Note: Before you take the time to read this please know that I am a "nobody" who knows nothing about autism. I wanted to make it clear that anyone looking for answers from experts should not read further. What I have presented here is simply my thoughts and questions on autism, after years of thinking about this difficult disorder and wishing I could get some of questions answered.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE QUESTION :

In 1980 1 in every 10'000 kids had Autism, In 2008 the Autism rate is 1 in every 150 Kids... Why do you believe the Autism rate has increased?

One explanation (or at least part of the explanation) for the apparent increase in autism cases is believed to be that more forms of autism have been recognized. In the past, many cases of autism were left undiagnosed, which, of course, would account for fewer cases showing up in statistics.

There are those who believe that vaccines have contributed to the increase, but there are also those who say there is no real scientific evidence that vaccines are responsible.

For years I have had a "theory" about a possible cause of autism (and I put "theory" in quotation marks because, as someone with no training in any scientific or medical field, I don't feel I have a right to have a theory - and yet I do). In fact, I have had my "theory" for a about twenty years, but, again, what does a person with no training in medicine or science do about such a theory anyway?

As the years have unfolded, however, science and medicine seem to publishing more and more information about what is being learned about autism - and, to my satisfaction - what has unfolded seems, in fact, to back up my "theory". (I'll stop putting the word in quotation marks at this point. Any readers will have already gotten the point that it is with humility and insecurity that I offer my uneducated thoughts on autism.) Before going any farther I'd like to also acknowledge that my choice of words will obviously be the words of a non-scientist/non-medical person. The disadvantage to that is, of course, that I will show my ignorance. An advantage to it, however, is that other non-scientific/non-medical people will be able to easily understand what I'm saying.

Please keep in mind, too, that my uneducated guesses about possible causes of at least one form autism are the result of one non-expert, without benefit of access to the latest scientific knowledge (or even secrets), pondering questions to which science may already have the answers (even if I am not aware of it). So, pardon my ignorance and overlook any lack of knowledge I have about the most up-to-date developments, and allow me the luxury of getting my thoughts about autism down in writing.

I believe that the cause of at least some forms of autism can be summed up in three words:

The Mandelbrot Set, named after mathematician, Benoit Mandelbrot, is a very simple equation that can be represented by a computer-generated image (a fractal); and that shows how two or more simple, identical, images will replicate themselves; while when very minor differences are introduced; those images which started out appearing to be identical will ultimately result in very different images after enough replications have occurred. The formula is Z = Z2 + c, with Z representing the simple, "main", image and "c" representation that slight difference that was introduced.

Essentially, what happens is the "main" and original image continues to be evident, but after enough replications what started out as a minor difference (the c) plays a larger role in the appearance of the resulting, more complicated, image.

For anyone unfamiliar with the fractal and formula, here's a simpler way to envision it:

Imagine I have a magic wand. Now imagine I give 25 pennies and one dollar bill to Person A. I then give 100 pennies, 2 dimes, and one nickle to Person B. Both people are starting out with the same amount of money ($1.25). Imagine that $1.25 each has as the Z (the basic thing that will be replicated). Imagine the different way both people's pile of money looks (or the fact that the pile is made of different materials) as the c (the difference).

If I use my magic wand to double each person's pile of money, obviously they'll have twice as much, but neither pile will look dramatically different (at least compared to what will happen as I keep doubling each pile). Imagine I keep doubling each person's pile of money, say, 1000 times. One pile is going to obviously be made up of lots of paper bills and some coins. The other pile will be lots and lots of pennies, with, of course, fewer dimes and nickles. The point is that in the beginning the piles contained common elements (the amount of money) but looked a little different. In the end, the piles of money would still contain the same amount of money, but would have an extremely different appearance.

Maybe a better comparison would be to imagine two piles of 100 pennies, with me adding 1 cent to one pile before doubling it with the magic wand; and adding a nickle to the other pile before doubling it.

The point is, with the formula, one starts out with what appears to be the same simple thing (but upon closer examination barely visible differences would be present). As the similar appearing "starting things" are replicated, the differences become more dramatic, even though the "starting thing" can still be seen in the more complicated, resulting, thing.

