Researchers demonstrate that environment causes autism.

[lumberjack_jeff]

http://autismandnutrition.blogspot.com/2009/01/110-yahoo-news-search-results-for.html

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.

'Bout friggin time.

[populistdriven]

1. this is why i never allow my kids to leave the house, the environment hates us

[lumberjack_jeff]

2. Maybe it's the environment IN the house.

:shrug:

[gratuitous]

26. Earth's way of fighting back

When a malignant virus enters a body, the body has natural defenses to neutralize or eliminate the virus.

[Rebubula]

129. STOP!

That is the kind of thinking that lead to the HORRIBLE movie 'The Happening'

I have petitioned to the studios to get that hour and a half of my life back....


But, I agree....the Earth does see us as a virus.

[redqueen]

3. What a misleading headline they chose. (nt)

[trotsky]

7. That's because a blogger created it.

The real headline was "Autism *linked* to environment". Which is far more accurate.

[lumberjack_jeff]

11. "and most likely is due to environmental exposures"

I guess "due to" and "causes" are not closely enough related in the english language?

[Occam Bandage]

12. "Most likely" is not "demonstrates."

[lumberjack_jeff]

14. They've demonstrated that it IS an epidemic, and that it is NOT a result of changing diagnoses. n/t

[MADem]

4. I think it's a bit like Juvenile Diabetes, myself

There's a "genetic predisposition" component, that is aggravated by an "insult" of sorts.

In JD they think it is a VIRUS that turns it on. In autism, it could be vaccine mercury, or plastics, or who knows what else.

I do think the predisposition has to exist, first, though. Otherwise every kid would be getting it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

13. I could agree with this.

But it's an "insult" which was far, far less prevalent 40 years ago.

[MADem]

16. Absolutely. Whatever the insult, it's either around more, OR there's a

second, perhaps newer 'insult' that allows insult #1 a way in to cause the problem....i.e., if it's not a one-two punch, it's a one-two-three punch.

As an example: Genetic Predisposition + Exposure to Toxins (mercury, pesticides, whatever) + Exposure to soft, pliable plastics = You're Screwed.

I hope they find a cause and a cure, though. I feel so sad for those kids--you know there's an alert, aware, functioning, intelligent human being in there, who often can't break out. It's terrible for them, and for their parents.

[Warpy]

5. They pretty much know that autism is present from birth

and it's great that they're finally realizing that it might be the result of a pervasive teratogenic chemical.

I suggest they start with pesticides.

The whole vaccine thing was a red herring that wasted the time and effort of everyone concerned with tracking down the real cause long after the connection was disproven.

[lumberjack_jeff]

9. The primary defense that the medical establishment has used on behalf of vaccines

was that it's all genetic.

It wasn't a red herring, no one would be researching environmental causes if the vaccine defenders had prevailed.

FWIW, I'm not convinced that thimerosal causes autism. I am convinced that autism is an epidemic, and thus, not genetic.

[Spider Jerusalem]

86. Actually, that's completely wrong

There have been several independent studies which have found no link between vaccines and autism; the original paper alleging a link (Andrew Wakefield, published in the Lancet) focused on a very small sample size of children who had a rare autistic spectrum disorder (disintegrative disorder). The conflation of the MMR vaccine mooted as a likely cause of autistic disorders by Wakefield et al with thimerosal-containing vaccines (when MMR does not and has never contained thimerosal) is just an absurdity which illustrates the weakness of the 'vaccine-induced autism' argument. Other studies with larger sample sizes have found no conclusive link, and Andrew Wakefield, who is largely responsible for introducing what is now a largely discredited (by the medical establishment, anyway) theory is currently facing charges of professional misconduct in the UK.

The idea that vaccinations cause autism seems to've gained credit largely because the earliest symptoms of autism manifest at roughly the same age that children are first vaccinated; however, correlation is not causation, and the scope of neurological differences of autistic disorders is such that those differences must have been present from very early in gestation.

[seabeyond]

50. i dont agree. i dont know either, but at least i am open and honest enough to say. i saw

an absolute shift in oldest son directly after his two yr old shots. i didnt know anything about the vaccine/autism relationship. i saw behavior and told husband as we watched, looks autistic. had not see any sign previous. yrs go by and we see a fuzziness in his brain. an oddity

he have worked directly on his weaknesses giving him tools to deal with it. low level autism. and genius.

kid is at thirteen. last yr i have watched an escalation of the behavior when we would have tuna (rare) and then some fishes and not others. i noticed after cod he reacted, i looked up on site to see if was high in mercury and it is

i am not convinced on the fish. but i dont like to play with it. i am not convinced on vaccination but i know what i saw.

but

i know the medical community has worked ass off to protect their vaccination and i dont trust them or the studies.

so no

i am not convinced there is not a correlation with mercury.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. I blame a sevenfold increase in bad parenting.

:eyes:

[tblue37]

44. Bad parenting does not cause autism. Early intervention and

effective mitigation programs can help some (not all) kids with autism to function better than they otherwise would, but parenting doesn't have anything to do with whether or not someone develops autism.

[mopinko]

gremlins

[mopinko]

46. cold mothers is what

bruno bettelheim used to say. to their faces.

[seabeyond]

58. my kid is a good kid. as a matter of fact he is too good. i encourage and make him

walk on the grass. he has NEVER had a disciplinary problem in school. he is the easiest child any parent could hope for. and he has a fuzzy brain that takes a lot of patience and work, so.... not a deal, he is perfect as is.

but no one would agree with you assessment that he is a problem child due to poor parenting.

i dont think you know what you are talking about

you think

[lumberjack_jeff]

60. Humor and stupidity are funny things.

The spectrum runs from "profoundly stupid" to "dull" to "wise" to "witty" to "brilliantly satirically funny".

Strangely, "brilliantly satirically funny" and "profoundly stupid" are often hard to tell apart. It's not a continuum, it's a circle.

I was hoping he was trying for brilliantly satirically funny and overshot.

[seabeyond]

61. he may have over shot, but yours made me laugh

i dont take it personally, it just shows ignorance. that i understand

thanks

[Kajsa]

85. I agree!

I couldn't tell which one he was going for here, either.

:)

[proud2BlibKansan]

67. And I was going to blame Michael Savage

:evilgrin:

[Kajsa]

84. That puts you right down there with

Michael Savage.

http://tinyurl.com/7qddnm

--unless you forgot the sarcasm smilie.

[Occam Bandage]

8. "Autism linked to environment" is a more accurate headline. nt

[redqueen]

15. "Autism *most likely* linked to environment" would be better, IMO.

I like how scientists say things. Usually they have good reason for saying things the way they say them.

[lumberjack_jeff]

17. They didn't say "linked" they said autism is "due to".

It's like a contest to find the most passive words to describe the results of the study; Autism is an epidemic which cannot be explained solely by genetics or by changes in diagnoses.

