UCal scientists: Autism's 700% rise largely due to environmental factors

not just to better diagnosis.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=autism-rise-driven-by-environment

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.

SNIP

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?

SNIP

Dr. Bernard Weiss, a professor of environmental medicine and pediatrics at the University of Rochester Medical Center who was not involved in the new research, said the autism rate reported in the study "seems astonishing." He agreed that environmental causes should be getting more attention.

SNIP

Combined, Hertz-Picciotto said those factors "don't get us close" to the 600 to 700 percent increase in diagnosed cases.

That means the rest is unexplained and likely caused by something that pregnant women or infants are exposed to, or a combination of genetic and environmental factors.

"There's genetics and there's environment. And genetics don't change in such short periods of time," Hertz-Picciotto, a researcher at UC Davis' M.I.N.D. Institute, a leading autism research facility, said in an interview Thursday.

Many researchers have theorized that a pregnant woman's exposure to chemical pollutants, particularly metals and pesticides, could be altering a developing baby's brain structure, triggering autism.

It was posted in here when it was new, and hashed out then. I can only presume you post it now to try and stir shit up again.

But it is very helpful because it does contain some very important information that, by posting the article, I can only assume that you agree with:


In fact, this article actually suggests what us in the evidence-based world have been suggesting all along: vaccines aren't the culprit.

Thank you for finally coming around.

It is perfectly possible that mercury exposure caused some number of vaccine reactions. Why then would the number of cases continue to rise even after the exposure to mercury was almost eliminated? Because there are a multitude of other possible environmental factors which continue to increase. I know you read the article a year ago but it seems as if you might need a refresher course.

Good luck. But thanks for agreeing that vaccines are not to blame for autism. That is a big step for you, and I'm proud.

thought autism is probably caused by different things in different children, but usually a combination of genetic susceptibility and various environmental exposures.

But let's suppose you're right that it was only a factor in a tiny percentage of cases. Should it have remained in the vaccines, then? Are the mercury-susceptible children disposable since there are few of them? Even though it wasn't necessary to keep mercury in the vaccines?

My sister was one of the tiny group that died after the old DTP vaccine, which they knew for decades caused some deaths. Finally, but only after a great deal of pressure from what some people here call the "anti-vax crowd" the drug companies produced and the FDA approved a safer vaccine. Was my sister's life less important than yours? Should we have kept using the old vaccine simply because it was easier and cheaper than designing a safer one, and there weren't many babies that died?

"autism" is a catch-all diagnosis that now comprises (if memory serves) 27 separate specific conditions.

It may be reasonable to assume that part of the dramatic increase is due to an actual increase in people with "autism", part due to an expansion in the definition of "autism" and part due to more comprehensive testing and diagnosis.

One of the "shock and horrors" of autism is supposedly that nearly 1 in 100 kids has it! OMG, it's an epidemic!

Well this UK study actually surveyed *adults* of all ages and found that - surprise - the rate of autism spectrum disorders was about 1 in 100! Indicating that there is no "explosion" of new cases, just much greater awareness and expansion of diagnostic criteria, which those of us in the fact-based world have been suggesting all along.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1215283/Major-study-finds-100-adults-autism-far-common-men.html

There are probably any number of studies that support that contention...and any number that refute it.

Personally (and purely anecdotally, without any scientific support) I believe that environmental pollutants and/or things like the widespread use of certain prescription medications ARE probably increasing the rates of conditions like autism and asthma.

My point is that there is a whole spectrum of issues that need to be considered before something like a "700% rise in autism" can be adequately understood.

since the early 90's is simply due to greater awareness and expansion of diagnostic criteria. They say that there is a much larger increase than can be explained away by those factors. I know you read the article a year ago, but you could use a refresher course.

3 months old vs. 1 year old.

You found data you THINK supports your beliefs, so you embrace it no matter what. Fact is, neither article does, but don't let that stop you.

As opposed to someone who wrote a "detailed" survey with 20 questions asking adults to self-report their behavior.

who can't read or write and have actual autism as opposed to some degree of Aspergers?

