning so we didn’t need traditional ABA when he was young. Also did not do speech therapy but I feel like speech therapists can probably also code for insurance based on their speech assessment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I read about the four sub-types in the summary, it really brings to mind the disorder formerly known as “Aspberger’s,” and then ASD level 1–2-3 in that order. I would like to see the “social and behavioral challenges” group that has at least average IQ, reaches developmental milestones, and struggles with anxiety, OCD, ADHD etc. as a completely separate diagnosis from ASD. I get that they are the largest group in terms of size, but their challenges are soooo much different from kids who use communication devices, have multiple learning disabilities, low IQ, can’t be in regular school classes, and so on. And it’s diluting care and resources from those who most need it. I also think ASD is being over-diagnosed in older kids, teens, young adults, and even adults, because it’s somehow easier to accept an autism diagnosis vs. some combination of OCD-anxiety-depression-ADHD giving you a somewhat “difficult” personality.

The kids who need care, need care. Period. No one is more or less deserving of healthcare - regardless of why they need it.

I think it’s interesting to take a cost benefit analysis stance and say that of course all kids deserve care but there’s a subgroup of kids who are “mildly” affected who would definitely benefit from early and skilled behavioral and social skills support and intervention. And that in the long run that this is money well spent. Because the ceiling for improvement is higher than foe someone who is more severely affected.

I’m not sure why anyone would argue against getting the taxpayer funded benefits that come from an early autism diagnosis.

I certainly wish my ADHD son, who may also be on the spectrum, had received such a diagnosis early on. I wish I had pursued one.

But all assumed that his issues were behavioral because in short he was very verbal, bright, outgoing and could make eye contact. When teachers provided assessments for his evaluation he scored as low as you can score on the is this autism scale.

He was often disciplined for being too loud in class, speaking out of turn, getting in to other people’s personal space, and on and on, essentially being a mini bulldozer who lacked the ability to pick up social cues.

It’s really broken him down over time.

In hindsight he would have really benefited from the wrap around services that an early autism diagnosis and early intervention would have made him eligible for.

lol. I have a kid like that. What “early intervention and wrap around services” do you think exist? They really don’t. there is no magic intervention for high functioning kids. And even though my kid was dx’d at 6 and got a fair amount of services, his needs are still totally different (greater and lesser in different respects) than in early elementary school. Meanwhile kids with severe autism and their families will need actual intensive care and services their whole lives.

DP I can only speak for our family and a limited perspective of having a younger child but we have absolutely found that OT and social skills classes starting at age 4 have really helped. Saw a ton of progress with that combo.

But that doesn’t require an autism diagnosis. My kid started OT and social interventions years before a diagnosis. But sure if you ignore your kid’s obvious motor delays for 10 years then that may be problematic. As for social skills I truly am a non-believer in didactic adult led social skills instruction for higher functioning kids. Certainly social skills classes once a week at 4 have little bearing on social skills at 13.

It depends on your insurance. Our insurance only pays for OT, ST, and ABA with an ASD daignosis. OT was not helpful at all for us.

I agree there are well known comorbidities that come with autism. Some symptoms may even be cured with treatment when the underlying cause is evaluated. Its surprising there isnt a gold standard in evaluating the health of autistic children. I would love to see that as a research goal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Show of hands as we are talking about the biology behind autism- how many here have sought out a FRAT test for their autistic family members?

I am totally opposed to genetic testing that doesn’t have any benefit. so no, of course not.

NP. My kids have been diagnosed with a genetic syndrome that is associated with autism and they also have been diagnosed with autism. Treating the genetic syndrome with prescription supplements and medication has really improved their autism. There are no targeted gene therapies yet but they are working on it and it will happen soon, in the next couple years or decades. Then other children like mine may be cured.

Ok - but that is likely a completely different scenario than most people here, and possibly better conceptualized as a different diagnosis. Writ large there is absolutely zero reason to believe that there will be gene therapies for autism in the next couple of decades let alone years.

Yeah, so let's just not research genetic links to autism. Must be a waste of time and also if we don't research them you'll be proven correct!

It is a waste of time and money.