[redqueen]

18. You're right... I just edited OR's comment instead of going back

to the original piece.

The contest is in accurately relating information so that you don't end up playing 'the telephone game'.

[trotsky]

20. No, he still made an error. See my post #19. n/t

[trotsky]

19. Did you ever diagram sentences in grade school?

Quote from the original article at Scientific American:

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.

Can you tell me what the subject of that sentence is? (The subject is the thing that "most likely is due to".) I'll even make it multiple choice for you. Is it:

A) California
B) increase
C) autism
D) doctors

Keep in mind here - no one is telling you that the environment is NOT at least partially responsible for autism, only that you and your blog source are doing some very sloppy editorializing and conclusion-drawing.

[lumberjack_jeff]

24. California's increase in autism is most likely due to environment.

Better?

Ability to read and correctly parse english isn't the problem. The problem is resistance to the concepts that the words are meant to communicate.

Unarticulated by the article is what the alternative (or less likely) explanations could be since diagnostic changes and underlying genetics have been eliminated. Magic or divine intervention, I suppose.

No one wants to appear biased against magic, so we must use the most passive and indefinite voice possible.

Monkeys are "linked" to banannas. That's a far different thing than saying that Monkeys are "due to" banannas. It's not me doing the worst of the editorializing.

[trotsky]

30. You're wrong again.

You really don't understand the sentence, nor did you apparently even read the entire original article.

Diagnostic changes have not been eliminated from reasons why autism rates have increased - this study's authors just claim that those changes can't explain ALL the increase.

Underlying genetics most CERTAINLY has not been eliminated as a cause of autism. From all indications, we've had autistic individuals in our population since we developed brains.

It's not me doing the worst of the editorializing.

You're right, you aren't editorializing. You're just misrepresenting.

[lumberjack_jeff]

35. Cripes! Don't lecture me about reading ability.

The article was as plain as could possibly be that the 80+% of the increase in autism in California is attributable to something other than diagnostic or population changes.

Further, it should (with even the most meager application of logic) be obvious that epidemics are not caused by genes, even if genetics might play some role in who is most vulnerable to the environmental trigger.

What's left? Magic, divine intervention and environment.

[trotsky]

40. I can't help it when you misstate the facts so blatantly.

You have now significantly backed off your original erroneous claim that somehow this study proved autism was due to environmental factors alone. Glad I could help steer you toward the truth.

even if genetics might play some role in who is most vulnerable to the environmental trigger

"Some" role? SOME? Autistic boys outnumber autistic girls about 4:1. When one identical twin has autism, chances range from 60 to 90% (depending on diagnostic criteria) that the other will too. Whereas in fraternal twins, that coincidence is generally 10% or lower. If environmental causes were the primary reason, why would there be such an incredible difference between the types of twins? In both cases, both individuals were in the same womb at the same time. Same exposure to the mother's diet, chemicals, etc. So while you're learning the facts, you still have some way to go.

This is one study. It provides some valuable information. But it by no means is conclusive, CERTAINLY not to the extent that you initially tried to spin it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

41. The rate of occurrence is THREE TIMES higher today than it was in 1990.

... Even after adjusting for the possible affects of migration or diagnostic changes.

Since the fraternal twin of a boy with autism is only 50% likely to be a boy, that accounts for half of your postulated genetic difference.

The observation that grizzly bears eat hikers is made no less accurate by the observation that they eat slow hikers at a greater rate.

Being slow may contribute to being vulnerable to attack, but it is not the primary cause. Grizzlies are.

Grizzlies are "most likely linked" to people-parts in Grizzly poop. Whatever we do, we can't understate the role that heavy hiking boots play in the phenomenon. :eyes:

Whatever. Environment is causing the Autism epidemic. Walking on eggs and parsing language gets us no closer to figuring out what that environmental trigger is.

[trotsky]

77. Wow, that's some impressive point-missing.

Since the fraternal twin of a boy with autism is only 50% likely to be a boy, that accounts for half of your postulated genetic difference.

Tell me, is there a genetic difference between boys and girls? :eyes:

Environment is causing the Autism epidemic.

And so we see you didn't learn anything about using language correctly. What a pity.

[killbotfactory]

10. Who would have ever thought?

Who could possibly know that surrounding ourselves with poison and industrial byproducts, putting it in our food, our clothes, in the air, in our homes and furniture might have negative side effects?

[Karenina]

21. BINGO!

[SoCalDem]

23. The Petrochemical industry is "not our friend"

For people over 50, it's frightening to see the increase of all the "isms" ..It's true that modern medicine "catches" more these days, but think back to when YOU were a kid..

It was RARE to ever meet or know someone with a handicapped kid..These days it's quite common..:(

Our floors were wood
Our carpets were wool
Our clothes were cotton, linen, wool
Our shoes were leather or canvas
Our household cleaners were borax, vinegar, bleach
Our food was fresh
Our food was home-cooked (from scratch)
Soda pop, chips & cookies were an occasional treat

Even with people smoking & drinking hard liquor and with lead paint & leaded gasoline, we seemed to be less likely to produce "at risk" children..

C-sections were rare, and prenatal testing was almost non-existent

New mothers stayed in the hospital after giving both, for a week or so

Petrochemicals changed everything.. we wear it, we eat it, we breathe it..:(

[Raskolnik]

27. "It was RARE to ever meet or know someone with a handicapped kid."

That probably had quite a bit to do with the fact that those kids either died, were kept secret, or sent off to state facilities.

Fifty years ago, it was also RARE to ever meet or know someone with a gay child, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist.

[lumberjack_jeff]

29. It is true that institutionalization is (thankfully) more rare.

However, the anecdotal is consistent with the empirical. There ARE more people with autism today.

[SteelPenguin]

32. yeah it's a bad statement

Not that I disagree with researching environmental links but the "when I was young..." type argument doesn't fly logically.

How many people here wore helmets growing up riding bikes? For those over 30 probably none of us. We're all fine why do we need bike helmets....other than the fact that the kids who cracked their skulls open on the cement aren't here to say "oh hey it saved my life."

50 years ago kids with Downs syndrome were institutionalized and kept separate from society and died usually before they were 30. Of course you never saw them. That doesn't mean they didn't exist.

My point is using poor logic isn't necessary in this situation, and only degrades from the argument.

[SoCalDem]

37. Gee, thanks for your "concern" about my intelligence

I MERELY pointed out that even with the "hiding" of handicapped children back then, there were still people within our own circle of friends and family, with whom we WERE familiar..and these days it's hard to NOT know someone with a handicapped grandchild or niece or nephew or child of their own..

