I have always said there may be a small percentage of people with autism spectrum disorder (perhaps those with Asperger Syndrome) whose symptoms are a result only of their genetic makeup, with no environmental factors involved at all.
But a new study out of UC Davis' MIND Institute says that it's time to abandon science's long, expensive, and not very fruitful quest to find the gene or genes that cause autism alone, without any environmental triggers.
"We need to keep (environmental) studies going," Irva Hertz-Picciotto, the co-author of the study and professor of environmental and occupational health and epidemiology at UC Davis, said in a statement.
"We're looking at the possible effects of metals, pesticides and infectious agents on neurodevelopment," Hertz-Picciotto said. "If we're going to stop the rise in autism in California, we need to keep these studies going and expand them to the extent possible."
Autism is predominantly an environmentally acquired disease, the study seems to conclude. Its meteoric rise, at least in California, cannot possibly be attributed to that shopworn mantra we still hear everyday, incredibly, from far too many public health officials: It's due to better diagnosing and counting.
The autism epidemic is real, and it is not caused by genes alone: You cannot have a genetic epidemic. It really is time that we, as a society, accept that cold, hard truth.
"It's time to start looking for the environmental culprits responsible for the remarkable increase in the rate of autism in California," Dr. Hertz-Piccotto said.
The study results suggest that "research should shift from genetics, to the host of chemicals and infectious microbes in the environment that are likely at the root of changes in the neurodevelopment of California's children," the statement added.
The UC Davis Study, funded in part by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) found that the rate of autism among six-year-olds in California mushroomed from less than 9 per 10,000 among the 1990 birth cohort, to more than 44 per 10,000 for kids born in 2000.
This increase, "cannot be explained by either changes in how the condition is diagnosed or counted," the statement said, "and the trend shows no sign of abating."
(It is important to keep in mind that almost every child born in 2000 would have received many vaccines that contained the mercury preservative thimerosal, which was not completely phased out of most - but not all - childhood vaccines until at least 2003.)
Of the 600-to-700 percent increase in autism reported in California between 1990 and 2000, fewer than 10 percent were due to the inclusion of milder cases, the study found, while only 24 percent could be attributed to earlier age at diagnosis.
There was only one logical conclusion: some thing or things in the environment had to be at play here.
I have always said that all environmental factors should be considered in at least some subgroups of autism. This position has been met with considerable ridicule. I believe that opponents are afraid that, if we start looking at toxins like heavy metals, it might one day lead back to thimerosal. Likewise, if we consider live virus triggers, we may have to take another look at the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (which thousands of parents swear was the trigger than sent their children tumbling into autism).
Now, it's always been easier and more reassuring to tell ourselves that autism was almost purely genetic, that it was always with us at the rate of 1 in 90 men (1 in 60 in New Jersey) and that, gee, weren't doctors doing a great job these days of recognizing and diagnosis this disorder.
This pathetic groupthink has helped create hugely lopsided funding priorities in autism, where genetic studies get lavishly funded, while environmental ones are lucky to even pick up the dollar scraps left behind
"Right now, about 10 to 20 times more research dollars are spent on studies of the genetic causes of autism than on environmental ones," Hertz-Picciotto said. "We need to even out the funding."
I agree.
Yes, we must continue to look for the susceptibility genes that make some kids more vulnerable to environmental triggers - possibly through a diminished capacity to detoxify themselves.
But the sooner our best minds in science and medicine come to grips with the fact that these poor, hapless kids have been exposed to the wrong environmental toxins and/or infectious agents at the wrong time, the sooner we can find out how to best treat what really ails them.
It is illogical for us to oppose the study of, say, mercury exposures and autism, because it might somehow implicate thimerosal, and by extension, vaccines.
After all, heavy metal studies into autism could very well incriminate background environmental sources, but exonerate metal sources found in vaccines, such as mercury and aluminum.
And that would be a good thing for everyone.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=340#more-340
This is his opinion; nothing more, nothing less. Everyone has them.
His are particularly biased.
I was wondering. Since they call themselves the Quackwatch (AKA the Quackosphere), do they watch themselves?
Opinion? So if I say 1+1=2 and you say 1+1=3, is that your opinion and should be held with the same weight? Is that what you and your buddies at AoA think? It's your opinion and since you have such special insight on biology, it should carry the same weight.
Can you point out to me how his assessment(s) are biased? Is it because it's not in-line with your opinions?
There was a time that I was so utterly convinced that thimerosal in vaccines was what triggered my older son's autism, that I refused to vaccinate my next child. He started showing signs of autism as well...so I knew that there had to be something else going on. (Although this doesn't necessarily let mercury off the hook, since I have a mouthful of dental amalgams.)
