Are Friends Autistic?

OK so Gary Numan "Came out" on national television (Well, Sky News anyway) about how autism affects his life. https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/911470487833686022

Cue a rather scathing tweet from Sunday Times columnist Camilla Long:

At first it would seem a tad Katie Hopkins of her to put the word "Autistic" in quotes. From the reader's point of view, this would be perceived to be saying that Numan is NOT autistic and judging by the replies to that tweet, Ms Long seems to have made a few enemies. At first glance it also has the feel of a "He doesn't look autistic" kind of statement.

I'll make no pretence about my dislike of these columnists and others that seem to want to put the boot into anyone different to themselves. To target anyone with any kind of difference is not cool in my book. However, Ms Long (and I say this begrudgingly,) has a point. As far as I'm aware, and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, Gary Numan does not currently have a diagnosis for any type of Autism Spectrum Disorder. Hence the quotes around the word "Autistic" and the fact she says it's an insult to real sufferers.

So why does Numan not have a diagnosis? Well I myself went undiagnosed until I was 42 and it took me quite some time before I even started to seek a diagnosis (plus over a year in the system waiting for it). Higher function autism was generally not a commonly diagnosed thing when I was younger, hence it being missed until recent years. He also mentions Aspergers, which has generally now been replaced with ASD thanks to changes in the way diagnoses are made.

In my opinion, being undiagnosed does not necessarily make one un-autistic (in a way, the way he has come out talking about it leads me to believe he may well be autistic - They do say that it takes one to know one).

I will however, applaud Gary for bringing a number of things that many autistics face every day to the table and using a national platform to do so is highly commendable. If nothing else, he's shown that he understands autistic traits only too well which makes him, if nothing else a true advocate.

Gary I salute you.

PS. Gary, if you haven't sought a diagnosis yet, I believe you really should do. Just my opinion.

~Simon~

An Election Post - Without the Party Politics

Unless you've been hiding under a giant rock the last few weeks, you'll doubtless be aware that we have 2 elections over the course of the next 5 or so weeks, here in the UK. Elections for local and county councillors on the 4th of May and a General Election on the 8th of June. I shall attempt to blog the subject without naming a single (real) political party or politician.

Now there are two main reasons for doing this. Firstly, everybody will likely have their own political views or allegiances and I don't want to cause arguments with those that may disagree with others or even my own views and secondly, this post is not specifically about the politics of Elections but rather more about the process itself and why it is important.

Once upon a time, Britain was ruled by Monarchs, both in a figurehead capacity and politically. The Monarchs' held absolute power and therefore (save for them being overthrown, which did happen once in a while or when they died, passing on their reign to the next in line), they could not be changed and had a somewhat dictatorial control of the country. Events in 1215 set in motion a series of changes which shaped the future for the governance of Britain, after King John (Somewhat reluctantly), signed the Magna Carta. Although the Magna Carta was not adopted, it eventually paved the way for the system of Constitutional Monarchy that we have today.

So how does it work? The reigning Monarch retains a figurehead status as the Head of State. All political responsibility is now passed to an elected Government. There are two sitting "Houses" that form this Government.. The House of Commons (Which currently consists of 650 sitting Members of Parliament, each representing a Constituency) and The House of Lords (Which has 802 sitting Peers). At a local level, there are many County, Unitary and Local Councils which deal with the Governance of local issues, such as Education, Housing, Policing Etc. In a local Election, voters choose their Councillors, who then make up the local Government. In a General Election, the Electorate vote to choose the MP for their Constituency. That MP then sits in the House of Commons on the side of his/her political party. If a party has a majority of MPs in the House, they can then form a Government. Should no party have an overall majority of MPs, then it is up to two or more parties to form a coalition in order to form an effective Government.