I guess things have really changed at DU..apparently now, one has to have footnotes of scientific studies, links to data, IQ test results & a copy of SAT scores to back up their own life's experiences:)

---

[AngryAmish]

82. Look up "observation bias"

Very common error. We can't help it - it is the way our brains work. One must know how their brains are trying to fool them and actively fight against it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

89. The same observation bias is working in science.

The choice has been framed as either genetics or vaccines. Once vaccines were pretty much ruled out as the singular, primary cause in most cases, they became invested in proving that genes were the sole source.

Read downthread for the perspective of a (presumably) professor who teaches her students about the entirely genetic cause of autism in direct contradiction with research conducted at the very school she attended.

(she didn't like being told what she should have already known by a guy who calls himself "Lumberjack")

[SteelPenguin]

96. Relax

I didn't question your intelligence, only your rhetoric.

You don't need to footnote anecdotal evidence, but if you're going to state something as fact or as evidence towards a point, you are going to sound foolish.

"Well I never knew anyone growing up who owned a cat, so therefore people own more cats these days."

I didn't know anyone growing up who owned a cat. Now I know a number of people who do, including myself. To use that anecdotal story as evidence just sounds ridiculous, because it is, and if I were trying to prove some other completely valid point, would utterly invalidate my entire position.

[NashVegas]

131. That's a General Trend

A fun little fallacy argument that entirely rejects empirical evidence and claims it's "unscientific." (Which is a patently false assertion.)

[XemaSab]

34. Our paint was lead

our thermometers were mercury, our antiseptic solutions were mercury, there was no clean water act, there was no clean air act, and they sprayed DDT in the streets.

[SoCalDem]

38. and yet we did not ingest plastics yet

my point exactly:)

I lived in Panama and our base was "fogged" three times a day.. we PLAYED in the fog :scared:...

[NashVegas]

132. We Played In the Fog

And look at how many people get diagnosed with MS.

[XemaSab]

33. Word

n/t

[sniffa]

22. No way, it's flu shots that cause it

The adult-onset kind anyway.

[lumberjack_jeff]

25. "Adult onset" Autism?

Explain?

[Raskolnik]

28. Really? n/t

[varkam]

31. Notsomuch.

They apparently did not examine some major artifacts that may account for the bulk of the uptick

[lumberjack_jeff]

36. Uptick?

When the rate of a disease climbs from 6/10,000 to 45/10,000 in one decade it's more than an uptick.

What was omitted from the article?

[varkam]

76. You say tomato...

Here you go

[lumberjack_jeff]

90. Thanks for this.

The writer's essential point is that, since the author of the study could only account for 60% of the 600% rise among children born in California as being attributable to diagnostic changes, it's proven nothing. We must not discount the magic hypothesis prematurely, I guess.

It seems to me that disproving diagnostic changes as the primary attributable factor demonstrates a great deal.

He then goes on a huge guilt-by-association riff.

But thank you for the dissenting opinion, I find it enlightening.

[varkam]

99. It is merely that there are other confounding variables that needed to be taken into account...

which, indeed by virtue of experimental design, may be extremely difficult to take into account. The author of the study is correct when they say that diagnostic changes standing alone cannot account for the change in autism diagnoses; it does not logically follow, however, that the increase must be due to environment. There are still other issues at foot that may have nothing to do with the catch-all term environment.

[lumberjack_jeff]

107. I've heard no one postulate what those might be.

Given that those "confounding variables" have to a) have had no effect in 1990 and b) account for the remaining unexplained 540% increase, the smart money is on environment.

[varkam]

110. One of them was provided for you.

All you had to do was read.

ETA: I'll pull out some of the relevant parts for you - you know, to make it easier:

The key to putting this study into context is the phrase “other artifacts”. This study did not control for all possible artifacts resulting in higher diagnosis rates. Specifically, it did not address surveillance, which is likely the dominant factor. It also did not control for shifting diagnosis. In other words, 20 years ago a child may have been diagnosed with a non-specific speech disorder, and today they would be diagnosed with autism, so-called diagnostic substitution as was found by Bishop in 2008.

Another factor is that physicians, teachers, and parents have increased awareness not only of the symptoms but of the autistic label. How many parents who notice that their child is socially withdrawn are going to seek out services or medical attention?

This study did nothing to assess these potentially huge factors. So what this study really did was account for 10% of the increase in autism diagnosis. But it did not show anything about the other 90%, nor rule out the leading contenders for diagnostic artifact. I will add it to my list of references on this question, but it certainly does not overturn all the prior studies listed.

You seem you be falling over yourself in a rush to say that this study proves that autism is caused by environmental factors and glossing over the potentially fatal methodological flaws that serve to undercut the overblown conclusions that you're drawing. I mean, maybe you have secret knowledge as to how much those other variables have contributed - if so, would you mind sharing?

[lumberjack_jeff]

116. No insights except what my eyes can tell me.

The word "implausible" doesn't quite capture my appraisal of the idea that 6 out of 7 children with autism were diagnosed with "non specific speech disorder" in 1990, nor that it is attributable to, as the blogger said, the surveillance effect of parents looking for government handouts benefits.

Why do people assume that because I disagree with the conclusions that I can't read? :shrug:

"All possible artifacts" is an unreasonably high bar.

But the study did control for shifting diagnosis, just like Newschaffer before her. The primary point of both studies was to disprove the hypothesis that Autism used to be dx'ed as other stuff. They have both successfully done so.

Be aware of the timeframe in question. The beginning of the study was in 1990. If the surveillance effect were the real artifact, then physicians, teachers and parents are as prone to see the metaphorical light bulb with HS students as with pre-schoolers. Instead, we see each successive age cohort have a higher occurrence than the last. Kids born in 1990 are less likely to have the disorder than kids born in 2001... who are (time will show) less likely to have it than kids born today.

All the while, we argue over the semantic differences between "due to" and "causes".

[varkam]

120. "Why do people assume that because I disagree with the conclusions that I can't read? "

Well, I asked because you asked what those artifacts were when one of them was provided for you.

"All possible artifacts" is an unreasonably high bar.

Not if you're looking at those artifacts that probably significantly influence the conclusions. You say that demanding rigorous methodology is unreasonable. Well, as I wrote, you say tomato...

If the surveillance effect were the real artifact, then physicians, teachers and parents are as prone to see the metaphorical light bulb with HS students as with pre-schoolers. Instead, we see each successive age cohort have a higher occurrence than the last.

Except that they would be only more prone to see it in older kids early on. These days, it's nearly universally caught early on. Further, you assume that it's static and that there are no improvements still being made.

All the while, we argue over the semantic differences between "due to" and "causes".

?

[lumberjack_jeff]

121. "?"

