Monday, April 9, 2012

Geneticists, biologists, and the impossible bio-"medical" models of "psychiatric disorders"

For updates see

As explained by the author of the "Neanderthal Theory" of neurodiversity (see in a thread at WrongPlanet ( hypotheses that go against everything that is known about genetics and biology are routinely accepted in "medical," "psychiatric," and psychological journals and other publications. [1]

The underlying assumption of these hypotheses is an "impossible mutation model where deleterious mutations build up to form haplotypes and syndromes" which can "explain" autism "spectrum" "disorders." "It is impossible because it goes against evolutionary theory (survival of the fittest) and genetic models (fixation and genetic drift)."

"If a mutation exists long enough in the genome, it must either go towards fixation or get lost by genetic drift. If the mutation is positive, it has magnitudes higher chance of reaching fixation than a mutation that is neutral or negative. Therefore, few deleterious mutations with survive over time. Only new ones will, and they are not linked to each other" as is claimed. "The level of deleterious mutations is always kept low in the genome, much lower than the prevalence of most neuropsychiatric disorders."

Now this sounds very convincing to me, and in agreement with what I've heard about genetics, so if true why aren't geneticists, biologists, and various medical doctors screaming about the obvious, self-evident quackery and unethical treatments that go against the Hippocratic Oath (but not whatever Hypocritical Oath these Newspeak-speaking double-plus-good duckspeakers took [2])??? Reluctance to face the military-financial-psychiatric axis of evil and state terrorism?? Or is it that it is not just the medical and anthropological establishments that are Afrocentric and speciest? Free country (America) my large intestine. If you are even capable of independent thinking, you are "mentally ill."

The only person with the aforementioned backgrounds saying anything (as far as I know) is George Church, a Harvard genetics professor ( There are detractors, even amongst autism researchers, but again, as far as I know they do not have extensive backgrounds in genetics, biology, or medicine. George Church comes closest to raising the kinds of questions I want addressed but aren't being raised, let alone answered.

As I understand it, genetic defects are rare, at least genuine ones anyway. Even "diseases" such as obesity could be explained by a tendency pack on pounds when times are good in preparation for leaner times.

Unbiased or less biased researchers are harder to find than people who didn't believe that Africans where "mud people" hundreds of years ago. Even Thomas Jefferson wanted to include a tirade blaming Great Britain for the slave trade in the Declaration of Independence. He also freed his slaves upon his death. As for not doing so earlier, perhaps he picked and chose his battle, I don't know.

As I see it, there are only two plausible explanations for most of the problems associated with autism, which are confused with autism itself. Both are based on environmental toxins. The difference is that one looks to chemical toxins, while the most likely explanation looks to social toxins that cause depression and complex post-traumatic assault and battery.

Society has changed dramatically in the last several decades but none of that seems to matter to just about everyone. Some people have suggested that ADD/ADHD traits have some advantages such as Thom Hartmann (and I am sure many many others). Psychiatry also gets a lot of flack from antipsychiatrists such as Thomas Szasz. Most of these people have been arguing that schizophrenia is not a real illness for decades. Only recently has someone like Thomas Armstrong taken a stab at speculating about autism's function. In my view most of the few writers aren't doing a very convincing job.

Autistics are victims of violent crime, not disease. This was known before the truth was "discredited" through politically-motivated brainwashing by perps who wish to avoid responsibility. I'll agree that not all the blame always falls on the mother, but nevertheless usually the parents are a big part of the problem.

We know that child abuse is rampant throughout America (and probably the world). We know that parental abuse may damage childrens' brains ([URL=""][/URL]) Like, did we really need a study to show that in the first place???

Most of those people that are writing anything positive are few and far between. Geneticists and biologists saying that the "medical" "Defective Mutant Hypothesis" isn't plausible and simply has to be wrong -- there are too many autistics for one thing (let alone the entire six neurodiversity groups in "Aspie"-Quiz) -- would be most helpful in getting things on the right track.

Otherwise the handful of exceptions such as:

Leif Ekblad -- Neanderthal Theory,, ----- MY FAVORITE

Andrew Walker -- What is the point of Autism?

Andrew Lehman -- Neoteny Theory (and many others)

Alan Griswold -- Autistic Symphony

Morton Ann Gernsbacher -- How to Spot Bias in Research, Association for Psychological Science -- Autism Research page

Michelle Dawson (autism research papers, often with others such as Gernsbacher)

Olga Bogdashina -- Ukraine, U.K activist (President of the Autism Society, Ukraine)

Jared Edward Reser -- Solitary Forager Theory

Tyler Cowen -- Create Your Own Economy

Michael Simonson and others at the "Hunter School" in New Hampshire,

Penny Spikins -- Mental problems gave early humans an edge, New Scientist 2837 02 November 2011 by Kate Ravilious

Dinah Murray, Mike Lesser and Wendy Lawson -- Montropism Hypothesis

George Church, Ph.D. (Professor of Genetics-Harvard Med School) -- modern humans could learn about difference from resurrected cousins ----- Doesn't say neurodiverse people are behaviorally neanderthal, but does say we could learn from the experience since they are undoubtably different since they are "highly optimal sibling or cousin variations on the human existence."

David Anderegg -- Nerds : who they are and why we need more of them

Katharine Beals -- Raising a left-brain child in a right-brain world : strategies for helping bright, quirky, socially awkward children to thrive at home and at school

Thomas Armstrong -- Neurodiversity : discovering the extraordinary gifts of autism, ADHD, dyslexia, and other brain differences ----- Not impressed with his logic, but at least he makes the attempt -- an A for effort.

William Stillman -- Autism and the God Connection ----- A bit on the flaky side, but I believe he is on to something.

Richard Louv -- The Nature Principle, Last child in the woods : saving our children from nature deficit disorder ----- Autism barely gets mentioned in at least one of the books and his site.

Thomas Sowell -- The Einstein Syndrome : bright children who talk late ----- Should have gotten it, assumes that there are people with a neurological disorder that is called "autism."

are just howling in the wind of a category five hurricane.

Note 1: Although the author of the "Neanderthal Theory" is responding to another poster's claim, the poster is just repeating the accepted "medical" model.

Note 2: "newspeak," "double-plus-good," and "duckspeakers" are in the book 1984 by George Orwell.

Note: The Neanderthal Theory explains why there are inherent differences between autistics and "normal" people. It explains the hate. It may explain a fraction of the functioning problems that aren't abuse related.

abuse, anthropology, autism, Asperger's, biology, genetics, groupthink, marginalization, medical_model, Neandertals, Neanderthals, neurodiversity, neurology, pathologization, psychiatry

40 acres, a mule, and 40,000 years worth of interest