"Researchers asked more than 7,000 men and women 20 questions designed to pick up traits linked to autism and related conditions. Topics covered included attention to detail, ability to handle social interactions and ability to read emotions."

And the actual rate of autism among adults could even be greater. Thanks for bringing up a point to reinforce my position!

At first you complain that this survey wouldn't have picked up the most autistic individuals, who cannot communicate on the level needed to complete a survey. When I pointed out that this would have actually UNDER-counted the autism cases, you now shift 180 degrees and claim that the survey over-counted!

Too freaking funny. :rofl:

Some of the dramatic increase IS likely due to the factors you mention, but -- according to the UCal researchers -- most of it is not.

Autism Prevalence
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2024

The Increase in Autism Diagnoses: Two Hypotheses
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=95

More Evidence for Vaccine Safety
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=940

Goodnight. I have better things to do than entertain myself by discussing the same old conspiracy crap with a conspiracy theorist.

Yes, there are scientists in the field who disagree with each other on the question of how much environmental factors affect autism. In my opinion, the epidemiologists at UCal have produced worthwhile research that should be followed up. You seem to think that the issue has already been settled -- that autism is caused by a genetic disorder hardwired before birth and that is completely unaffected by developmental or environmental affects during pregnancy or early childhood. Time will tell who is right.

:eyes:

Bring the vaccine issue into the autism discussion?

It's like a fixation. The OP simply opened a discussion about environmental factors, certainly not a kooky idea, and you and others have to dive into the vaccine controversy. Vaccines were not even mentioned in her post!

You are so hyped up about the possibility that someone might vilify vaccines that you can't even have a respectful exchange about perfectly reasonable ideas.

Perhaps the reason is that some people are threatened by the idea that autism could be anything but a genetic, hardwired condition -- not even affected by influences in utero. It is so much simpler to think that there is nothing that can be done about it, or to reduce its incidence. And it's scary to think that something about our environment could be having a major impact on our children's health.

one group points out that the thimerosal was removed- and thus vaccines must have nothing to do with the rise in autism- and the other group goes on and on about thimerosal in the flu vaccine.

The vaccines themselves -nothing to do with any additives or preservatives - could be a trigger- along with all sorts of other things- pesticides, plastic can liners- who knows what. I want to see what this group finds out. And all the whining and arguing on these boards about when a certain preservative was removed does not change my interest in the subject.

It could be that if the chid got the actual disease that the vaccine helps prevent, that the autism would be triggered. It could be that there is a subset of the population of babies and small children who should be treated as compromised- that they cannot safely be exposed to either the disease or the vaccine that prevents it. That these children need to be kept in some sort of isolation to protect them until age 5 or so- no child care, no public exposure. Who knows what we will learn and hopefully know ten years from now.

If a susceptible group were able to be identified it could be that they could benefit from the protection vaccines afford healthy individuals at a later time in their development. Who knows, it is very good that these guys at UCD among others are looking into it. I wish them luck and I would hope that all of the posters here would also like to know what they find out.

factors that taken together, and in combination with a genetic predisposition, could account for much of the unprecedented rise in the number of autism cases since the 90's.

I agree with you that it is good these researchers, and others like them, are doing this kind of research.

If you read the article, it says, "Many parent groups believe that childhood vaccines are responsible because they contained thimerosal, a mercury compound used as a preservative. But thimerosal was removed from most vaccines in 1999, and autism rates are still rising."

Vaccines have been cleared of wrongdoing. Why keep bringing them up?

The difficulty in all of this is that if other toxic environmental exposures are substantially increasing (such as from phylates and some of the other suspect chemicals listed in the OP), then that increase could mask any reduction that might have occurred (due to fewer cases in a susceptible subset of children, such as those with mitochondrial disorders) when mercury was eliminated from the vaccines.

I think scientists will eventually decide that different children develop autism symptoms as a result of different genetic susceptibilities combined with different environmental exposures. Untangling all this will be a huge challenge, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the problem.

going back to the Stone Age. A lot of research already indicates that it's a normal genetic variation that has at times given us some of the brightest individuals who helped push technology and society ahead by huge leaps. I think it is very, very wrong to approach autism as something that needs to be "stopped" or "cured" as the rabid anti-vaxers do.