Sorry, I use "we" too liberally. "Due to" was a conversation with someone else upthread. :hi:

[Odin2005]

39. Bull-fucking-shit. I am not "poisoned", I don't need any fucking "cure".

The overwhelming majority of the evidence says that autistic traits are genetic. My own family makes that obvious, autistic traits run in my mom's side of the family.

As far as I'm conserned the people that spew this garbage are no different then the bigots that think homosexuality is an "illness" that can be "cured."

What a bunch of biased, bigoted Cure-bie BS.

IMO what they found, if anything, was that environmental pollutants "set off" stereotypical "autistic behaviors" because of our sensitivity to many sensory stimuli. They got their causality backwards.

[lumberjack_jeff]

42. Don't presume to speak for everyone. n/t

[Odin2005]

43. Fine then, here are some more voices:

http://aspiesforfreedom.com
http://ballastexistenz.autistics.org

[lumberjack_jeff]

45. I'm familiar with the views

I'm in full agreement that people with ASD need and deserve to be full partners in society. They are independent individuals of worth just like neurotypical folks.

I'm not in agreement with your apparent view that we should remain ignorant of which toxins in our environment are causing it.

[Odin2005]

47. It's genetic.

And this is typical junk science based on assumptions of casuality. Not that I think pollutants aren't bad, but everything I have seen indicates that we are simply more sensitive to them, causing undiagnosed autistics to act more "stereotypically autistic" which makes a diagnosis more likely.

Also, Asperger's Syndrome has only been recognized for about 15 years, so no wonder there is in increased number of diagnoses in the total number of autistics as Asperger's Syndrome becomes more widely recognized.

[lumberjack_jeff]

54. Your theory won't explain why 7x as many children are born in California with ASD as in 1990.

Genetics can't explain an epidemic.

[TZ]

63. but reclassification of autism CAN....

Which is what happened. Autism is now being diagnosed more often because the different versions of it were being misdiagnosed.
Oh btw, if you study disease/biology you will know that a lot of these problems are BOTH genetic and environmental...
There are PROVEN genetic links..but there are most likely some sort of environmental trigger..
Its like people with Lupus..there is a genetic link, but alot of times it is exposure to some sort of trigger that brings the disease out.
This is NOT a simple black and white problem, no matter what a lot of people (most of whom have not studied biology) believe.

[lumberjack_jeff]

64. I'm fully prepared to believe that some people are genetically vulnerable to the trigger.

That doesn't make any difference. The trigger is the causal event.

If you think that misdiagnosis "is what happened" then you didn't read the article. The medical community is aware of autism because they now see it in numbers that are impossible to miss.

This is not the first study which demonstrated that autism wasn't misdiagnosed as something else in the past. The rates of occurrence of disorders for which Autism could have been mistaken have held steady while Autism diagnoses have skyrocketed.

[TZ]

72. I'm not convinced

that anyone with the predisposition can do anything particularly to stop that trigger. Except live in a plastic bubble.
BTW, I know at least ONE psychologist who deals in autism on this board who would STRONGLY disagree with your last statement.
and it isn't just "genetically vulnerable"...they've found ACTUAL GENES...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081016074703.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090112095427.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/050608052944.htm

Its important for people to understand the genetic basis for this. There are people out there that are telling vulnerable people that they can "cure" autism by chelation therapy which is false, and potentially lethal to the child.
Its funny that no one believes this about Down's syndrome which is ALSO a genetic disorder....

[lumberjack_jeff]

74. It's not my opinion that (s)he's disagreeing with, it's Craig J. Newschaffer.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/115/3/e277

Cohort curves suggest that autism prevalence has been increasing with time, as evidenced by higher prevalences among younger birth cohorts.

If the genes are deterministic for the disorder (such as Down) then we should not see changes in occurrence over time. Also, we should be able to detect the same gene(s) in every person with ASD and find it missing in every person without.

... but, rationalization being what it is, they'll find 20 arrangements of genes that are statistically correlated with ASD behaviors, and when they find people with ASD who lack any of the 20, they'll decide that he really has something else, and when they find a neurotypical person with 10 of 'em, they'll praise his parents for the great job they did socializing him, but find it obvious that he chose a career in engineering, all the while praising themselves for the diagnostic advances that allows them to correctly diagnose the 10% of the public who has the disorder when "back in the day" they missed 90% of 'em. :eyes:

Their investment in the absence of any environmental trigger will only grow with time.

on edit.....

BTW, the most recent of the three links you posted had nothing to do with genes, it was about researchers hoping to establish a saliva test for certain autism-linked proteins.

That would be a good thing, because perhaps then some of the more ignorant among us (such as Michael Savage) could drop the "it's just bratty kids and indulgent parents" meme.

[TZ]

81. hello! a test for proteins means its a GENETIC defect!

Genes make proteins or did you miss that fact in HS biology!
You know what the difference between autism and Downs syndrome is? You can see right away that a baby has Down's..but its not physically obvious in autistic children!
There is also a test that they are looking at that can tell if a very young baby has autism by looking at eye movement..which again suggests strongly that children are born with this condition.

Tell me something, because I smell an anti vax agenda here..are you trying to prove by misinterpretation that vaccines cause autism? Because no matter what this research says, thats long ago been debunked by reputable scientists world wide..unless you are RFK, jr whom as we all know is a nobel winning biologist..:sarcasm:

As I told you up thread, the notion that diseases are influenced by the environment is not new to any biologist.

[lumberjack_jeff]

88. Mind reading is not your strength.

I'm "trying to prove" that which has already been proven. Autism is triggered by environment and we are in the midst of an epidemic.

And your observation that many of the children with autism are born with this condition doesn't rule out an environmental cause, nor for that matter does it rule out vaccines.

I don't know enough about the specific protein test that they are trying to develop, but there are a number of physical markers and digestive problems which are common to people with autism. Like the urine protein test, the results may (probably?) simply indicate the presence of one or more of these secondary issues, and not any fundamental genetic differences.

Of course I know the differences, those with Down have an extra chromosome. The genetic difference with that disorder is obvious and obviously deterministic. If you think that Down syndrome is defined by their appearance, you have a great deal to learn.

The fact that half of those with Down syndrome also have autism also suggests that there's a genetic role. However, the fact that autism is an epidemic which is not simply a construct of diagnostic changes SHOWS that it "is due to" environment.

[Deep13]

71. You've got to be kidding.

I'm 41 and all the friends I have now I had in high school. Aspergers makes it very difficult for me to talk to people on anything other than a formal level. I sure as hell wouldn't mind a cure and I really could have used it 30 years ago.

[Odin2005]

79. Autistic "gifts" and "disabillities" are just different sides of the same coin.

The two things are intimately connected neurologically. The stereotype of the socially inept nerd didn't appear out of thin air.

You don't need to be "cured" any more then a gay person needs to be "cured" of his/her sexual orientation. People just need to be more tolerant of neurodiversity.