DP. I don’t think it’s a waste but it’s crazy how this seems to be the only avenue researchers are/are able to pursue.

What do you think they should pursue?

The ABA industry is valued at billions of dollars paid for from insurance premiums and tax dollars every year, much from companies that coerce families into signing their kid up for 40 hours of treatment weekly delivered by people without college degrees who haven't even completed their RBT certification. The cost of this research is nothing when put into perspective and I think understanding the biology behind autism is pretty important.

They need to focus on the biology of autism. Many of the hallmarks of autism are now being linked to biological causes. Same for adhd. Here's a small example- convergent insufficiency is a weakness in the eyes that makes it very difficult to focus on objects close to your eyes. How many kids that have autism have this disorder but its written off as "poor social eye contact " without further investigation?

DS is a loud talker, which was written off as "autism." We later discovered he had retracted eardrums from having had ear infections. His speaking level returned to normal a few months after surgery.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Show of hands as we are talking about the biology behind autism- how many here have sought out a FRAT test for their autistic family members?

I am totally opposed to genetic testing that doesn’t have any benefit. so no, of course not.

NP. My kids have been diagnosed with a genetic syndrome that is associated with autism and they also have been diagnosed with autism. Treating the genetic syndrome with prescription supplements and medication has really improved their autism. There are no targeted gene therapies yet but they are working on it and it will happen soon, in the next couple years or decades. Then other children like mine may be cured.

Ok - but that is likely a completely different scenario than most people here, and possibly better conceptualized as a different diagnosis. Writ large there is absolutely zero reason to believe that there will be gene therapies for autism in the next couple of decades let alone years.

Yeah, so let's just not research genetic links to autism. Must be a waste of time and also if we don't research them you'll be proven correct!

It is a waste of time and money.

DP. I don’t think it’s a waste but it’s crazy how this seems to be the only avenue researchers are/are able to pursue.

What do you think they should pursue?

The ABA industry is valued at billions of dollars paid for from insurance premiums and tax dollars every year, much from companies that coerce families into signing their kid up for 40 hours of treatment weekly delivered by people without college degrees who haven't even completed their RBT certification. The cost of this research is nothing when put into perspective and I think understanding the biology behind autism is pretty important.

They need to focus on the biology of autism. Many of the hallmarks of autism are now being linked to biological causes. Same for adhd. Here's a small example- convergent insufficiency is a weakness in the eyes that makes it very difficult to focus on objects close to your eyes. How many kids that have autism have this disorder but its written off as "poor social eye contact " without further investigation?

The focus on the biological roots of autism (and any psychiatric condition) has been a total failure. I don’t even know what garbage that is about focusing your eyes. But I’m pretty sure you should not be in charge of research funding.

Mr. Sour Pants is back!

You know whats been a total failure? Cancer research. Its been a total failure. How many decades have researchers come up e.lty for a cure and not been able to get anything beyond chemo to work?

Until one day they did.
Truly hoping someone with your outlook on life isnt in charge of ANYTHING

read a book. Continuing to seek out the genetic causes of something as heterogeneous as “autism” is fruitless and totally different from seeking therapies for specific cancers. For that matter, autism research on therapies of any type would be 10000Xxx more fruitful than continued garbage like this study.

You have comprehension problems. No one said what youre asserting.

I asked ai for a summary of the recent advancements in understanding the biology behind autism and it gave some interesting topics for further reading.

***
Over the past few years, significant advancements have been made in understanding the biology of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), with breakthroughs across genetics, neuroimmunology, metabolism, and gut-brain interactions. Here are some key areas of progress (as of mid-2025):

1. Genetics and Epigenetics
Large-Scale Gene Sequencing: Recent genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and whole exome/genome sequencing have identified over 100 genes with strong links to ASD. These include CHD8, SCN2A, SHANK3, ADNP, SYNGAP1, and others.

De Novo Mutations: Many ASD cases arise from spontaneous (de novo) mutations, particularly in genes related to synaptic function and brain development.

Polygenic Risk Scores (PRS): Studies now show that common genetic variants also contribute to ASD risk in a cumulative way, helping explain broader-spectrum traits.

