Orac is must-read on stuff like this.

Thanks for posting.



Sid

Even though it must be like banging his head against a brick wall by this point.

It's a correlation; children start showing signs of it right around the time they are vaccinated. Now research has shown that the way 6-month-old infants look at people's eyes is an early sign of autism. That is way before they have the MMR vaccine.

http://news.yahoo.com/early-autism-sign-babies-brain-responses-eye-contact-215913885.html

I rate it up there with 'mind control' government fluoride! They are putting it in the drinking water! Fluoride!

simply by the motor patterns of a baby. If he/she has trouble rolling over, tries to do it in an atypical way, or has an atypical crawling pattern, it's a sign to screen for autism as well.

Also, one of the things we look for when screening language is whether or not the baby turns to his/her name. Big indicator - very important.

There is no statistically valid link between vaccines and autism.

But there is a strong link between failure to vaccinate and getting a variety of nasty, debilitating, and potentially fatal diseases; and because parents are failing to vaccinate, kids are getting these diseases at increasing rates.

That's not dogma.

Autism is either caused by
a) genetics
b) the environment, or
c) a combination of both.

Since genetic disorders don't increase in frequency, and the increase in frequency can't be entirely attributed to awareness or changing diagnoses, then either B) or C) is true.

Yes, the apparent prevalence of autism has been reported to be 1 in 50, which is in line with a South Korean study that found it to be 1 in 38. At this point, it is useful to bring up another principle. If you screen intensively for a condition, after an initial rise in incidence and prevalence, you will eventually see a leveling off at something near the “true prevalence” of the condition, and this is what could well be happening. After all, contrary to the ridiculous claim of Julian Whitaker, autism prevalence can’t keep increasing forever until it reaches 100%. It could be that the baseline prevalence of autism and ASDs is somewhere around 1 in 50. Only time will tell whether this is true or not, but it seems reasonable based on what we know now.

Maybe you can teach him how to work a smiley.

Now that autism is more well-known, more people are getting tested, and getting diagnoses, while in the past, the epidemiology missed a lot of people with autism-spectrum disorders.

So we're perceiving a higher rate of ASD. Some of that may be because of an increase in the actual rate of ASD, but some of that may be because fewer people with ASD are failing to be diagnosed.

And it very well may be something in the environment. We're routinely exposed to thousands of chemicals that do not occur in nature. But I, as well as most scientists, are pretty sure the environmental factor is not vaccines.

Changing diagnoses and increased awareness explains some portion of the increase.

But as the California study shows, only about a quarter of the increase can be explained away in this manner.

And yeah, I'm inclined to agree that vaccines are unlikely to be a significant factor.

My best guess is that it's something other than vaccines, probably some low-level toxin that hasn't been identified yet or studied.

changed DNA (I think it was a flu pandemic, not certain). The researchers wondered whether the increase we see in autism today is a result of that pandemic way back in the early 1900s - the changes in DNA making its way through a few generations, culminating in the rise in autism combined with environmental factors.

I wish I could remember more about it, but it was fascinating.

California Autism Clusters Tied to Parents' Education, Not Environment
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/AutismNews/education-level-environment-tied-autism-clusters/story?id=9514773#.UU0x6Sa-x5Q
-----------------------------------
Researchers have found clusters of autism in 10 areas around California -- but with no suggestion of a link to local pollution or other environmental exposures, they said.

Instead, the only consistent factor among the areas -- identified largely in Southern California and the San Francisco Bay region -- was a population of well-educated parents, Karla Van Meter of the University of California Davis and colleagues found.

In six of the clusters, a college-educated parent conferred a risk of autism that was more than four times as great as a parent who didn't graduate from high school, they reported online in Autism Research.

"At this point, we don't think that's due to differences in the actual rates," coauthor Irva Hertz-Picciotto, also of UC Davis, told MedPage Today.
-------------------------------
Statistical clustering does explain it.