[Orrex]

98. That's a laudable view, but I think you must accept that not everyone shares it

I know of autistic children who are violently self-destructive in their outbursts; are these outbursts "neurodiverse gifts" to be "tolerated?"


It seems to me that comparisons between autism and homosexuality are ill-founded. Homosexuality in itself doesn't entail a fundamental obstacle to interacting with other people--such obstacles are based on prejudice and would vanish in a tolerant society. Certain aspects of some forms (i.e., not all) of autism are a fundamental impediment to human interaction: the inability to process speech or to recognize emotions, for instance.

If a person with autism or Asperger's is sufficiently self-aware to say "I'd prefer to be rid of this condition," then it is appropriate to respect that person's wishes.

[Guaranteed]

106. I tend to agree- autism has a very strong genetic component.

But you need to understand that a sizable portion of people with autism aren't like you. They can't function on their own. They need help with their problems- to be "cured" of them.

This is a big reason why I think the spectrum needs to be split. Folks like you shouldn't be considered as along the same lines as those with severe autism. There's just such a huge difference, and conflating the ends of the spectrum causes reactions like yours.

[conscious evolution]

108. A genetic pre-disposition

set in motion by outside agents.
That sounds like alcoholism,believe it or not.Alcoholism has been shown to have a genetic component but the disease itself does not develop until being triggered by actually drinking alcohol.

Question:Do you think the genetics are something that has been in our DNA for a long time or could it be a case of mutations brought on by increasing exposure to environmental contaminants?

[Feron]

133. Don't be shy..

tell us how you really feel! :D

I agree and it's good to see yet another Aspie on here!

[seabeyond]

48. good they finally feel the need seeing it changes who the kid is.... n/t

[aikoaiko]

49. start? possible environmental causes of autism have always been studied

:shrug:

[glitch]

51. Thanks for posting. K & R

Amazing to see some of the reactions to the news that environment actually may have a role in health!

[lumberjack_jeff]

53. Protecting sacred cows is a powerful instinct. n/t

[earth mom]

94. And a profitable, self serving one too. nt

[depakid]

52. My bet would that endocrine disrupters will emerge as major culprits

While exposure to some--such as PCBs--has declined in recent decades, others--including flame retardants used in furniture and electronics, and pyrethroid insecticides--have increased.

Mothers of autistic children were twice as likely to use pet flea shampoos, which contain organophosphates or pyrethroids, according to one study that has not yet been published. Another new study has found a link between autism and phthalates, which are compounds used in vinyl and cosmetics. Other household products such as antibacterial soaps also could have ingredients that harm the brain by changing immune systems, Hertz-Picciotto said.

Of course, as we can see from a few of the comments in the article- nothing that science finds is likely to assuage the anti-vaccination crowd.

[glitch]

57. Vaccinations are considered part of the environment too.

Granted a highly concentrated, directly induced part.

[depakid]

59. No relationship or clinical pathway has been established whatsoever

It's simply a post hoc ergo promter hoc deal involving remorse and retrospective bias.

On the other hand, endocrine disrupters (and certain other "insults") have established clinical pathways that would be expected to cause neurodevelopmental disorders, especially in genetically predisposed indiviuals.

Also as SoCalDem points out via plastics (phthalates, bisphenol-A, etc.) these sorts of chemical exposures have become ever more ubiquious- even as other exposures (and potential culprits) have remained relatively constant or have markedy decreased in use, and become less common.

[glitch]

83. Yet.

Anecdotal is evidence, just not the best evidence.

[moc]

55. Great, we can cancel the National Children's Study now since someone else "proved" autism is caused

by environment. It's turning into a pain in the neck as it is, and the Vanguard sites aren't even in the field yet.

Oh, wait, why is the NIH still pouring tens of millions of dollars into the NCS? Maybe it's because a study such as that reported in the OP doesn't "prove" anything.

It's interesting. It's one study. As we in science like to say, one study does not knowledge make.

See www.nationalchildrensstudy.gov for more information on the NCS.

[lumberjack_jeff]

56. What is your view?

Why is the rate of autism occurrence more than 7x what it was 18 years ago?

Proving that an environmental trigger plays a primary role is only the first step.

I've followed this subject fairly closely. It has significantly harmed my regard for what passes for the scientific process.

"RFK says it's vaccines? Vaccines are good! We can't have that! Make him stop!"

"Well, what explains the increase?"

"There is no increase, it's all genetic. Look here, in Silicon Valley, they have a disproportionate share of people with ASD. We all know that Silicon Valley is full of nerds, therefore ipso-factoid... it's genetic."

You're using geographic correlation as a proof of genetic basis? Isn't geographic correlation an environmental metric?"

"uh..."

"...Besides, there are ample observations that the rate of occurrence is increasing throughout the industrialized world... it's an epidemic."

"Okay, it's increasing, but it's no epidemic. It is? Okay then, well it's an unexplained quirk. A genetic epidemic."

"Huh? What the hell is a "genetic epidemic"?"

"Right. Well then it must be because us doctors are doing so much better of a job. 1% of the public has always had ASD, but we just never noticed."

[seabeyond]

62. one person actually told me, even if it is the vaccination it is ok for the greater good

it changes.... it CHANGES who the kid was meant to be.

fix the damn thing

doesnt have to be. we dont have to sacrifice SOME....

[lumberjack_jeff]

66. "It's turning into a pain in the neck as it is"

I find the previous poster's attitudes on the matter fairly common. They're bored with the whole topic. Science's failure to find the causes is being blamed on difficult parents.

[Orrex]

97. That's actually the correct view, statistically speaking

It doesn't diminish they difficulties faced by a family with an autistic child, but if the choice is between a statistically minimal and poorly correlated uptick in the incidence of autism versus widespread debilitating disease that could have been prevented by vaccination, then it seems clear that the vaccination is the right way to go.

And if it's heartbreaking to tell one family that a child has autism, how much more heartbreaking would it be to tell 500 families that their children could have been spared a fatal case of measles with a simple vaccine?

[lumberjack_jeff]

101. Vaccines don't need thimerosal.

It's a preservative which is only added to give the vaccine a longer shelf life and greater profitability. It's a completely false dichotomy.

But we digress. Vaccines have not been conclusively shown to be the primary trigger.

[Orrex]

104. Nor do children's vaccines use Thimerosal, so there's no false dichotomy

Vaccines have not been conclusively shown to be the primary trigger.

Why the disclaimers "conclusively" and "the primary" in that sentence? It would be more accurate to say "vaccines have not been shown to have a causative relationship with the incidence of autism." No need for disclaimers or wiggle room; it can be stated outright.

