Why is it that articles aren’t fact checked before being published on the web? ?

Angelman syndrome, Rett syndrome, and Fragile X syndrome are NOT “forms” of autism. They’re not even autism to begin with (thankgod they ain’t). As an autistic, I am glad these syndromes aren’t forms of autism, which autism needs no cure as it’s not a serious problem nor life threatening.

3 Answers

  • 1 month ago

    Until about 5 years ago, Rett was a form of autism.  It was a mistake by the researchers.

    Rett is no longer considered autism.

    Fragile X and Angelman associated with a higher risk of autism, but are not specifically on the autism spectrum.

    The title is poorly written.  It should says SOME CAUSES OF AUTISM, not some FORMS.

    I think they meant by treating the genetic disorder, it will possibly cure the autism in those people.  The theory is that many of the people with genetic disorders wouldn't have autism if the genetic disorder was cured.

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    Fragile X syndrome is a leading genetic cause of autism. About one in three people with the syndrome also has autism. But even those who do not have autism often share certain autistic traits, such as avoidance of eye contact and difficulties in social situations.

    Angelman syndrome has a high comorbidity with autism and shares a common genetic basis with some forms of autism. The current view states that Angelman syndrome is considered a 'syndromic' form of autism spectrum disorder.

    Rett syndrome is a neurodevelopmental disorder that is classified as an autism spectrum disorder. Clinically, RTT is characterized by psychomotor regression with loss of volitional hand use and spoken language, the development of repetitive hand stereotypies, and gait impairment.

    You need therapy for the obsessive, ill informed questions you ask about autism. Take a chill pill ffs as you're clearly mentally unwell. 

    Source(s): I'm an autistic adult with other neurodevelopmental disorders as well but otherwise mentally healthy.
  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    It doesn't say uses those other conditions as an examples of what the author wants to do with autism (use gene therapy to cure it). There's nothing possible yet. There aren't definite genes that cause autism (which it admits in the article, making the article pointless). Making this in any way about autism was just clickbait because no one knows what Angelman's is and fewer people would read about it being cured.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.