Of course, ice cream sales are correlated with shark attacks, but that doesn't mean they're causally linked.

I think it's some chemical or group of chemicals in the environment we haven't yet identified. We're pretty sure it's not vaccines - the evidence shows no link between them and autism.

The article I posted is a follow-up from her earlier work that essentially said two things:

People clustered in highly affluent, highly educated areas are more likely to have autism diagnosed.
This is because they are more likely to see a doctor, for a variety of reasons, than other less privileged areas.

And there are a lot of explorations going on for environmental factors, but nothing has proven out yet. Will it? Maybe, but right ow there is zilch in actual proof.

It must be because geeks live there. Yeah! That's the ticket!

But this is a sidebar conversation. It doesn't address the issue of accounting for the rate of increase, about which, THE ARTICLE YOU POSTED says this;

While autism clearly has a genetic component, the search for its cause has also turned up plenty of clues involving prenatal and early childhood environments, Hertz-Picciotto explained.

And, yes population clumping is an explanation for a huge part, if not all, of the initial study she conducted. Sampling bias is a hell of a thing.

Environmental factors (Completely disregarding vaccines, of course) may be proven to be linked some day. But right now, they're not.

Autism diagnoses are accelerating.
If this rise is not EXCLUSIVELY a function of awareness and changing diagnostic techniques, then environment plays a role because there is no such thing as a genetic epidemic.
The burden of proof is on those who would dismiss this very real public health problem.

doesn't equate to "things external to the mother in the environment." At least not as usually understood.

Brain development's orchestrated by a number of factors, many of which depend on the mother's chemistry. More stress can change that chemistry. Activity levels. Screwing around with Circadian rhythms. Intentional "sins" like smoking and drinking. Unintentional ones like estrogen mimics and other artificial substances.

On the other hand, the non-random selection of mates in specific areas is both genetic and "environmental", so genetic factors actually can change. Look at the birth defect rate in some ME countries--they're higher than you'd expect given the incidence of recessive genetic traits in the general population because there's a strong tendency to marry cousins. The prevalence that's reported for the population at large is a mix of low-prevalence and high-prevalence families. But men choose mates within these low- or high-prevalence groups.

e.g. if the increasing rate of autism is due to changes in the prenatal environment, then we're back to step one: disorders are caused by one of two things: genes or the environment - and there's no such thing as a genetic epidemic.

Genes can't account for increasing autism nor a changing prenatal environment.

They need to prove it is. They haven't.

Autism diagnoses are rising because a) we're better at diagnosing it and b) we've widened our definitions for autism.

That is the baseline. People who disagree with it then present evidence that the case is not so, which is then tested by others. As pointed out, sometime the scientists who make the initial claims are then the one who walk them back after further review.

Last edited Sat Mar 23, 2013, 04:01 PM - Edit history (3)

For any other category of disease, this would be enough.

Your entire argument rests on the belief that people 30 years ago didn't notice that their children were walking in circles and flapping their hands, frequently nonverbal.

DSM-IV is essentially unchanged since 1994, and on the topic of Autism, the previous criteria were largely unchanged.



http://autism.pbisillinois.org/iattap_stats_year%20incidence.bmp

DSM-IV was published in 1994. Your contention is that in those days we simply didn't diagnose 90+% of the kids with autism, presumably because doctors, parents and teachers didn't know about it.

Here's the thing. People are more aware of Autism today than they were 20 years ago because it's more common.

The OP is irresponsible.

two million people in prison and why are 40% of black men under some form of penal control?

"Your post made me think of this article:"

It had something to do with lumberjack_jeff's post.

Your post, however, has very little to do with mine. Did you read the link even? No? Just looked at the pretty pictures? I'm shocked, I tell you!