[seabeyond]

103. IF this were to be the case it is something that does NOT have to be in

the vaccinations. it is used for a higher profit pharm co. not because it is needed in the vaccinations. refusal to identify the problem out of greed or fear adn allowing the sacrifice, is sacrifice that is not necessary.

and yes

that is very offensive to both the parents and the children that have to suffer.

[Orrex]

105. You're appealing to emotionalism rather than reason

It's sad when a family learns that a child has autism, especially a severe case of the condition. That doesn't change the fact that, statistically and societally, the risk is worth bearing. That fact may be offensive to some, but that's not my fault; the fact is the fact.

And you didn't answer my question--would you rather be the one notifying the 500 families with measles-dead kids?



Further, vaccines aren't exactly a profit-maker for pharmaeutical companies, so any arguments based on a "higher profit" are mere ad hominem.

[moc]

65. I think it's complicated.

As a disclaimer regarding my background - Autism epidemiology is not my specialization, but I have a doctorate in maternal and child health and teach in a graduate school of public health. I teach this material in one of my classes. In terms of the scientific literature regarding links between autism and vaccines (MMR or thimerosol), I've read most of that original research. As I've been trained in epidemiology, I have the methodological background to evaluate the scientific integrity of those studies. There is a whole lot of crap floating around the internet which claims to be critical analysis of that research, and most of it is just that - crap. In terms of faith in the scientific process, I can say that what I've read and evaluated personally conforms with the IOM report regarding no link between vaccines and autism. So, if you are questioning the integrity of the peer review process regarding that literature, I suggest that you read the original research itself. It's very strong.

I haven't read the original article referenced by your OP, and I honestly don't have time to go read a paper and digest its methodological strengths and weaknesses in order to engage in a debate on the internet. (been there; done that; it's a waste of my time). However, I recognize the name of the primary author, and he's a respected epidemiologist. Consequently, I'm sure it's a solid study. Whether the study says what the article claims it does is another thing altogether. As someone who has had her research reported in the mainstream media and had the conclusions butchered by the reporter, I know what it's like to have research misconstrued by the press.

If I had the time, what I would like to do is compare the study reported here with the work of Eric Fombonne, an epidemiologist at McGill who's done a lot of excellent work that concludes that there is no evidence of an epidemic (but also suggests that the data we have can't really address the issue). The problem is we have data on prevalence and what we need is data on incidence. In the U.S., with our fragmented health care and social services system, there is no good source of data on incidence. It would be interesting to see how the paper reported in the OP got around this issue, b/c as far as I'm aware, there has not been any magical data source appear that can provide incidence data. That's one of the advantages of the NCS. As a prospective cohort study of 100,000 children, we'll be able to get incidence data for the first time.

Hope this helps. Gotta go put my kids to bed.

[lumberjack_jeff]

68. Read Newschaffer too.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/115/3/e277

Conclusions. Cohort curves suggest that autism prevalence has been increasing with time, as evidenced by higher prevalences among younger birth cohorts.

It'll make you a better teacher.

You needn't read the study to debate with me. You need to read the study to apply your skills to solving the problem.

[moc]

69. Give me a break. Who are you to give me lectures on being a better

teacher? Yes, I know who Newschaffer is, you dipshit. I trained at Hopkins, jackass. Who are you to tell me how to use my professional time? My job isn't "to apply my skills to solve the problem."

What an asshole you are. Welcome to my ignore list.

[lumberjack_jeff]

70. I'm on your "ignore list"? Why not? I'm certainly of no more importance than the topic.

I don't care if you ignore me. I do care that you ignore and dismiss this problem as "a pain in the neck". It's your job, do it.

Your attitude reinforces my beliefs about why science hasn't reached any believable conclusions about causality, let alone treatment.

Millions are suffering because no one either in the medical world or in academia is willing to confront their biases and sacred cows. It's completely tragic. Hubris, wrapped in entitlement hiding behind $elf interest. They've got theirs - the people suffering are an abstraction. The "consensus" is, conveniently, the path of least effort. We don't need to do anything if the problem is... not a problem... it's only the deranged imaginings of hysterical parents.

The next generation? "1%? Call me when the prevalence hits 10%. Think of the research grants I could get then!"

:mad:

[Kajsa]

87. Typical.

Someone who misconstrues what you are saying,
and can't debate with you,

calls you names
and puts you on ignore.

Now there's an adult for you.

:sarcasm:

[lumberjack_jeff]

91. She's right about one thing.

There are a handful of topics about which I'm willing to be an asshole.

Autism and the effect it has on the people I love is at the top of that list.

The complete and utter failure of the medical/science establishment to even simply acknowledge the scope of the problem because "it's a pain in the neck" really sets me off. When someone boasts that she teaches these attitudes to (presumably) premed students...

It is probably prudent that she put me on her ignore list.

[Kajsa]

93. I hear you.

btw,

You are NOT an AHole.

:)

[earth mom]

95. Amazing too, how thousands of parents have an eyewitness account of what happened to their

children after vaccination. Yet, the fact that there was a distinct "before and after" that parents saw with their own eyes has been kicked to the curb because it doesn't fit into a neat little box that can be tied up with a bow by the medical industry. Not medical science mind you, but medical industry because it's all about the bottom line, not science.

Meanwhile, thousands of children and their families have been kicked to the curb and injured all the more, not to mention disrespected to the nth degree because of all the disinfo that has been stirred up by all the naysayers in the medical industry who push their theories-NOT PROOF-to serve their own agendas.

What has been done to these children and their families is CRIMINAL. It literally makes me sick to my stomach. :puke:

[moc]

109. Okay, I've had 24 hours to cool off, and I'm ready to take you on.

First of all, do you have any IDEA what my job is? I'm NOT an autism researcher. Nothing I do in my job will EVER lead to a cure for autism. I have a doctorate in maternal and child health and I'm a professor, but my specific area of research is urban poverty, early childhood behavior problems, race/ethnicity, and academic achievement. Children who have autism are not included in any of my studies. None of my research has anything to do with autism.

If you go back and read my post, I spelled this out. What I said is that I teach about the autism/vaccines controversy in my class - in an intro class in maternal and child health. The students read the original papers and we discuss the strengths and limitations of the research. So, let me repeat, I DON'T DO ANY RESEARCH IN AUTISM. However, I know the literature relatively well due to my teaching, and I also have quite a bit of training on the broader issue developmental risk.

Second, you apparently got pissed off by my "pain in the neck" comment. I apologize if it was obscure, but you read it out of context. I wasn't saying that *autism research* was a pain in the neck, I was saying the National Children's Study is a pain in the neck. How do I know this? Because I'm a co-investigator on one of the site locations for the NCS. As one of the people involved in implementing this humongous study, yeah, it can be a royal PITA. It's huge. It's bureaucratic. Oh, and by the way, autism is only one of a huge range of outcomes they want to look at in the NCS, so just because I'm involved in the NCS does NOT mean I'm an autism researcher. Again, I'm not.