So why am I mentioning all of this? Because my FaceBook and Twitter accounts are currently full of political posts saying that I must vote for "X" party or "Y" party or even the "Sky-Blue-Pink With Yellow Dots" Party (I apologise in advance if there is a real political party out there with that name!). The mainstream Media is also full of politics at this time and so I've chosen to try and avoid it as much as possible. I don't wish to be swayed one way or another. Rather, I prefer to use intelligent analysis of each of the candidates in order to make my decisions.

I do have to say though however, that although I'm tired of seeing the political mudslinging and the fact that we've been handed our third major vote in as many years, this does not mean that I do not intend to vote in the upcoming elections. Far from it. To vote for my chosen councillor or MP is a right that I appreciate immensely and I fully intend to use it. I also believe that everyone else who is able to vote (young or old) should do so too, although an important part of this right is the right to choose whether to vote or not.

Lastly, vote according to your conscience. Some people have pledged allegiance to one party or another, therefore there is little that will change the choice they will make. Some will be swayed by what they see in the media or on social networks. Others may be persuaded by family or friends. All I say is this: Vote for the candidate who will make the best councillor or MP and as a result will create the government YOU want. That's the important thing. It's YOUR vote. Use it as you deem fit - no matter how someone else says you should. The right of choice is a fundamental part of a democratic society so let's use it properly.

Feedback or corrections welcome.

Science V Conspiracy Part II - To Vax Or Not To Vax

In this post I'm going to cover the Anti-vaccination movement. Again, an emotive subject that has deep opinions on both sides of the argument.

In 1998, a research article by Dr Andrew Wakefield was published in the Lancet Journal - A widely used and peer-reviewed medical journal, claiming that in a study of 12 children who had the MMR (Measles, Mumps and Rubella) vaccine, that 8 of these children had developed Autism within 2 weeks of having the vaccine administered. The Lancet later renounced this article as false but not before a major outcry and subsequent conspiracy theories ensued.

I'll post the links to the Wikipedia pages on both Wakefield himself and the controversy that surrounded his report here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy

There's a lot of reading here and I'm sure there would be arguments on Conspiracy Theorists' part that the "Powers-that-be" have somehow silenced Wakefield and his findings. Most people would probably agree though that he acted improperly and dishonestly and as a result, there was an appreciable decline in immunisations, which subsequently have resulted in a noticeable increase in preventable childhood diseases (Notably Measles in particular).

As with my last post, I shall not go into huge amounts of details with forming my own opinion. If you want detail, read the Wiki articles above or do your own research and draw your own conclusions. However, and this also includes the various conspiracy sites you may encounter, always view everything with an open mind. Here's my take on various conspiracies on Vaccines:

• Vaccines don't really do anything. It's been proven throughout modern history that they do. Smallpox - once at near pandemic proportions - was wiped out entirely thanks to a heavy vaccination program (Probably the biggest ever success story, if you ever need definitive evidence). Instances of all three viruses covered by the MMR jab have declined dramatically (although Measles cases have increased in recent years as a result of a reduction in the numbers being vaccinated). Meningitis "C" has also been virtually eliminated in teenagers. As for cases of Tetanus, Tuberculosis, Polio, Diphtheria, need I continue? All these diseases are now almost unheard of in developed countries.
• Vaccines cause Autism. Covered above in the Wakefield/MMR Wiki links above. Dr Wakefield was found (By the General Medical Council) to have not only acted improperly by using poor study subjects (The number or subjects was too small to draw an accurate conclusion and also, there were no control subjects without autism to disprove the theory) but also dishonestly, because of the various conflicts of interests (Intent to sue the vaccine manufacturer and allegations that Wakefield himself was planning to profit by licencing separate Measles vaccinations.
• Government are using mass vaccination programs to feed our children with mind controlling drugs. This I believe is part of the whole "New World Order" conspiracy theory and it would also go with the fluoridation of water supplies (Which I might add has drastically reduced the amount of children with tooth decay since adopted). I ask anyone who believes these theories to show me ethically obtained and properly peer-reviewed scientific facts that would back up these theories. Feel free to post links in the comments.
• Wakefield was right and he was silenced. Again, to believe this I would need to be given hard evidence to support this. As well as the GMC findings (from which he was struck off the medical register), he also retracted a planned libel action against an unfavourable report made against him once it became clear he had no support from any medical professional on his findings.
• Autism is has rapidly increased since the MMR was introduced. Actually it hasn't. Rather the number of diagnoses have. Autism is a Spectrum Disorder, meaning that symptoms vary across a wide spectrum (I myself am at the High-functioning end of this spectrum. Might I also add that the MMR vaccine didn't even exist when I was born. The fact that I was not diagnosed until I was 42 also proves, in my opinion, that cases of Autism weren't readily spotted when I was a child). Different ways of diagnosing and changes to the Diagnostic criteria have led to increased amounts of diagnoses. It is also worth noting that one of the most common believed causes of Autism is that it is inherited (often it skips generations and other siblings may show no signs) and so as families grow exponentially, so do the number of cases.