If one sees and/or accepts that that way this process occurs is at the root of all life (development), it is easy to see how all life could have evolved from single-cell life (the Z replicated), with the c being minor differences in make-up of these single-celled organisms, minor differences in external influences, or both.

Jumping over thousands of years of evolution and considering humans, as we know them, we can see that a general blue print for human development is in place at the time a human being is conceived. That would be the Z, that all humans have in common. If it were possible to view the "c influence" on that Z, what we would be viewing would be genetic differences that exist as a result of our parents, grandparents, and so on.

The first part of the development of an embryo involves cell division. All embryos (the Z) look alike, but, of course, if someone were to examine each embryo more closely they would find both similar and different DNA, which would show that mix of thousands of years of evolution, when all those "Z's" and all those "c's" were mixed together and resulting in creatures that were similar in some ways and yet unique in their own ways. Once the

developing embryo has completed that first "boost" of the cell division phase, cell growth, of course, takes over.

Another metaphor for the process of development (and particularly, for the Mandelbrott Set) would be that often-referred-to "blueprint" for development. Development of the human is not as simple as just a blueprint, though, because there are always internal and external environments that can make minor changes in that blueprint. Here again, the blueprint could be said to be the Z, and the internal and external influences/environment would be the c. (I'm getting to autism soon - I promise.)

We've all heard it said that we all have both masculine and feminine traits, regardless of our gender. We tend to see people with the mesomorph body type as "masculine", while we associated endomorphs with "feminine". There are, however, women who don't have that "classic" pear shaped build, even when they gain weight. Some women's weight distributes itself more the way men's weight does. The same applies to men who gain weight. Many have the classic, apple, shape associated with males; while some put on weight more in areas that women do. We see "cross-over" of gender "properties" in voices, mannerisms, thinking, and any number of other areas. We know that at least a certain amount of that "mixing" of "properties" that goes on between the genders occurs as a result of genes.

This would, of course, mean that even before any prenatal environment has any influence, each embryo is destined to become a person who is made up of x percent male "properties" and x percent female. Obviously, one's gender will make up a good percentage of those "properties". The remaining percentage will depend on heredity.

It is now understood that stress and/or trauma in an expectant mother can result in changes in testosterone levels, which, in turn, can affect the unborn baby's development.

Also, a correlation has been drawn to higher levels of testosterone in the amniotic fluid of fetuses who would later have autism. In studies that showed this correlation, however, it is known that the higher levels of testosterone were not produced by the mother, but by the fetuses, themselves.

On the one hand, the matter of trauma and testosterone for the expectant mother (and the effect on development of the baby's brain) would offer one possible, contributing, factor to the question of autism. On the other hand, there is the chance (I'm guessing, although, again, pardon my ignorance) that the correlation between autism and higher levels of testosterone is a matter of baby's whose genetic makeup included a higher degree of "leaning toward masculine" in terms of percentage of "male properties". I am guessing, however, that autism may not necessarily be determined by genetic makeup alone, but rather than some babies are born at higher risk of developing it.

It is known that the incidence of autism is higher in boys. It is also known that there are differences in the "emphasis" in the direction that some brain development takes, when it comes to the two genders. Boys are known to often lag a little behind girls in some areas, and girls are known to lag behind boys in other areas. Nurturing, of course, can affect any child's brain development; but nurturing's impact aside, there are still different "leanings" (in general) for the two genders.

While people have a wide range of intellectual abilities, the general leanings of the genders is that females lean toward the verbal and "human understanding" abilities; while males lean toward spatial abilities. As the mother of two sons (one of whom is adopted) and one daughter, I have conducted my own, mini, nature/nurture experiment; and I have seen things all three of my children (now grown) have in common, while I have also seen that my biological son's "area of specialty" leans toward the verbal and "human understanding" side; while my daughter's "area of specialty" tends to be the same. All three of my children were slight, narrow-shouldered, slender, children; although my once ectomorphic, adopted, son grew into an "ectomorphic mesophorph" as an adult. My other son is masculine, but more "middle of the road"; while his sister is extremely feminine appearing and slender, but not really ectomorphic. I will refer to my own children as examples later, but one point I'd like to make here is that my most ectomorphic child (my eldest and adopted son) had the stress of learning problems through his early school years. It is interesting to note that he matured physically much earlier than most of his peers, and this once smallest-boy-in-his-class child became the tallest boy in sixth grade, as his voice changed before his peers.