By the way, your broad brush of academics "not wanting to confront their biases and sacred cows" is way off base. Although I, myself, am not an autism researcher, I know people who are. A good friend of mine is in the autism research center at Hopkins that Newschaffer started, and I know what a dedicated scholar she is. (Also, it's personal for Newschaffer; his son is autistic. So, don't tell me it's an "abstraction" for him.) I know the woman who chaired the IOM committee that concluded there is no link between vaccines and autism. She's one of the most dedicated and thoughtful scholars I know, and she received death threats for her trouble. Just because researchers don't want to keep pursuing a dead end (i.e., vaccines and autism) doesn't mean they're not dedicated to finding answers. Indeed, there's some very interesting research coming out of the Hopkins center that I read about in our alumni magazine awhile back about prenatal environment and maternal autoimmune disorders. I don't remember the details now, but it was exciting, cutting edge stuff.

So, to answer your question, no, it's not my job, and you came off like an arrogant prick assuming you knew what my job is.

[lumberjack_jeff]

118. I'm not talking about vaccines.

Personally, I don't put vaccines as any more likely as a causative factor than water, plastics or household chemicals. Without exception, the posters in this thread who want to discredit the idea that an environmental trigger causes autism use vaccines as a diversionary tactic. I'm glad to read about the Hopkins center research, I think that prenatal environmental insults are a promising area of study.

Thanks for the clarification. I found "Autism epidemiology is not my specialization, but I have a doctorate in maternal and child health and teach in a graduate school of public health. I teach this material in one of my classes." easy to misinterpret.

I've been told a lot of really awful things. After hearing "your child has Autism"... being called an asshole, arrogant prick and dipshit by a doctor seems mild to the point of being simply a distraction. I simply bear in mind that this is not their area of specialization either.

[moc]

119. I don't think we can dismiss environment either; indeed, it's probably one of the most promising ..

frontiers. Although not a genetist either, I find the whole area of gene/environment interactions to be fascinating. It may be because I've been fascinated by the transactional relationship between children and their environment for most of my career, although more in terms of social factors (i.e., a temperamentally "easy" child might be fine in a high risk environment, whereas a temperamentally "difficult" child in the same environment may end up with serious deleterious outcomes). I think gene/environment interaction research holds a lot of promise for trying to disentangle how environmental exposures may result in specific outcomes in biologically "vulnerable" children (for lack of a better word) and not others. The problem is we don't really have the data available to test a lot of these questions. It requires prospective data, and to have enough power, you need really large sample sizes because of the relative rarity of the outcomes you're interested in. Perhaps the NCS will answer some of these questions (having a sample size of over 100,000 for a national probability sample followed prenatally through age 21), but only time will tell. The NCS is not without its problems and we'll have to wait and see if it lives up to its potential.

I'm not discounting the potential important role of environment. However, I do think one needs to be very careful about using language implying causal inference based on an observational population study such as that reported in the OP.

[lumberjack_jeff]

122. I look forward to reading results from the NCS.

I feel the same way about this subject as I feel about global warming. I don't think we can wait until we have enough proof to convince the most conservative holdouts.

If the study's author is right, something is poisoning us, and the effects are getting worse each year. Even if I were to accept that the theory is unproven, working on the assumption that something in the environment is causing it is a better, more cautious, plan than doing nothing.

[havocmom]

73. has anybody PROVED ultrasounds don't cause problems?

Seems the upsurge in numbers happened about the time just about all pregnancies got that little test. A couple of doctors I know who do not feel obligated to hold the MD party line admitted they just don't know if the tests do any damage to newly forming nerve systems.

One wonders about the abundance of radio waves too, what will all the cell signals, and such

[lumberjack_jeff]

75. I don't know. But it is my understanding that ultrasounds were pretty much routine.

I mean almost all expectant moms in the last 25 years have had one.

The rate of prevalence has continued to go up, far faster than adoption of ultrasounds.

Radio signals? Cell signals? No one knows, because we're still arguing if autism is real and if it's an epidemic.

[cosmik debris]

80. Radio waves have been around this planet for 4.5 billion years

but the post hoc fallacy that you are using has only been around for about 100,000 years.

There is no evidence linking ultrasound to any negative health impact.

[havocmom]

112. Hard to prove a negative, I know

but I still have qualms. We know the EMFs around high power lines affect us. We know there are NATURAL radio waves. I am questioning the UNNATURAL ones we are pummeling ourselves (and our youngsters) with.

We don't KNOW there are not harmful effects. Since we all have variable sensitivities, some of us may be more impacted than others by radio waves. Some of us are more impacted by various other things in our environment.

Just to remind, while no evidence that the ultra sound causes problems, there is also no assurance that it doesn't bother some fetuses.

[Orrex]

113. 'We know the EMFs around high power lines affect us'

Citation, please? Affect us how, exactly?

[cosmik debris]

114. You obviously don't have enough knowledge to discuss this issue

I would suggest that you educate yourself and stop perpetuating myths.

[havocmom]

115. Hey, I simply posed some questions. If you can't grant questions, your faith in science must be weak

Yeah, some 100% sure that science knows it ALL already is a form of fundamentalism. Real science has to entertain questions or it becomes dogma that does not allow for more discovery!

Not too long ago, germs were not considered real. The chap who questioned then went in search of answers saved more lives over time than all his learned contemporaries who ridiculed his questions about why women kept dying as their doctors went from patient, or cadaver to ward patients without washing their hands.

Questions are not dangerous to truths. Refusal to address that questions can be quite helpful would seem to be counterproductive to gains in knowledge.

Have a swell day. Don't wash your hands, cuz germs don't exist. ;)

[cosmik debris]

117. Ultrasound has been tested for 50 years

And no indication of harm has ever been found.

If you had bothered to educate yourself, you would have known that.

The amount of energy transfered to the body from radio waves is so tiny that if it were to have the effect you suggest, exposure to the sun would be fatal.

If you had bothered to educate yourself, you would have known that.

You seem to be pretending that none of that has been studied before. But in fact, it has been studied in depth.

If you had bothered to educate yourself, you would have known that.

[havocmom]

123. What part of I asked some doctors and they admitted they just don't know

did you not get?

Why attack for asking questions that several really good MDs couldn't answer honestly? Maybe you should give them a call and set them straight.

Ultrasounds have not been used ROUTINELY for non-high risk pregnancies for over 50 years, but the way. The increase in use has gone along about the same time as increase in conditions noticed in youngsters. Why isn't it OK to ask a friggen question?

Don't wash your hands. Germs are just a myth propagated by the uneducated. :rofl:

[cosmik debris]

124. Your post hoc argument is still a fallacy n/t

[conscious evolution]

125. I would not mind seeing those studies.

Since you have seen them could you tell us what their titles are and/or where we can find them.