I took acetaminophen pretty regularly during my pregnancies due to severe headaches. In addition to the autistic symptoms, my younger son also had wheezing episodes as an infant and toddler, that he outgrew as he got older. Preliminary studies are also beginning to link asthma to maternal and early childhood acetaminophen use.
Needless to say, Tylenol isn't something I keep around anymore.
http://generationrescue.com/testimonials.php
“(Most ASD cases) were likely caused by something that pregnant women or infants are exposed to, or a combination of genetic and environmental factors,” the magazine reports. “Research links soaring incidence of the mysterious neurological disorder to fetal and infant exposure to pesticides, viruses, and household chemicals.”
The magazine now joins Web MD, the LA Times, the Contra Costa Times and other mainstream publications that are reporting this story in a similar fashion.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=autism-rise-driven-by-environment&page=2
From the SciAm article:
""The advances in molecular genetics have tended to obscure the principle that genes are always acting in and on a particular environment. This article, I think, will restore some balance to our thinking," he said."
No, they are not. It's called mutations. Some of these are de novo. Use Down's Syndrome as an example. Changes in genetics not related to environment as a response.
http://marthaherbert.com/
QUOTE - This site, a work in progress, houses my writings and my interests.
I am a pediatric neurologist and a brain development researcher. My main focus is autism. After much thought, I have come to the formulation that autism may be most inclusively understood and helped through an inclusive whole-body systems approach, where genes and environment are understood to interplay.
My approach to autism is rooted both in my own research findings and in several decades of work prominently featuring systems theory and other interdisciplinary approaches. The prominence of large brains in many young children with autism calls for fresh thought at many levels to how we think about what the problems and challenges are in autism, and what may cause them.
I also have great concerns about our planetary environment. We are at an evolutionarily novel and grave turning point. Given what is at stake, I propose that all of our challenges be viewed through this lens. The nature and frequency of autism merits being viewed in this light.
Please join me in reflecting upon these and related concerns, and in formulating strategic and leveraged interventions.
END QUOTE
Thank you for keeping us apprised of this study and the reporting on it.
One avenue of focus that I've wondered if anyone has researched into is the possible inheritance of immune damage from environmental insult, especially through a maternal exposure.
I heard of a recent study that showed that babies whose grandmothers smoked (not mothers) had a higher risk of asthma.
Have any reviews been attempted to determine if there multi-generational effects from vaccine induced immune disfunction, for example?
There is no reference anywhere to environmental contributors. None.
What the study examined was previous cohorts used as data for other studies and a number of statistical enhancements that came to one (single) conclusion: diagnostic criteria is not enough to account for the rise in the incidences of autism in California for the specified time examined. There is no "therefore, there is an environmental contributor". It's not examined in the study. There is no data concerning anything of the sort. The author's did not make that conclusion.
So folks...where's the disconnect at? Could it be an 'investigative journalism' piece utilized a second-hand news report from a university website? You are re-interpreting a secondary source, and once again, flavored in a way to fit you opinion.
Suggestion: read the study next time. Don't jump to conclusion. Don't use someone else's (student journalist) news report as the reference for a study you never read, then citing the study to make your case. And finally, stop making your conclusions based on something that sounds like it is the way you like it.
What do you attribute skyrocketing autism rates to over the past 20 years if you can no longer blame expanded diagnostic criteria, earlier diagnosis, or migration? Those are the empty reasons given for claiming there is no epidemic. Wouldn't you then have to agree now that we are seeing an epidemic? Do you have genetic epidemics? Could it be anything other than an environmental influence at this point?
You may want to read the link that Mr. Kirby so generously provided above.
David, have I ever told you how much you ROCK?
I said:
"The study shows, quite simply, that there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that better diagnoses could account for the increase of incidence. "
Here's some more of me quoting from the study:
""This increase, "cannot be explained by either changes in how the condition is diagnosed or counted," the statement said, "and the trend shows no sign of abating.""
Here's what you said in the above post:
"What the study examined was previous cohorts used as data for other studies and a number of statistical enhancements that came to one (single) conclusion: diagnostic criteria is not enough to account for the rise in the incidences of autism in California for the specified time examined."
Wow...that sounds eerily similar to my statement, doesn't it?
If it isn't just genetics, and it isn't just better diagnosis or migration or broader diagnosis criteria (which IS what the study looked at), then what is it? What is the logical conclusion? Have YOU studied logic, Joseph?
Suggestion: Quit denying there is an epidemic and DO SOMETHING TO HELP OUR KIDS! This is something that parents have been saying from day one. You are basing your conclusions on data that the old-boys club has already written it in stone. Don't want to prove the concensus wrong, do we? And finally, stop making your conclusions based on something that sounds like the way you like it.
"If it isn't just genetics, and it isn't just better diagnosis or migration or broader diagnosis criteria (which IS what the study looked at), then what is it? "
There are other possibilities. The point I've been making over and over and over here you are not getting is that the study did not, in any way, attribute anything to 'environmental factors'. Look at the title of Kirby's blog. What does it say? The paper says nothing of environment. Kirby's blog does.