I always assumed that stress (the fight-or-flight hormone) caused my son to mature physically earlier. I've read that ferul cats reach "kitten-bearing" months sooner, so, again, it would make sense that living feeling threatened or insecure could result in higher stress hormone levels and the consequences that occur as a result of those elevated levels. What I always wondered about my son, who started out to be such a delicate, pretty, child, was whether he actually had any genetic leanings toward being very masculine at all; and whether it was pure stress that triggered his "heavily masculine" (although still slender) physique. That's something I don't know, although it has always made sense to me. I do know he has biological siblings who are overweight; and I know another adopted individual who has always been extremely slim and muscular, while her biological siblings and mother are all very overweight. I've always assumed that Nature's way of taking care of a child under stress could be to trigger physical growth as a way of allowing the child to be better able to protect himself. One could also assume that girls' stress could result in triggering their maturation, as a way of facilitating their attracting a mate, if not simply to allow them to protect themselves.

Testosterone is associated with muscle development, of course, but men are known, too, to have more brain mass. Testosterone is also associated with confidence. These are just ideas to keep in mind. I'll make my points about them later.

Abraham Maslow, in his Heirarchy of Needs, described the order in which human needs must be met before the human moves on to the next "less important" need, which can then be met; which must ultimately lead to the meeting of all needs in order for the human being to reach a point of equilibrium. It is reasonable to assume that when it comes to any one individual's "mix" of hormones, there must also be a point of equilibrium that is reached when a person's hormones are in perfect (or "ideal range") balance; and the development of that individual will be optimum if/when that balance remains in place.

Of course, no person has perfect balance at all times. Stress, fear, sickness, or anything that could contribute to discomfort could alter a person's "chemical" balance. A good example is elevated blood glucose and cortisol as a response to stress. Under normal and ideal circumstances, however, a person would spend more time with a healthy balance of hormones than he would with an unhealthy balance. Just as things that are bad for an unborn baby can have more serious consequences during early pregnancy than later, I've always assumed that the younger a child is, the more at risk he is when it comes to negative consequences that can result from lack of hormone/chemical balance. It would also seem to make sense that the baby who spends more time in distress than would be considered within "normal" range (in time and/or degree of distress) could potentially suffer more consequences when it comes to brain development or direction in which brain development takes place. (Don't worry. I'm not heading where you may think I'm heading in my ideas about autism. I am not leading up to blaming the parents.)

Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs shows that the most basic needs are physical in nature (food and shelter). Once those are met the individual moves on to the higher, emotional, needs. From there, the individual's needs move out to other people and society. Child development experts often note that children go through an inward phase for about six months, and then they follow it with an outward phase. Generally, these alternating phases continue through childhood. Parents often notice, too, that a child has a growth spurt in the months just before his birthday. This would imply that children may go through their inward phase (when their development is focused on internal/intellectual matters more) just after their birthday, while their external phase (when they tend to move more away from parents and focus more on "outside" activities) seems to accompany a growth spurt.

This would seem to indicate that just as at the end of pregnancy, when the baby is fully developed and ready for the world, something triggers labor; there is most likely a similar process that takes place once a child has had a growth spurt, and Nature, perhaps, sets in motion a different cycle.

Before I finally tie all this together with my thoughts on possible causes of some forms of autism, there is one more point: Since there are far more hormones/chemicals than just testosterone, and since I am neither educated in all of them nor inclined to do that kind of research right now; I'd like to "categories" hormones/brain chemicals into two simple categories. The first I'd like to call, "Male Associated" (MA). The second would be "Female Associated" (FA). In addition to hormones and brain chemicals, I'd also like to leave room to include processes that are generally "male associated" or "female associated" as well.