Epigenetic Regulation: Changes in DNA methylation and histone modification patterns are being linked to environmental factors (e.g., maternal immune activation, stress) and can influence ASD risk.

2. Brain Connectivity and Function
Functional MRI (fMRI) Studies: New imaging technologies and AI-driven analysis reveal atypical brain connectivity—particularly hyperconnectivity in local networks and hypoconnectivity between distant networks, especially in areas responsible for social cognition, language, and sensory processing.

Critical Period Disruption: Research supports the idea that ASD involves altered timing in critical developmental windows for pruning and plasticity in the brain.

Excitatory/Inhibitory Imbalance: Growing evidence supports disruptions in the balance between glutamate (excitatory) and GABA (inhibitory) neurotransmission.

3. Neuroinflammation and the Immune System
Microglial Activation: Studies show persistent microglial activation in the brains of autistic individuals, suggesting a role for chronic neuroinflammation.

Maternal Immune Activation (MIA): Maternal infections, autoantibodies, and immune dysregulation during pregnancy can increase autism risk by disrupting fetal brain development.

Autoantibodies: Autoantibodies targeting the fetal brain (e.g., folate receptor alpha autoantibodies, or FRAA) have been linked to cerebral folate deficiency and developmental disorders including ASD.

4. Metabolic and Mitochondrial Dysfunction
Mitochondrial Abnormalities: Up to 30–50% of children with autism show some signs of mitochondrial dysfunction, which may affect brain energy metabolism.

Oxidative Stress and Redox Imbalance: Markers of oxidative stress and glutathione depletion are common and may impact neural signaling and detoxification.

Folate and Methylation Pathways: Disturbances in methylation cycles (e.g., MTHFR, MTRR genes) and folate transport (e.g., FOLR1 autoantibodies) are increasingly recognized as risk factors.

5. Gut-Brain Axis
Microbiome Dysbiosis: Multiple studies have found that children with ASD often have distinct gut microbiota, with altered ratios of Bacteroides, Clostridia, and Lactobacilli species.

Microbial Metabolites: Short-chain fatty acids (like propionic acid) and other microbial metabolites can cross the blood-brain barrier and affect behavior and brain development.

Fecal Microbiota Transplants (FMT): Pilot studies show long-lasting behavioral improvements following FMT in some children with ASD, suggesting a therapeutic target.

6. Environmental Interactions
Pesticides, Air Pollution, and Heavy Metals: Emerging data links prenatal and early-life exposure to pollutants (e.g., organophosphates, lead) with increased ASD risk.

Gene-Environment Interactions: Tools to assess how genetic susceptibility interacts with environmental triggers are improving, refining our understanding of individual risk.

7. Subtyping and Precision Medicine
Biological Subtypes (Endophenotypes): Research is now attempting to categorize ASD into biological subtypes, such as those with:

Immune dysfunction

Mitochondrial issues

Gut dysbiosis

Folate-related metabolism abnormalities

Biomarker Development: Blood-based and CSF biomarkers (e.g., cytokines, folate metabolites, mitochondrial enzymes) are being investigated for diagnostics and treatment monitoring.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Show of hands as we are talking about the biology behind autism- how many here have sought out a FRAT test for their autistic family members?

I am totally opposed to genetic testing that doesn’t have any benefit. so no, of course not.

NP. My kids have been diagnosed with a genetic syndrome that is associated with autism and they also have been diagnosed with autism. Treating the genetic syndrome with prescription supplements and medication has really improved their autism. There are no targeted gene therapies yet but they are working on it and it will happen soon, in the next couple years or decades. Then other children like mine may be cured.

Ok - but that is likely a completely different scenario than most people here, and possibly better conceptualized as a different diagnosis. Writ large there is absolutely zero reason to believe that there will be gene therapies for autism in the next couple of decades let alone years.

Yeah, so let's just not research genetic links to autism. Must be a waste of time and also if we don't research them you'll be proven correct!

It is a waste of time and money.

DP. I don’t think it’s a waste but it’s crazy how this seems to be the only avenue researchers are/are able to pursue.

What do you think they should pursue?