[cosmik debris]

126. Here are a few

http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/safestar.htm

"No biologically significant differences between exposed and unexposed children were found."

http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/safesal1.htm

"The risk of having poor skills in reading and writing was no greater for children whose mothers had been offered routine ultrasonography than for those whose mothers had not been offered the procedure."

http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/safesal2.htm

"...whereas no association with impaired neurological development was found."

http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/safejens.htm

"Analyses of the data indicate there were no significant alterations in neonatal development or postnatal growth due to exposure"

[conscious evolution]

127. Mixed results I see.

http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/safecamp.htm

"CONCLUSION: An association between prenatal ultrasonography exposure and delayed speech was found. If there is no obvious clinical indication for diagnostic in-utero ultrasonography, physicians might be wise to caution their patients about the vulnerability of the fetus to noxious agents."


Even the National Institute of Health says more studies need to be done.

http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/joewoo3y.html
"Nevertheless, some of the reported effects cannot be ignored or overlooked and deserve further study as outlined in our answer to Question 5."

Granted,this is an old study,but you would think the site would post the latest NIH findings.Since they did not I looked up theNIH myself for results.Mysearch of their site found a couple of trials starting up but I could not find any completed studies on their site.

Seeing how so few studies have been done on effects on prenatal exposure/autism link and the mixed results of other studies that have been done I have to say that,IMO,the jury is still out on whether or not there is a correlation.

[cosmik debris]

128. So few studies??? Not true at all.

1. Widespread clinical use over 25 years has not established any adverse effect arising from exposure to diagnostic ultrasound.

2. Randomized clinical studies are the most rigorous method for assessing potential adverse effects of diagnostic ultrasound. Studies using this methodology show no evidence of any effect on birthweight in humans.

3. Other epidemiologic studies have shown no causal association of diagnostic ultrasound with any of the adverse fetal outcomes studies.

"No confirmed biological effects on patients or instrument operators caused by exposure at intensities typical of present diagnostic ultrasound instruments have ever been reported. Although the possibility exists that such biological effects may be identified in the future, current data indicate that the benefits to patients of the prudent use of diagnostic ultrasound outweigh the risks, if any, that may be present. "

"Diagnostic Ultrasound has been in clinical use since the late 1950's. To date the results of numerous follow-up studies on patients and children who had been examined before birth have failed to demonstrate any biological effect which could be attributed to the ultrasound examination.
Given the known benefits and demonstrated efficacy of the medical diagnosis, the Australian Society for Ultrasound in Medicine considers that the prudent use of diagnostic ultrasound far outweigh the risks, if any, that may be present. There is no reason to withhold the application of the technique when it is indicated on clinical grounds. "
http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/joewoo3x.html

[conscious evolution]

130. AIUM also says

Conclusions Regarding Epidemiology for Obstetric Ultrasound
Approved June 22, 2005
Based on the epidemiologic data available and on current knowledge of interactive mechanisms, there is insufficient justification to warrant conclusion of a causal relationship between diagnostic ultrasound and recognized adverse effects in humans. Some studies have reported effects of exposure to diagnostic ultrasound during pregnancy, such as low birth weight, delayed speech, dyslexia and non-right-handedness. Other studies have not demonstrated such effects. The epidemiologic evidence is based on exposure conditions prior to 1992, the year in which acoustic limits of ultrasound machines were substantially increased for fetal/obstetric applications.
http://www.aium.org/publications/guidelinesStatementsX.aspx#statements
Their own statement says some studies show causality while others don't.I also find the last sentence to be of interest.The way I am reading that is they are saying that their statement is based on studies of older ultrasound technology and not the current generation of 'louder' ultrasound machines.

A couple of things I have noticed at your link.
None of the studies I saw there saw they were looking for a link between autism and Ultrasounds.They all seemed to be looking for other problems.This factor makes me wonder if any autistic children were excluded from the studies.After all,it is not uncommon for clinical studies to exclude people for one reason or another and since the hypothesis of a link between the two is relatively new the early studies could have easily excluded autistic kids.If you were testing for dyslexia would you test a kid who could not read due to a severe case of autism?
Most of the studies also say that while there does not appear to be a definite link to health problems more research is needed.Several studies say Pulse Doppler ultrasounds definitly need more studies.

Based on what I am seeing there I still have to say the jury is still out on the question.

[conscious evolution]

111. Cosmik raises an interesting point.

Radio waves have been around for pretty much ever.
I wonder if anyone has ever done a study on how much radio wave exposure people get from natural sources verses cell phones,etc...Personnaly,I think that cosmic sources would pretty much drown out the relatively puny transmittors we use.
But you never know.It is worth checking into.And if it turns out we are being exposed to more than would naturally occur then it would merit further investigation.And if not,on to the next suspect.

This study only looked at those born after 1991.I would like to see it extended back to before ultrasounds came into use.That would seem like an easy way to do a quick check for any correlation between the two.

[gollygee]

78. This is something I've wondered because I've read some geographic areas

have higher rates of autism than others, and that would seem to explain it.

But I'm no expert.

[lumberjack_jeff]

92. In the case of California, there is apparently a perception of better services.

So people relocate there to better care for their children with autism.

This study only looked at children who were born in California between 1990 and 2001

Researchers are strongly invested in proving that the problem is genetic. What's vexing is that I've actually read research that uses the fact that autism presents in geographic clusters (Puget Sound, Silicon Valley) as evidence that the cause is genetic; "See? Seattle and San Jose are full of geeks! It's all about the genes!"

It could also be the chai mocha frappuccino, couldn't it? :shrug:

[Mike 03]

100. Is this the precipitation study? Maybe they are right, but the first thing I thought was

"Vitamin D." Where it rains, people are less exposed to sunlight. Vitamin D is being implicated in all sorts of illnesses now, from Multiple Sclerosis to some forms of cancer.

But I'd be euphoric if the powers that be would begin to really take a cold, hard look at toxins in the environment, especially herbicides and pesticides.

[lumberjack_jeff]

102. No, in the study above "environment" is meant to be inclusive.

Essentially, it means that the 600% increase in autism in California was not the result of changes in diagnosis. It is in fact an epidemic which is caused either by disease, toxin or some other environmental input.

[Feron]

134. Intentional misdiagnoses can also inflate the numbers.

It isn't uncommon for a parent to get a doctor to misdiagnose a child simply because there is more aid available for X condition than there is for the one the child has.

Not to mention that California's autism rate may be higher because of Silicon Valley and the fact that it may attract people on the spectrum who in turn have children.

So yeah the headline is awfully misleading. I'm sure the Jenny McCarthy crowd will latch onto it and run unfortunately.