First, I can't help but wonder if all growth and development essentially boils down to the influences of MA and FA. The child who has a genetic makeup that would make him "more heavily male" would have development that was more heavily influenced by MA. If the same child were under stress, there could be yet more influence of MA. (MA, of course, includes testosterone, which is generally considered the male hormone.)

What I don't know (and can't guess) is whether FA is primarily "female associated hormones" or just the absence of MA to the degree that it would be present under normal circumstances.

Generally, physical factors are associated with male (muscle mass, brain mass, speed, strength, spatial skills, etc.); while verbal abilities, understanding self and others, reasoning, etc.) are associated with female. Females seem to specialize in the more intricate things in life, with their (often) clockwork reproductive cycles, as well as their brain "leanings" toward verbal- and personal- related skills. Men are less complex . I've often thought of how men seem more like the older, larger, American cars that were powerful but less complex than today's smaller, "heavily electronic", cars. This is not intended as an insult to men whatsoever, but it seems to me that women are more like today's smaller, more complex, but sometimes more difficult to repair cars.

Of course, again, all people are mix of traits of both genders; but it is generally accepted that little many little boys don't come by learning to read as naturally as many little girls do.

What I assume this means, though, is that, just as girls and women need to work harder to build muscles, boys may need a little extra work/help when it comes to nurturing the part of the brain responsible for verbal abilities. By the same token, even though a lot of girls don't "specialize" in spatial skills, being given a little extra boost in terms of nurturing and teaching can help those girls who don't lean that way naturally develop more than adequate skill in that area.

If one accepts that some children come into the world leaning a little more in the direction of one gender or another (again, usually, with their actual gender playing a big role), it would make sense that some boys, more than others, will lean farther toward the masculine side of things than others would.

My question is whether boys who lean toward more toward the development of physical matters (including brain mass), rather than having more balance when it comes to the finer tuning of electrical matters; may feel less secure as infants and toddlers because they don't naturally relate to other people, or even feel content within their own minds. Further, if a baby is programmed to lean more in the direction of MA, does that mean he may be a little slower to pick up on social cues and relating to the world, simply because, although his brain will eventually develop in those areas, it may take longer? The longer it takes a child to understand himself and the world, the longer it will be that he feels uncertain.

What I'm getting at is this: Could it be that a baby who is born with more than average leanings toward MA to start with could need a specific degree and type of nurturing and affection, which would allow him to achieve that optimum level of hormonal equilibrium?

Might it be that the child who leans more toward the MA end of things would also be at a disadvantage when it comes to just naturally relating to other people, and would need more than the average amount of encouragement (when it comes to relating and interaction) in order to help him overcome any built-in challenges he has?

Might it be that the infant born at higher risk of developing autism needs more than the usual amount of sensitivity, interaction, relating, and being made to feel secure (when parents would have no way to realize this just by looking at their perfectly normal baby)?

Might such a baby, more sensitive to sounds and activities and disruptions, be placed in more distress than the average baby would? More importantly, once this baby is living in more distress (longer periods of time and higher degrees of distress) for too long, isn't it likely that fight-or-flight response could interupt normal equilibrium and development to the point where the developmental focus returned to the lower, physical, need to feel safe; rather than aiming appropriately at intellectual development?

More significantly, if one thinks again about the formula, Z = Z2 + c; and if the whole child is represented by Z (which, at this point, is also made up of "all those c's" that resulted when replication took place; one realizes that c, which is made up of all internal and external variables, continues to change as replication of Z takes place. It would be, essentially, an ever-changing blueprint (if such a thing could exist). One might imagine as Z. If, before each replication, the blueprint were dipped in one liquid or another that could either lighten or erase parts of the blueprint, over time the documents made from the blueprint would be farther and farther away from the original plan.

If a child had a higher percentage of "male properties" it may not just be that he would start out at higher risk of autism. Another factor could be that his response to life was also "higher in male properties". Of course, too, there is the matter of autistic girls. Being a girl is apparently not enough to offer immunity to autism, so the question is whether a girl can "lean that far" in the direction of MA. Another question is whether forms of autism in girls may occur only when particularly high influence of MA occurs.