They don't know what causes autism yet. There just isn't enough research yet. Sometimes research takes decades. Right now they don't know what caused my son's autism. I do hope they figure it out, but frankly I'm not that worried about it. What I am worried about is making sure he has all the support he needs to live the life he wants to live. We're in the process of picking classes for next school year. Apparently, the curriculum is more flexible at the high school level. Thank goodness. That is a big sigh of relief for me. He can finally take a math that is at his comprehension level and he even gets to spread his biology requirement out over two years. I can't begin to tell you what a relief that is for me.

It is clear that something is causing the increased rate of autism. Could it be either of the following?:

* caused by something that occurs during the birthing process. Something in the delivery room. Or something in the Nursery?

* could it be the increased levels of GMOs in our food supply? Or growth hormone given to dairy cows?

It has to be something that is prevalently used now and wasn't in the past. You would think they could have figured this problem out by now. The immunization theory has been studied to death. Another thing is maybe there are powerful forces at work which do not want the discovery to be made, because it might put them out of business from all the suits? And another question: Is the incidence of autism increasing all over the world as it is here in the U.S.?

Sorry. I'm asking too many questions...

With the ability to absorb nutrients.

I watch these documentaries and don't even try to remember it all.

The gut dissolves DNA. So how does the gut know that the code was artificially changed vs. artificially selected vs. naturally selected? All are equivalent in ones gut. All genetics break down the same way.

Oopsie!

Unfortunately, it is a little more complicated than that, and the researchers are still trying to figure it all out. As near as I understand it (and I am not a gastroenterologist, so please keep this is in mind) per my last conversation with an MD a week ago, we all bring certain gut bacteria to the table based on our genetic heritage. For example, people of European descent usually have no problem with dairy, while dairy intolerances are higher in people from continents where cheese and milk weren't required to survive. (This makes logical sense to me as children whose systems couldn't process primarily available food supplies during times of famine probably died young and thus the mutations for dairy tolerance probably self-selected in those areas - same with other region specific issues; and oddly, it can happen within the same generation -vegetarians frequently get to the point where their systems don't "do" meat if they try to go back to it.)

If I understand the problem with GMO wheat (and I am not sure I do) many of us don't have the gut bacteria/digestive enzymes/whatever to process it so we can actually get what we need out of it nutrition wise. Add in excessive consumption of sugar/overgrowth of yeast due to super antibiotics, and suddenly bloated grumpy people....it is kind of a mess, and because it was profitable, plus SOME PEOPLE keep forgetting that the whole melting pot concept means not every human being on the planet reacts to different "food" in the same way .... Sigh. It is a mess caused by short term thinking and people who thought they knew everything, when in reality, we still don't understand the basic biological needs of our food supply, let alone how to grow and keep humans healthy.

You have to cultivate good bacteria and GMO kills them.

There are some weird stories out there about people who cultivate their bacteria to be what they think is the perfect crop.

If you don't mind giving traffic to some weird sites, just google gmo and good bacteria for a head-scratching good time.

If my op, my follow-up posts, my wording, etc. haven't made it clear:

I am not defending the belief. I am simply answering your question as to what people who claim GMO can screw up your gut believe.

It hs been linked into the anti-vac / autism / woo world for some time.

In post #66 as much as I understand.

Humans are complicated.

My son never had bad reactions to vaccines and he never had a problem digesting food. He's not allergic to gluten. We don't have him on a gluten free diet. Due to occupational and speech therapy he has progressed a lot of the years. Maybe that's why I don't gravitate towards those theories. We need lots more research and one thing most people don't talk about is what to do with these kids when they're grown. My state requires all school districts have programs that help autistic people transition from school to work, and that is great. That does help a lot. But what do you do with the autistic people who cannot work? They typically live with their parents, but where do they go when their parents die? We need more research but we also need more help for them when they are grown. And we need more resources for schools with their special education programs. There are a lot more kids in special education than ever before, but because of a lack of funding, many schools don't have the resources they need for their special education programs. This issue is bigger than just jumping on the let's all hate Big Pharma and Big Ag bandwagon. We have to keep our focus on the kids themselves.

Some children with autism like symptoms have gut issues; some do not.