In conclusion, at the end of the day, it is for the individual parent to weigh up the options. It's noteworthy that Wakefield claimed that 1 in 110 children could develop Autism as a result of the MMR vaccine. Even if this were true, in my opinion, as a parent is the risk of a child developing Autism Spectrum Disorder more of a concern than the many diseases that a child would be at risk of contracting? Looking at research in developing countries, where immunisation programmes are yet to take full effect, there is evidence that many diseases  - such as TB and Polio to name a few - are still in high proportions compared to developed nations with full vaccination programmes. That being said there is still NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that links any childhood vaccines to cases of Autism.

I'm not a medical professional nor am I a scientist. I simply choose to look at the available information on all sides of an argument and draw my own conclusions appropriately. Feel free to comment,

~SIMON~

PS I've heard the term "Sheeple" used by conspiracy theorists to describe those that do not believe their theories. Please stop using this term. I find it extremely derogatory and insulting. People are quite capable of reading and making up their own minds thank you very much!

"To Find Yourself, Think For Yourself" - Socrates.

Science V Conspiracy (Part I - A Tale of Two Towers)

It's been a very long time since I've posted anything on my blog. There's been a huge amount of upheaval in my life over the last few years and now finally I'm starting to feel much more settled. In view of that, I've decided it's about time I got back to some serious blogging. So here goes...

As an adult on the Autism Spectrum (I was diagnosed in 2012) I have somewhat taken a very logical and balanced look back at my beliefs that have accumulated over the last 15-20 years or so, using my right-brained thinking to dissect them scientifically and draw my own conclusions. My first few posts on this subject may become fairly emotive talking points as I deal with various conspiracy theories.

I find that a lot of people who believe in conspiracies tend to be very emotional and passionate about their beliefs and also tend to be offended when they are questioned. This blog is in no way intended to cause offence. Rather, it's really just an opportunity for me to throw some light science in an attempt to form my own opinions.

Now I could pick apart a lot of theories to be honest and attempt to prove or disprove them in the process. It would be a mammoth task and I'd probably put you all to sleep. So instead for this post I'll focus on one and leave the rest to future entries. This one will be long enough by itself.

Some fifteen and a half years ago, the world stood still and watched in shock as events unfolded in Lower Manhattan, New York City on the 11th of September 2001. Of course I'm referring to 9/11 and the resulting fallout of the occurrences of that day. It was a couple of years following that I first started seeing the conspiracy theories emerging on a few sites on the Net, followed not long after by the various videos that have emerged since ("Loose Change" and the like).

Now politics, religion, economics and espionage are not particularly my strong points so I'm leaving out any conjecture on motives. Instead, I shall delegate that task to the theorists or the experts that specialise in those particular fields. I'm therefore focusing my attention on the science behind the fall of the Twin Towers and cause thereof. This list is by no means exhaustive so feel free to comment with any additions but please keep it civil and constructive and relevant to the subject matter.