The ABA industry is valued at billions of dollars paid for from insurance premiums and tax dollars every year, much from companies that coerce families into signing their kid up for 40 hours of treatment weekly delivered by people without college degrees who haven't even completed their RBT certification. The cost of this research is nothing when put into perspective and I think understanding the biology behind autism is pretty important.

They need to focus on the biology of autism. Many of the hallmarks of autism are now being linked to biological causes. Same for adhd. Here's a small example- convergent insufficiency is a weakness in the eyes that makes it very difficult to focus on objects close to your eyes. How many kids that have autism have this disorder but its written off as "poor social eye contact " without further investigation?

The focus on the biological roots of autism (and any psychiatric condition) has been a total failure. I don’t even know what garbage that is about focusing your eyes. But I’m pretty sure you should not be in charge of research funding.

Mr. Sour Pants is back!

You know whats been a total failure? Cancer research. Its been a total failure. How many decades have researchers come up e.lty for a cure and not been able to get anything beyond chemo to work?

Until one day they did.
Truly hoping someone with your outlook on life isnt in charge of ANYTHING

read a book. Continuing to seek out the genetic causes of something as heterogeneous as “autism” is fruitless and totally different from seeking therapies for specific cancers. For that matter, autism research on therapies of any type would be 10000Xxx more fruitful than continued garbage like this study.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Show of hands as we are talking about the biology behind autism- how many here have sought out a FRAT test for their autistic family members?

I am totally opposed to genetic testing that doesn’t have any benefit. so no, of course not.

NP. My kids have been diagnosed with a genetic syndrome that is associated with autism and they also have been diagnosed with autism. Treating the genetic syndrome with prescription supplements and medication has really improved their autism. There are no targeted gene therapies yet but they are working on it and it will happen soon, in the next couple years or decades. Then other children like mine may be cured.

Ok - but that is likely a completely different scenario than most people here, and possibly better conceptualized as a different diagnosis. Writ large there is absolutely zero reason to believe that there will be gene therapies for autism in the next couple of decades let alone years.

Yeah, so let's just not research genetic links to autism. Must be a waste of time and also if we don't research them you'll be proven correct!

It is a waste of time and money.

DP. I don’t think it’s a waste but it’s crazy how this seems to be the only avenue researchers are/are able to pursue.

What do you think they should pursue?

The ABA industry is valued at billions of dollars paid for from insurance premiums and tax dollars every year, much from companies that coerce families into signing their kid up for 40 hours of treatment weekly delivered by people without college degrees who haven't even completed their RBT certification. The cost of this research is nothing when put into perspective and I think understanding the biology behind autism is pretty important.

They need to focus on the biology of autism. Many of the hallmarks of autism are now being linked to biological causes. Same for adhd. Here's a small example- convergent insufficiency is a weakness in the eyes that makes it very difficult to focus on objects close to your eyes. How many kids that have autism have this disorder but its written off as "poor social eye contact " without further investigation?

The focus on the biological roots of autism (and any psychiatric condition) has been a total failure. I don’t even know what garbage that is about focusing your eyes. But I’m pretty sure you should not be in charge of research funding.

Mr. Sour Pants is back!

You know whats been a total failure? Cancer research. Its been a total failure. How many decades have researchers come up e.lty for a cure and not been able to get anything beyond chemo to work?

Until one day they did.
Truly hoping someone with your outlook on life isnt in charge of ANYTHING

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Show of hands as we are talking about the biology behind autism- how many here have sought out a FRAT test for their autistic family members?

I am totally opposed to genetic testing that doesn’t have any benefit. so no, of course not.

NP. My kids have been diagnosed with a genetic syndrome that is associated with autism and they also have been diagnosed with autism. Treating the genetic syndrome with prescription supplements and medication has really improved their autism. There are no targeted gene therapies yet but they are working on it and it will happen soon, in the next couple years or decades. Then other children like mine may be cured.

Ok - but that is likely a completely different scenario than most people here, and possibly better conceptualized as a different diagnosis. Writ large there is absolutely zero reason to believe that there will be gene therapies for autism in the next couple of decades let alone years.

Yeah, so let's just not research genetic links to autism. Must be a waste of time and also if we don't research them you'll be proven correct!