You might want to read some of the research coming out of the Pfeiffer Institute. They are seeing a 75% success rate with a wide variety of issues, including autism and ADHD. I am familiar with one particular case where they were able to determine that a child did not produce a particular digestive enzyme (genetic issue), and once they provided it, all autism like symptoms went away.

Pfeiffer's website:
http://www.hriptc.org/index.php

The results we are seeing in the Preemie Growth Project (particularly with sensory processing/integration issues) have been nothing short of astounding. For the children who respond to our protocol, within six weeks the SPD symptoms begin to "mute" and by sixteen weeks it is as if they don't have them. Since the symptoms can be turned on and off like a water faucet depending whether or not the supplementation is being used, the conclusion that they are not absorbing what they need from a normal food supply is pretty obvious.

Again, it is a spectrum, every child is different, appropriate disclaimers, etc.

Well, I know that animals (cattle and swine) that are fed GMO feed get sick and lay down and sometimes die. They become lethargic and sick. Farmers have to put them back on non-GMO feed, which brings them out of it. And given a choice of feed with or without GMOs, the animals will not touch the GMO feed. Seen it on a documentary film on FreeSpeech TV, or on the documentary channel. Also, you can do a DU search and see if you can find an article telling about GMOs changing the DNA of the corn, soybean, etc., and that it makes humans ill.

Also, do you remember and incident back around 2000 when Taco Bell had to shut down for a while because GMO corn that was meant for animal consumption only got into the taco shells? My kids loved Taco Bell. Ate there allot. And right when this happened, one of them got very ill with a respiratory problem. This was not good, as it happened right in the middle of band camp, which he had to present at every day. They treated him with inhalers and I can't remember what else.. a pill, I guess. He used the inhaler for the rest of the summer. And Taco Bell shut down for those few days, and kids had a fit. It all happened (son sick & Taco Bell shutdown) simultaneously. He doesn't use the inhaler anymore at all.

The vast majority of studies have demonstrated it to be perfectly safe.

..... but GD was shut down. What I was trying to reply to you was this: I don't agree with you. I have not seen ONE report that states that GMO foods ARE safe.

products including those containing, heroin, cocaine, amphetamine, tobacco, and so on were not only safe but highly beneficial. Wherever there is money to be made including today's pharmaceutical and agricultural industries, science will err on the side of profits until the lawsuits or bodies pile up enough for it to hurt profits.

Science does its best and most scientists are earnest in their endeavors, but the fact is that they usually start off very wrong and through the process get it more or less right, except when they eventually discover that they were just totally wrong.

Follow the money trail, which usually leads to no good. "Everyone has their price." At least that's what is said. That adage should go like this: "There are some in all professions who have their price," and they bend towards the highest bid. Out of this thread for now.

The behaviors seen today are remarkable and would have been remarkable, had they been present, 20 years ago.

That we are just getting better at a) diagnosing and b) are diagnosing a wider range.

There is no proof that autism is on anything other than its normal pattern.

I saw a TV report that speculated that was the cause...sorry, I was only listening with half an ear, but the premise of the theory was that if a guy married and had children late in life, he passed on a gene to his children that was one of those ones that could "switch it up" and that causes autism...in the GRANDCHILDREN.

I think they also linked it to dementia, in some way.

I am not terribly invested in this theory, but I found it interesting, nonetheless.

Maybe something in household cleaners, or that goes into food.

For example, bisphenol-a has been linked to endocrine problems, hence there's pressure to stop putting it into the plastics that go into 2 liter pop bottles and baby bottles.

I'm guessing it's a chemical like that. Not bisphenol-a specifically, but some synthetic chemical - there are thousands of them in common use that haven't been scrutinized.

television.

The best way to debunk rumor, fear, and misinformation is to find the real source.