1. Controlled demolition by explosives or by Thermite/Thermate/"Nano" Thermite etc.: Okay, so there are many claims on this. From my own research via many web searches, YouTube etc. (and believe me, I've watched tons of videos from many different sources and viewpoints), I can see no scientific basis for any form of demolition process in evidence. Firstly there is no initial explosive detonations prior to the collapse (There are windows that blow out beneath the falling portions of the towers but this is easily explained by the physics of several thousand tonnes of building collapsing on top of itself causing pressure waves below); Thermite etc. would be impractical for demolition use for several reasons, not least because the amount needed would be astronomical and would've probably been ignited with the initial explosion of the impacts (It has its own oxygen supply so it only needs a heat source to make it burn). So-called "Squibs" seen emitting from the falling buildings can also be easily be explained by the aforementioned pressure waves.
2. Free-fall speed: Contrary to the many claims in the Conspiracy Theorists literature and videos, Neither building fell at free-fall speed. In fact, the north tower took almost double that time to fall (even longer if you count the ten seconds or so more it took for the remaining inner core of the building to finally collapse. There are several videos available that show this). The south tower did admittedly fall quicker but its collapse started from about a third of the way down, not from the top - Again, it's in the videos. Incidentally in both towers you can see evidence of buckling of the structures prior to collapse as they weaken from the heat. You can also see the debris from the towers falling away. This debris is ACTUALLY falling at free-fall speed and reaches the ground a whole lot quicker than the rest of the buildings.
3. "No steel structured high rise building has ever been totally destroyed by fire:" This is indeed a true statement but it certainly doesn't make what happened to the WTC any more sinister. No other steel-structured high rise building has been hit at over 500mph by a Boeing 767 carrying several thousand gallons of Jet A1 fuel either. A massive amount of exploding fuel; an impact of over 10 times the kinetic energy of what the buildings were designed to withstand (I'll not bore you with the calculations of kinetic energy. You'll have to research that as I have) weakening the structure; as well as a very different structural design and the sheer size and weight of those two towers creates a completely unique set of circumstances. It certainly wasn't the fire alone that brought the buildings down but a combination of heat and structural failure - A structure that was already physically compromised by the impact.
4. Explosion in basement/lobby of WTC1: There are many well documented cases of witnesses claiming to hear and feel explosions in the lobby of the north tower, some brief time BEFORE hearing the plane hit the building. I must admit this one puzzled me and I've had to do some research on this particular incident. A little physics may go some way to explain this. When the first plane hit, it is believed that the plane embedded itself into the inner core of the building. The resulting explosion of the fuel would have caused a shockwave that would be directed down through the lift (Elevator) shafts, carrying the fire with it (Hence the "explosion" in the lobby). Since a shockwave can travel faster than sound, the sound from the plane actually hitting would have taken longer to reach the ears of those in the lobby than the shockwave and resulting fire.
5. Sparks from south tower: Many conspiracy theorists have noted images of sparks being emitted from the corner of the south tower a few minutes before the building went down. They claim this is the "Holy Grail" of proofs as it could only have been made by molten iron and would be indicative of a thermite charge. It is far more likely that these sparks come from molten aluminium (Either from the plane itself or from the aluminium cladding and ceiling parts used in the building). Theorists often counter this by saying that molten aluminium glows silver when molten but in actual fact if you Google "Molten Aluminium" you'll see in most pictures it actually glows orange when it is molten.

There are probably loads more pieces of "evidence" that could be put here but I'm trying not to make this post too long winded. Feel free to post in comments and I'll attempt to explain them one way or another.

To summarise this post: In my own very humble opinion, the WTC buildings fell down because they were fatally weakened by a huge impact and the resulting fires within. I see absolutely no evidence of a Top-down controlled demolition. Feel free to tell me I'm wrong although please back up your claims with scientific facts.

Thank you - Simon.

"To Find Yourself, Think For Yourself" - Socrates.