To the extent that it is a combination of being genetically hard-wired and a result of various insults to the developing brain, it is not.

I don't think all autism needs to be cured, particularly those on the spectrum who are capable of self-care and communication. But if numbers are increasing because of toxins in the environment, then something needs to be done about the environment.

which have already been studied intensively, and focus on the environment! Can you agree, or are vaccines still YOUR #1 culprit no matter what the facts?

and that vaccines need to be studied within that context -- as one of the things that, in combination with other factors, may be affecting babies' health. For example, if there are other groups of babies besides those with mitochondrial disorders who may be at risk from various vaccines, shouldn't those babies be identified?

I agree with you that, with regard to autism, it is wrong to focus solely on vaccines. Vaccines could well be involved in only a small number of cases, such as Hannah Polings -- not that her case is unimportant, or that those groups of children shouldn't be identified.

But I also think that we should be doing everything we can to make sure that required vaccines are as safe as possible, no matter what their affect may be on autism.

For example, a measure that might increase vaccine safety could be something as simple as spreading out the vaccine schedule more, so that babies' developing immune systems are exposed to less stress at one time. I would like to see epidemiologists and others carry out research on the effects of the increasing number of vaccines in a short period of time -- as have been carried out in animal studies. Dog studies pointing to auto-immune problems have already led to the major veterinarian society cutting back on its recommended vaccine schedule, and to assigning vaccines to different levels of priority. If dogs are getting an increasing number of auto-immune problems with an increasing number of vaccines, doesn't that point to a need for more research on the human level as well?

I knew that was your primary target. Thanks for confirming.

And vaccines aren't my primary target with regard to autism. In my mind, vaccines and autism are separate issues, with some degree of overlap in cases like Hannah Polings.

1) Vaccines should be made as safe as possible.

2) Children should be able to grow and develop in a safe environment. In that respect, we should be making sure that there aren't environmental causes (including but certainly not limited to vaccines) behind the increasing numbers of autism cases.

These are hardly radical positions for a progressive to take. Usually it's the Rethugs who couldn't care less about having a healthy environment.

"Mitochondial disorder with autism-like symptoms" is NOT the same as autism.

Please stop spreading the anti-vaxer lies.

She had no autistic symptoms until two days AFTER she had 9 vaccines. Her mother, who has the same genetic condition she has, has NO autistic symptoms. That is why her family and doctors believe her autism is the result of having the vaccines -- and the vaccine court accepted their argument.

And again, autism or autism syndrome is nothing but the name for a collection of symptoms. She had none of the symptoms before the 9 vaccines, but developed many of them almost immediately afterward. Therefore, her doctors believe, the vaccines resulted in her autism. Otherwise, she might have ended up like her mother, who has the same mitochondrial disorder but no autism.

What her non-autism-specializing father has to say is irrelevant because her actual condition is a MITOCHONDRIAL DISORDER. That is her medical diagnosis and the REASON for her disabilities.

You are being intellectually dishonest in order to further your agenda and I have nothing more to say to you on this issue.

You won't accept the fact that it autism is the name for a syndrome, and that she has the syndrome, along with her mitochondrial disorder. But the vaccine court did, fortunately for her and her family.

Existing court documents list her diagnosis as a mitochondrial disorder, NOT autism. You repeating the false claim that she has autism over and over and over again does not make it true. Prove it. You have the burden of proof.

articles in reputable publications stating that she has autism or autism symptoms. Show me the court documents, please.

You ignored it. The only thing you've posted is a personal opinion. Good luck.

The article contains the full text of the decision.

Oy.

keep claiming that you have seen.

Has the Government Conceded Vaccines Cause Autism?
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=203

Autism and Vaccines: Responding to Poling and Kirby
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=341

Jon Poling on Paul Offit
http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=1084

And since the anti-vaccine crowd wants science to prove a negative, I'd like the anti-vaccine crowd to prove a negative. Can they prove that no pre-vaccination age child ever developed autism at around 18 months, after having typical development until that point?