I considered, and rejected the principle you offer in your last paragraph. I was an adolescent in the 70s when I first heard about autism. I read "Son Rise." Now, at 53, I'm a public school teacher, and have been in the public education system for 30 years. I've had enough autistic students to recognize characteristics, and I can say unequivocally that autism has become much more common in the last 15 years or so than it was in the beginning of my career.

In the 21st century, every single class I teach has someone somewhere on the spectrum; sometimes, more than one.

Some of that could be because we are better at recognizing them. Not enough to make the difference.

Some of that could be because more autistic children are mainstreamed into regular ed, but I don't think there was this hidden population out there that we didn't know about.

It's not regional; I've taught in more than one school, more than one district, more than one state, 1000+ miles apart.

What is the source of the increase in autism? Find it, and you'll put the junk to rest.

Autism is almost universally thought of as a genetic condition or trait.

To be honest a very large part of perception is that when someone thinks something is out of whack they start noticing more of it. To borrow an example from an article I can't remember at the moment. People get bit frequently in altercations, but, after the "zombie" attack a few months ago it started getting reported more frequently (i.e. people started thinking it was weird). Or, here in Western NY, we had a case where an elderly person ran into the side of a building with her car. Suddenly, it seemed like every day there was a report of someone else doing the same thing. In both cases the percentages occurring were normal, but they became more visible because people were looking for them.

Perception bias is a huge issue with a lot of the autism work. It is why you have exchanges like higher in the thread where you have a scientist insisting autism has risen 700% in CA, only to have that number start dropping very quickly as people, including the same author, point out that statistical clumping, education level, etc. explain it.

I just know that the particular characteristics I see in my autistic students were quite a bit rarer a few decades back, for whatever reason.

Whether autism is on the increase or not, though, a clear understanding of the source will put the rest to rest.

I haven't read that it's a genetic condition or trait; of course, I haven't done extensive reading. My reading has been more about how to work with autistic students.

Is the only difference.

To reject your premise, I will temporarily accept it as truth.

Statistically, we have reports of ONE IN FIFTY children who appear to be on the spectrum. Their symptoms range from being near catatonic and non-verbal to the "high functioning unable to read social cues engineer geek". Most have sensory issues, many self stim/scream/bang their heads when upset, and most don't want to look you in the eyes. There are other symptoms, but these are common enough that the teachers can tell the difference between a "shy" child, and one who CANNOT look directly at them (which makes teaching them how to do something a challenge).

In 1963 there were 4,098,020 children born in the United States. Using the "one in fifty" stat (which is ONLY happening in the United States) that means 2% should be autistic. In other words 81,960. Our birth rate has fluctuated somewhat in the last fifty years, going as low as 3,136,965 in 1973 (2% = 62,739) and I could probably spend the time being exact about it, and taking into account mortality rates, but I will make this easy on us, and say that between 1963 and 1993 if the numbers were ALWAYS an "undiagnosed 2%" we should have 70,000 per year times 30 years =2,100,000 ADULTS with sensory processing/autistic spectrum disorders.

Find those "missing" 2.1 MILLION adults, and you will convince the medical and educational communities that SOMETHING isn't destroying children's lives.

They don't exist. Twenty years ago, SOMETHING happened. Increase in vaccines? Genetically modified food? Stronger antibiotics? Pesticides in the water? Secret government nuclear testing? Invasion from aliens? Cause unknown. One of the clues: it started with the middle and upper classes, and then spread. It hasn't STOPPED, and it is getting worse.

It is being called an EPIDEMIC for a reason. It isn't "bad parenting" - it is a God Damned Disaster.

I've no medical training and no clue to causal factors in the disorder(s). Yet, I'm familiar with epidemiology. If more diagnoses are made and reported, there's a rise in prevalence. If a disorder was previously undiagnosed or diagnosed as another disorder prevalence data would be under-counted.

(aside) I don't think framing those with concerns about vaccines as "anti-vac nuts" helps in a reasonable discussion with them. Vaccination has a long and well documented benefit in public health efforts world-wide. That's the point.