What would cause that "influence of c" to alter the "blueprint"? Could it be something as simple as mother's blood type versus fetus' blood type (and a reaction within the fetus)? Most things in human development involve the particular point at which anything occurs, as well as the length of time involved. Since there may be differences in rates of different types of development, particularly from baby to baby, a "bad c factor" at three months may not harm one baby while it may impact another one negatively.

In the first three years of life, children's brain connections are forming. It is now known that the nurturing process can determine which brain connections are formed; and nurturing can affect the blueprint for the child's immune system and stress response for the rest of his life. When brain connections are not built the potential to build them dies.

Children have different types of autism, and autism comes in different degrees. Specialists are often able to detect signs of autism by the time a baby in one year old. This means that at least some forms of the condition have taken hold at some point between conception (possibly before) and the first birthday. It could be mildly encouraging to at least realize that the window of when autism starts is relatively small, at least in some cases. The question is whether autism takes hold with a particular combination of genes, whether it is the result of one occurance or condition before or after birth, or whether it is, instead, a combination of specific events that take place at specific times.

There is another possibility when it comes to children born at high risk. Suppose children are born with a tendency toward a certain type of cognitive development occurring sooner than average. If a child is intellectually "ahead" of his physical development, might it not be possible that this, in itself, could cause distress? Just as when older children are "smart" enough to worry about things they're not emotionally mature enough to handle; might it be that a faster-than-average brain development (of one sort or another, but I'm thinking about the verbal side of the brain) would place a baby at higher risk of being aware of things, or sensitive to things, while not being emotionally able to process them?

Autistic children are often very bright.

Might it be that MA is either not associated with, or not only associated with, the development of mass; but is also tied in with the speed at which development takes place?

If that's the case, something else to think about is what happens if, say, brain mass or even synapse development take place sooner than anyone realizes; and is there the chance that a missed opportunity could occur at the time in that infant's brain development when a specific type of relating, talking, nurturing, or level of feeling secure were vital?

Something else I've wondered is whether there are babies who have a tendency to "turn inward" anyway, get in the habit of it, establish the wrong type of brain connections as a result of their habit ("practice") of turning inward. I had a friend who had a large family. She used to say how her third child, at about 18 months old, would go sit in a chair and just rock. She said how it struck her that her child appeared to be showing signs of autism, and she would make it a point to go get the little girl, talk to her, and generally try to keep her from turning inward. The mother knew that this little girl had the older, close-in-age, siblings, who were active and more intimidating than the toddler. My friend used to say, "I always wonder if I hadn't done that if she would have become autistic."

In the same way that stroke victims learn to form new brain connections to do tasks, isn't it possible that the baby or toddler who has a natural tendency to turn inward ends up teaching his own brain to turn inward, while development of those skills that autistic people don't have is essentially neglected (even if nobody realizes it's happening)?

Is the baby who turns inward turning inward as a result of stress or distress? (in which case, the "influence of c" would involve both the act of turning inward AND the associated changes in brain chemistry. Does it make a difference if a baby turns inward during a "physical growth phase" as opposed to an "intellectual growth" or even "social growth" phase of development (even if they may or may not overlap at any given time)?

Although many claim there is no evidence that vaccines cause autism, isn't there the chance that some vaccines could cause an "assault response" in SOME babies who have a specific makeup? Testing vaccines on rats is one thing. Has anyone asked whether babies with a specific makeup may be more vulnerable to vaccines? By the same token, isn't it possible that a mother's exposures to toxins could result in either some kind of reaction when she's expecting or else be passed through breast milk? (More and more mothers have breastfeed over recent years.) Could the water that nursing mothers drink, or the chemicals in their foods, cause a particularly sensitive baby to have a reaction that, over time, could have a cumulative effect?

What about fats? Certain types of fat are require for brain development. Is there the chance that, for one reason or another, some babies are not getting enough of the right kind of fat?

