[thinkcomp]

This is the kind of topic that unfortunately often devolves into a flame war because each side simply doesn't understand the other. But there's something important that neither Silberman nor the mass media has caught onto yet: that the collection of discrete diseases referred to as "autism" has a nexus, and it's in the cerebellum.

There are a large number of recent (2013-2015 range) medical journal articles in respected publications such as Cell that confirm this. Autism is largely about the cerebellum: what happens when cerebellar cells aren't present at all (severe disability, as in Dandy-Walker Variant, aka "autism"), and what happens when they're present but not wired up properly (unusual personalities, aka the condition formerly known as "Asperger Syndrome"). It's not really that simple of course but those are both real conditions that we don't bother distinguishing right now.

This is what should be in the newspaper: that autism is really a collection of things that should be called Cerebellar Dysmorphic Disorder. Everything else is clearer when people aren't just arguing about abstract terms with no morphological basis. (Wonder why some people with autism are able to have intense debates while others can't talk at all? If you have an arbitrarily-shaped Dandy-Walker cyst that has displaced 30% your cerebellum, it's unlikely anyone else will have the exact same symptoms, but you might not be able to do a lot of things.)

The upshot is that anyone with severe deficits and an autism diagnosis should get an MRI of their brain to image the cerebellum.

This is a topic I take really seriously. E-mail me at greenspan at post.harvard.edu with any questions. I'm not a doctor but these views have been run by many MDs and MD/PhDs and I'm happy to point people to journal research if helpful.

[Asbostos]

No disrespect, but you're using weak arguments together with strong assertions that ends up sounding suspicious.

Medical research has plenty of mistakes, bad science and fraud. It doesn't matter if it's published in Cell, there's a good chance that what you described is going to be considered wrong someday, if anything just because it's so recent (2013-2015).

Don't forget The Lancet was also a respected publication in 1998. The prestige of a journal doesn't imply the research published in it is more correct.

[jwdunne]

That is incredibly interesting. Thank you. Since my adopted son's father has an ASD, me and my partner are concerned about a few major patterns of development as we've watch our son grow up. I think, as a precaution, we will be going through the motions of exploring this over next month or two.

I'm especially grateful for any useful insights into what may be. Not to overthink it but to prepare for the outcome.

Your comment gives me another opportunity for my own study to help my son if the outcome is so. Again, thank you.

As an edit, we are not simply assuming this is the case but actually in collaboration with health professionals, who have referred us successively towards this point. I didn't make it clear that I'm not actually doing a 'DIY diagnosis', which is wrong when it comes to issues like this.