DIAGNOSED with autism than 30 years ago. Compare this to the rise in the number of drugs and the companies who make them. Follow the money, sometimes it really is that simple.

California's sevenfold increase in autism cannot be explained by changes in doctors' diagnoses and most likely is due to environmental exposures, University of California scientists reported Thursday.

The scientists who authored the new study advocate a nationwide shift in autism research to focus on potential factors in the environment that babies and fetuses are exposed to, including pesticides, viruses and chemicals in household products.

"It's time to start looking for the environmental culprits responsible for the remarkable increase in the rate of autism in California," said Irva Hertz-Picciotto, an epidemiology professor at University of California, Davis who led the study.

Throughout the nation, the numbers of autistic children have increased dramatically over the past 15 years. Autistic children have problems communicating and interacting socially; the symptoms usually are evident by the time the child is a toddler.

More than 3,000 new cases of autism were reported in California in 2006, compared with 205 in 1990. In 1990, 6.2 of every 10,000 children born in the state were diagnosed with autism by the age of five, compared with 42.5 in 10,000 born in 2001, according to the study, published in the journal Epidemiology. The numbers have continued to rise since then.

To nail down the causes, scientists must unravel a mystery: What in the environment has changed since the early 1990s that could account for such an enormous rise in the brain disorder?

For years, many medical officials have suspected that the trend is artificial--due to changes in diagnoses or migration patterns rather than a real rise in the disorder.

But the new study concludes that those factors cannot explain most of the increase in autism.

O rly? Have you checked out the price of intensive ABA and other therapies du jour lately? When I used to appear frequently before the Hawai'i legislature, I would hear horror stories of parents taking out seconds on their homes, because someone had scared them to the core with rhetoric like "You must act now or you will lose your child forever!"

Yes, it's expensive - mostly because there are few bonafide therapists.

But it's not brain surgery. There are lots of good books that schools and parents can use to implement the basic principles.

http://www.amazon.com/ABA-Programs-Kids-Autism-caregivers/dp/1496172280/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1461186099&sr=8-1&keywords=dr+gary+brown+aba+programs+for+kids+with+autism

One of my oldest daughters sons is autistic. This is the first time I've been close to it--he's a fascinating boy. Physically, he's fine, better than his year older brother in some things. He's going on 5 and isn't talking much or potty trained. He's very tactile, sensory oriented, loves the feel of different textures. When he hugs you, he hugs with his whole body, loves to snuggle, has a sense of humor. He doesn't fit exactly anywhere on the spectrum. Intellectually, he doesn't seem impaired, but it's hard to tell. He has repetitive behavior patterns.

I think, when it becomes personal, we look for patterns that answer the "why my child" question. My daughter, who is sane, and thus not anti-vaxxer, has been doing a number of interventions-- including diet changes. She quantifies these by measuring behaviors--for instance, took out gluten, took out processed foods, and saw an increase in imaginative play.

Now it's an open question whether her diet changes actually did any good, vs. the good, quality time and attention he receives, or simply natural improvement. (I noticed he meets my eyes better than he used to, and when he holds my hand, he squeezes down--he used to just kind of put his hand in mine and let it lay there) Since the diet is a very healthy one, He is only benefitting.

I noticed my daughter had to go through a number of stages before she even used the words "special needs child". I understand it's hard, but looking for answers not based on good scientific evidence can ultimately be even harder.

Say it ain't so!

(for example)

which have absolutely no relation or value to the health of people. (sarcasm, for anyone who needs it to be said.)

I do think people who blithely look for a simplistic cause for an apparent statistical change, need to stop.

But it goes both ways. It is not impossible that improper processing, storage, handling, or administration of a vaccine caused an adverse reaction in specific cases. Deciding to risk a much more likely illness in your child due to this possibility, is idiotic.

It is probably not impossible for the bioengineers to create a new "food" that would actually be harmful to the person who eats it (but hey, there's plenty of natural stuff in that category already); but the small possibility of that should not be the reason one eschews GMO products.

But just because they won't physically "poison" YOU by eating them, doesn't exclude other reasons that GMOs might not always be a good idea.

that cannot be explained away by "wider standards".

Okay fine, so vaccinations have been shown to not be the culprit. Let's find out what is causing it. I would bet it's environmental toxins of some sort.

Explaining the Rise in Autism Diagnoses
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/explaining-the-rise-in-autism-diagnoses

The pediatricians I work with generally agree that changes to diagnostics don't completely account for the rise in autism rates. Sure, it is a part of it, and most likely a big part, but there is a very strong suspicion that environmental toxicants or pollutants are driving up the rates.

It's also worth pointing out that diagnostic criteria for spectrum disorders actually tightened up quite a bit with the DSM-V.

Most agreed that it wasn't on the rise. What was different was that parents, doctors, etc knew more about it, recognized the signs earlier and sought help. That makes a huge difference.

It used to be 120 was the norm...but then they lowered it to 100, and suddenly more and more people "need" drugs that then cause more complications that require MORE drugs..

and everyone over 40 is now "pre-diabetic"...like being "pre-pregnant"..

Same thing with cholesterol numbers too, right? They used to use 200 something, then 200, then 180, now everyone is on the verge of heart attack.
Also, my wife had an optometrist at a retail eyeglass place tell her she was pre-glaucomic.

Her MD (and later, mine) said there is no such thing.

But maybe it's possible she had high intraocular pressure and he didn't know how to explain it and did more harm than good.

I have extremely high intraocular pressure, which can be a sign of glaucoma, so I got sent to the glaucoma specialist. I'm lucky; I just have high intraocular pressure but no signs of glaucoma. I have two forms of migraine, am fairly nearsighted, posterior blepharitis, scleral cysts, etc so I get pretty thoroughly checked for stuff coming loose

caused by the expansion of diagnostic criteria.

you name the adjective, but they just used to be people who were a bit different..

They now have a "medical" diagnosis...and of course a pharma regimen to go along with it..

I especially feel for all the fidgety, day-dreaming boys in school whose teachers have decided that they need to be on drugs..and who shame/scare parents into finding a doctor to help" their boys...