Can they?

of having vaccines. That's why the Vaccine Injury program was put into place. Otherwise, these families would be suing the drug companies -- but the vaccine act now requires them to go to the vaccine court instead.

I think it may be time to reconsider the whole vaccine injury program, since it isn't being carried out as Congress intended. Let the parents prove their cases in regular court, and let the drug companies take their chances with the verdicts. Maybe they'll concentrate on making their vaccines as safe as possible.

Your obsession hurts the very people you claim to care about, and that doesn't bother you one bit.

Bye.

where everything is laid out. If Hannah had gotten a diagnosis of autism, it would be in there.

Good luck spreading lies!

The silly denial approach that has maintained the huge increase is completely due to increased diagnosis and to a widening of the definition, is not getting us any closer to solving this problem. You certainly cannot solve a problem if you won't even recognize it.

to do the research on why the cases are increasing. Some people here want to think the case is closed. The truth is the opposite.

and that "more and more evidence" points to a genetic cause.

in combination with his statement that "more and more evidence" points to a genetic cause means that he thinks the case is closed.

And I'm not basing my conclusion on this one thread. He has indicated in many other threads that he thinks autism is hard wired.

For example, he recently said that research indicates it's a "normal genetic variation."

"And most indications point to there being autistic people in our population...

going back to the Stone Age. A lot of research already indicates that it's a normal genetic variation that has at times given us some of the brightest individuals who helped push technology and society ahead by huge leaps. I think it is very, very wrong to approach autism as something that needs to be "stopped" or "cured" as the rabid anti-vaxers do."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=80098&mesg_id=80148

In the article it asked the question what in the environment has changed so dramatically since the 1990's. The link below talks about one area in our environment that meets that criteria.....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC-FrpA9-zs

You see, you don't understand REAL autism research.

REAL autism research is when you start with what you are absolutely sure of: that VACCINES (or maybe, possibly, some unknown environmental factor - at least in conjunction with vaccines of course!) are ABSOLUTELY the cause of the autism "epidemic." (Epidemic being the ONLY WORD that can describe the alarming proportion of the population - approaching 1% - that seem to fall somewhere on the autism spectrum. This is an epidemic because it appears in the past this number may have been only 1 out of 100. ;-)) Then, with this conclusion in hand, you look at all the evidence and simply discard anything that doesn't support what you already decided is the truth.

It's the "new science!" Bush administration officials did it, now you can too!

And, at DU, I think I'm less understanding each day. ;)

Autism Epidemic Talk
http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2010/01/autism-epidemic-talk/

Please don't shoot me, I'm just a messenger regaromg this item....

In the early 90's, my school of 400 children had one class of about 6 children with Autism as it was defined at that time.

When I left Michigan in 2001 , my school had 3 classes.

In 1990, a parent that was a chemist told me that her research indicated that" wealthy parents had more Autistic children than those that were not." Our school had Upper Class parents.

According to that parent, she thought that it was the Aspertane(spelling) in the Diet sodas. She suggested that Upper class Moms drank more diet drinks and would not use regular sugar. They were "extremely concerned with their weight ."

Help me if I'm wrong, aren't they finding out now that for the general population, it is best to use real sugar instead of the substitutes? Not because of any findings that I know of regarding Autism.

I pray that there will be a cure for the children and for the loving parents and families that are heartbroken and don't know the answers.

'There may be environmental factors involved in autism' is NOT the same statement as 'Vaccines are a likely cause of autism'.

Some environmental factors are already known to increase the risk of autism: prematurity; obstetric complications; some maternal infections during pregnancy.

'Many researchers have theorized that a pregnant woman's exposure to chemical pollutants, particularly metals and pesticides, could be altering a developing baby's brain structure, triggering autism.'

This is certainly a hypothesis worth testing - and IMO has been under-researched partly *because* of the preoccupation with blaming autism on vaccines.