If questioning the quality of breast milk isn't bad enough, I'm moving on to questioning whether changes in mother's attitudes toward their babies could contribute to the rate of at least some forms of autism. There was a time when most mothers were more affectionate and, in some ways, closer to their infants. By the time I had my children, I noticed that my approach to parenting was more like my mother's, while women of my generation had a more casual approach to how close they were with their babies, while a more zealous approach when it came to encouraging reading and other activity. While there is no doubt that most mothers are very close to their very young infants, I think many mothers in recent years are quicker to end that degree of closeness sooner than mothers of previous generations did.

I have no idea what causes higher levels of testosterone to be "given off" by an unborn baby. Is that baby urinating it out? Does it come from skin cells? If the baby is urinating or excreting it into the amniotic fluid, does that mean the baby has a lot of it? Too much? Is there a chance, on the other hand, that the baby's body gets rid of it because it is either "too foreign" or a substance to which the baby reacts poorly? Is the fetus who generates testosterone in the fluid a creature with a very effective system for removing excess and potentially damaging hormones; or is he a creature with a particularly ineffective system that cannot process testosterone properly?

Is autism caused by one catastrophic event, or is it the cumulative result of the same event being repeated over and over again? Is it, instead, the cumulative result of a number of different events, circumstances, or factors; or, are at least some forms of it that?

What I've thought of with regard to autism is how when we are in the acute stage of grief our minds are numbed. We may not be able to concentrate. We feel like we're on "automatic pilot", and we are generally "tuned out". We may forget to eat because our appetite is gone. It's as if we are partially shut down until, gradually, we get up and running again. We're distant and have little interest in really relating to people or in doing things we normally enjoy. Is it possible that some babies are born with a tendency to feel "depressed" and to slip into the same kind of response we have when we are in shock and grief? Is it possible that, because of their brain's stage of development, they "train" their brains to "stay that way"? It is said that teenagers' brains are not fully developed and that their immature prefrontal cortex can lead to a tendency toward depression. Isn't it possible some babies have a developmental lag in the development of some other part of the brain, and as a result have a similar type of "mood disorder" or "anxiety disorder"?

Is there the chance that leaving a baby to "cry it out" too often or too long could lead to such loneliness and despair that baby may begin to tune out and turn inward? When a baby's discomfort is not met with responsiveness on the part of his parents (particularly his mother), is it possible that at least some forms of autism in some children could be a matter of "children learning what they live?"

I can't help but wonder if there may be one, single, gene that is the cause of some forms of autism; while other forms of the disorder could be caused by too much "MA" (which primarily involves testosterone), either as the result of a perfectly normal but particular combination of genes that makes a child vulnerable or by in imbalance of testosterone (and other "MA") after birth, and/or a combination of both of those factors.

While I don't pretend to be sufficiently knowledgeable about how testosterone works, it occurs to me that if it drives physical development, and if it may be responsible for "focus" being placed on physical development, that could signal the body to hold off on certain types of brain development until the matter of lack of equilibrium has been resolved. Any child who is born with a genetic tendency to be thrown into disequilibrium more easily than others would be be more at risk than other children.

As far as I know, though, hormones can involve a chicken/egg type of situation. My own two sons (who share no genetic background) had similar, gentle, personalities as little boys. They were normal, energetic, little boys; but I treated them the same way that I treated my daughter, who was also normal, energetic, and gentle. They were all athletic, but none of them had a "killer instinct" in sports. While I know that my own "mini" nature/nurture experiment is only one piece of anecdotal evidence, I do know that my children were all gentle and non-aggressive because of the way they were nurtured. Not only did I not want to nurture aggressiveness in them, but I didn't want any of them living in a home where siblings' aggressiveness could be threatening to them (or at least disrupt the sense of security, peace, and cheerfulness in the home).

I've heard experts talk about how boys have "extra energy" that makes having to sit quietly in school very difficult for them, but in my family it was my daughter who had the extra energy (from the time I was expecting her right to this day). The point is if parents give their child a stick or a violent video game, those activities will encourage aggressiveness. Brain chemicals and hormones are affected by a person's activities and mood - hence the chicken/egg effect when it comes to testosterone.