"If it isn't just genetics,......"
Why can't it be genetics? How, in this study, was genetics ruled? There are trends occurring that could lead to changes within populations. Again, you derive conclusions not supported...not even studied by the research cited.
You can keep your suggestions. It's worthless.
Time to START?! Hello? Well, only 20 years late...
http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/01/new-autism-study-conducted-by-boobs.html
I could barely believe that study got funding, when there has, as yet, been no study of vaccinated vs unvaccinated (e.g. Amish) children.
Starting with the Amniosenteses case-studies should be compliled and compared. Many of the AS-children were born premature. Most babies received medications to support breathing and prevent infections and so on. The short life of my Hydorcephalus/Asperger/Epilepsy son (he passed at 17 during an Epilepsy episode) was probably already jeopardized when I agreed to a strong dose of progesterone in the 3rd week of gestation as a choice to keep the pregnancy. My fazit: "They" don't know what they are doing. Therefore I pound my group with information that sensitizes them against psychotropic medications that are supposed to alleviate the features of autism in order to fit with the social coding of schools and wishful thinking of parents. This is a desaster.
Evening out the funding for autism and enviornmental factors is way over due.
Please let this be a sign of CHANGE.
"Results: Autism incidence in children rose throughout the period. Cumulative incidence to 5 years of age per 10,000 births rose consistently from 6.2 for 1990 births to 42.5 for 2001 births. Age-specific incidence rates increased most steeply for 2- and 3-year olds. The proportion diagnosed by age 5 years increased only slightly, from 54% for 1990 births to 61% for 1996 births. Changing age at diagnosis can explain a 12% increase, and inclusion of milder cases, a 56% increase."
The data is not in dispute. Everyone would agree there has been an increase in diagnosis. The issue is how did this author determine that "Changing age at diagnosis can explain a 12% increase, and inclusion of milder cases, a 56% increase". That's exactly what should be discussed here (and is suspiciously absent from the abstract). Did anyone actually read the study or is this assessment of another news interview evidence?
It takes me 24 to 48 hours to get these papers (when I do, I will read it, particularly the materials and methods, and then scrutinize the analysis in the results section). If I'm working in the science field and it takes me a day or two to get the actual study...how did you get it so fast David? How did Kim evaluate it so quickly?
The study shows, quite simply, that there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that better diagnoses could account for the increase of incidence. There is an epidemic, and something needs to be done about it....yesterday!
How do you know this? You haven't even read the study.
This isn't spin. This is how one comes to a logical conclusion. I ordered the paper. I'll read it when it comes in. It's that simple.
I'll be interested to see what 'environmental' factors are considered. Is it 'toxins' that some how manage to specifically affect very specific aspects of cognitive function? Does the author consider 'environmental' factors like socialization and/or events during upbringing. Does it consider demographic trends, like the fact California's are marrying and baring children later? These are important considerations...the author(s) need to address those points too before being able to claim that it's toxins.
BTW, other studies have been published that do say it is diagnosis and characterization. They are decent studies. The fact is, they all...including the new one no one here has actually read...they all need to be reviewed and collectively engaged to develop the theory. That's how science works.
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Home/index.cfm
SEEDS OF DECEPTION bk
GENETIC ROULETTE bk
THE WORLD ACCORDING TO MONSANTO dvd
UNNATURAL SELECTION dvd
From SHEDDING LIGHT ON GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD by Beth Harrison (recommended by Dr. Arpad Pustzi for all Americans on Harrison's blocked website)
"Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job."
-Philip Angell, while director of corporate communications at Monsanto, quoted in the New York Times October 25, 1998
"Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety."
-FDA Statement of Food Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties, May 29, 1992 Federal Register
QUOTE
Food today is big business - a business of money and politics. It has simply become a commodity to be patented, owned, and sold on the global market. No independent, peer reviewed scientific proof exists of the safety of humans consuming genetically engineered (GE) food.
Because there is no labeling of GE food in America, you have been part of a large scale, genetic experiment without your knowledge or consent.
...Children face the greatest risk from the potential dangers of GE food because their bodies develop at a fast pace and are more likely to be influenced and show the influence of it...END
It is complete nonsense to believe that the skyrocketing rate of kids with autism that have been showing up in special ed classes across the country does not constitute an epidemic. It is equally dishonest to believe the only cause could be genetics. That is not science, it is politics.
Why look for the source when the treatment could be so profitable?
All aside I do think there is a need for SOME genetic research to understand what genes may be interacting with what environmental exposures. That we can understand the sources of the problem to both end/reduce it and hopefully treat those dealing with environmentally based manifestations..
leopardmozart, vaccines were the trigger in my son. He changed within hours of his 15 month vaccinations.