It is a waste of time and money.

DP. I don’t think it’s a waste but it’s crazy how this seems to be the only avenue researchers are/are able to pursue.

What do you think they should pursue?

The ABA industry is valued at billions of dollars paid for from insurance premiums and tax dollars every year, much from companies that coerce families into signing their kid up for 40 hours of treatment weekly delivered by people without college degrees who haven't even completed their RBT certification. The cost of this research is nothing when put into perspective and I think understanding the biology behind autism is pretty important.

They need to focus on the biology of autism. Many of the hallmarks of autism are now being linked to biological causes. Same for adhd. Here's a small example- convergent insufficiency is a weakness in the eyes that makes it very difficult to focus on objects close to your eyes. How many kids that have autism have this disorder but its written off as "poor social eye contact " without further investigation?

The focus on the biological roots of autism (and any psychiatric condition) has been a total failure. I don’t even know what garbage that is about focusing your eyes. But I’m pretty sure you should not be in charge of research funding.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Show of hands as we are talking about the biology behind autism- how many here have sought out a FRAT test for their autistic family members?

I am totally opposed to genetic testing that doesn’t have any benefit. so no, of course not.

NP. My kids have been diagnosed with a genetic syndrome that is associated with autism and they also have been diagnosed with autism. Treating the genetic syndrome with prescription supplements and medication has really improved their autism. There are no targeted gene therapies yet but they are working on it and it will happen soon, in the next couple years or decades. Then other children like mine may be cured.

Ok - but that is likely a completely different scenario than most people here, and possibly better conceptualized as a different diagnosis. Writ large there is absolutely zero reason to believe that there will be gene therapies for autism in the next couple of decades let alone years.

Yeah, so let's just not research genetic links to autism. Must be a waste of time and also if we don't research them you'll be proven correct!

It is a waste of time and money.

DP. I don’t think it’s a waste but it’s crazy how this seems to be the only avenue researchers are/are able to pursue.

What do you think they should pursue?

The ABA industry is valued at billions of dollars paid for from insurance premiums and tax dollars every year, much from companies that coerce families into signing their kid up for 40 hours of treatment weekly delivered by people without college degrees who haven't even completed their RBT certification. The cost of this research is nothing when put into perspective and I think understanding the biology behind autism is pretty important.

They need to focus on the biology of autism. Many of the hallmarks of autism are now being linked to biological causes. Same for adhd. Here's a small example- convergent insufficiency is a weakness in the eyes that makes it very difficult to focus on objects close to your eyes. How many kids that have autism have this disorder but its written off as "poor social eye contact " without further investigation?

[list]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Show of hands as we are talking about the biology behind autism- how many here have sought out a FRAT test for their autistic family members?

I am totally opposed to genetic testing that doesn’t have any benefit. so no, of course not.

NP. My kids have been diagnosed with a genetic syndrome that is associated with autism and they also have been diagnosed with autism. Treating the genetic syndrome with prescription supplements and medication has really improved their autism. There are no targeted gene therapies yet but they are working on it and it will happen soon, in the next couple years or decades. Then other children like mine may be cured.

Ok - but that is likely a completely different scenario than most people here, and possibly better conceptualized as a different diagnosis. Writ large there is absolutely zero reason to believe that there will be gene therapies for autism in the next couple of decades let alone years.

Yeah, so let's just not research genetic links to autism. Must be a waste of time and also if we don't research them you'll be proven correct!

It is a waste of time and money.

DP. I don’t think it’s a waste but it’s crazy how this seems to be the only avenue researchers are/are able to pursue.

What do you think they should pursue?

The ABA industry is valued at billions of dollars paid for from insurance premiums and tax dollars every year, much from companies that coerce families into signing their kid up for 40 hours of treatment weekly delivered by people without college degrees who haven't even completed their RBT certification. The cost of this research is nothing when put into perspective and I think understanding the biology behind autism is pretty important.

They could research the effectiveness of ABA for one thing! or the impact of insurance coverage on ABA companies.

It’s pretty well known that the search for genetic roots of mental health/developmental conditions has been a red herring.