What I wonder, when it comes to autism, is what is the consequence of treating a little boy, who may have been born with a normal "range" (or mix) of masculine/feminine factors, in a way that presumes his nature is more aggressive than it really is? Would teaching him to play aggressively increase his testosterone levels? Would increased levels create disequilibrium for the boy for whom such levels were not usual? Would gentle, non-aggressive, little boys feel threatened if they were always treated as tough little guys or encouraged to be more macho?

Could treating a very young infant boy differently than one treats a young infant girl cause him to feel insecure and threatened? My two sons were very snugly and close when they were babies and toddlers. My sister's two sons were the same. It seems to me that little boys may be a little more "snugly" than girls are when they're babies and toddlers. Is that a sign that little boys come into the world feeling just a little less sure than baby girls do?

In other words, can a baby's environment causes dramatic enough elevations in testosterone to possibly throw a child with a certain genetic makeup into a dangerous disequilibrium?

My "theory" (and I'm guessing the same old information that people more educated than I have known for years) is that at any given moment from conception on through childhood, but particularly during the first three years, there is a set of brain chemicals and hormones in varying levels; and depending on how that mix is "weighted" (toward "FA" - feminine-associated development/brain connections; toward "MA" - masculine-associated development/mass formation and growth, or toward perfectly, or almost perfectly, balanced development). I can't help but wonder if, under the ever shifting influence of that blend of hormones and brain chemicals, the "blueprint" is replicated and/or altered.

Not long ago I read that science has figured out how learning language takes place. While it was once believed that the brain had a special language area, all ready to learn from the time a child is born; it is now known that language is learned when a person hears a word over and over again, processes what it sounds like, what it represents, how many different things are associated with that words, etc. The learning process was described as starting out with each word being like a blurry picture, and with each repetition of it making the picture more and more clear. The brain learns through repetition.

Suppose even the "best mother in the world" had a baby who, unknown to her, had a tendency to turn inward. Suppose, for this baby, the normal amount of face-to-face interaction with his mother was not enough to "pull him out". What if this very wonderful mother did exactly the same things with this baby that she did with her other children, all of whom are without autism. Since she would have no way to know of her baby's genetic makeup (or other reasons for a tendency to turn inward), she would have no idea that all her interactions with the baby weren't enough for that particular baby.

What if over time, this baby spent so much time turning inward his brain learned only turning inward; but what if interacting with his mother would cause some chemical change in the baby that might trigger whatever balance of chemicals is required to facilitate brain development?

What if, without enough practice in relating to people, the baby's brain stopped learning and caused that "c" to have some destructive component in it that would replicate over and over again? Isn't it possible that a destructive "c" could be the thing that starts to water down or erase the "blueprint" until whole sections of the "document" are left blank?

The mother wouldn't be "to blame" since she was doing what normal mothers do. It would just be a matter of her not having the necessary information about her particular baby's makeup.

An autism expert on television not long ago remarked that people sometimes "blame the parents" for a child's autism. She said how that was ignorant, and I don't question that. My thoughts about possible causes of the disorder are not intended to imply that parents are to blame. There are too many types of autism and, as far as I can guess, too many possible causes or combinations of causes. I do think, however, that until answers are found, it is also ignorant to automatically rule out the possibility no form of autism could possibly result from some situation or event that occurs after a child is born. I believe that until the cause for each form of autism is identified the questions I've asked are questions that do need to be asked.

I am not in a position to be able to form an educated enough opinion on the causes of any of the different forms of autism, but I can't help but believe that the equation, Z = Z2 + c , is where the answer lies. The question is what circumstances, conditions, events and/or substances make up that "c"; and at what point in the replication process does the blueprint become altered to the point where it no longer produces the copies it was originally created to produce?

Just think - if all the components of that "c" could be identified, eliminating just one of them may be enough to destroy the roots of at least some forms of autism. Maybe, with my lack of scientific or medical background, I have "no right" to any ideas about the causes of autism; but if the medical or scientific community already know the cause(s) of autism, they aren't saying what it is. If they truly don't know the cause(s) then maybe everybody else needs to start trying to find some answers by asking as many questions as possible.