UC Davis Study Authors: Autism is Environmental (Can We Move On Now?)
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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Any thoughts?
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=340#more-340
And?
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?
Ha...ha...ha. Wow, that was hilarious.
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?
A lot of us think you're absolutely right. Tylenol isn't a cause per se but it probably amplified metal toxicity for countless children. I tend to think that the monster truck that hit our kids was probably vaccine mercury...>>
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.
I think this is going to be a complex problem to tease out given the gaps in our understanding of brain function and normal development. Add in a life time of exposure to a myriad of different man-made chemical compounds (interior and exterior pollutants including household cleaning products, artificial hormone disruptors, ingredients in processed and/or GMO foods, prescription or OTC meds, 'body care' products). Figure that most safety testing is done (when it's done) on a single compound at a time and not in combination with others even though the concept of negative synergy is well established. It's no wonder we might be seeing some spikes in certain developmental and behavioural syndromes. That we're not popping out 3 eyed frankenfish infants is a testament to the abilities of the human body to defend itself but, unfortunately, it takes a lot less effort to chemically scramble normal gene expression in an otherwise healthy brain, with profound and deleterious effects. I doubt researchers could catalog and track all chemical exposure an individual has had up through child bearing years, let alone a population, and write a multivariate statistical software package sophisticated enough to adequately analyze these phenomena.
Surely there are important clinical clues to be found by directly studying affected children, including associated case histories looking at both development and recovery from autism.
http://generationrescue.com/testimonials.php
Agreed. The clues can come form various directions and all should be critically examined. fMRI is a powerful tool that can be used to compare brain images of normal vs. autistic vs. 'cured' individuals. Also, researchers announced in '07 that they developed the first genetically engineered mouse models of autism in so this should help speed the discovery process and treatment options.
See David Kirby's Profile
Scientific American has weighed in on the UC Davis study.
“(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
OK, now do you recognize the difference between this interview presented in these news sources and the reference to a study that does not support the claims made in your and the SciAm article? Do you not recognize this? You've used a piece of research, by an author (researcher), who is providing an opinion/perspective and then using a recently released study on statistical assessments as the evidence. This is wrong. I am completely amazed no one admits this! What aperson says in an interview is one thing (and what she says is fine! Great, go with the story!), but to "validate" it by referencing another study made by the researcher in an interview on another topic is wrong.
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.
Down's syndrome doesn't occur with the same incidence as ASD's. Not even close. De novo mutations may account for a few ASD diagnoses, but it still doesn't come close.
Mr. Kirby,
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?
PCB + Plastic + Ocean + Sunlight = Autism....
There appears to be a catastrophe unfolding in our Oceans... with a soup of plastic and industrial toxins that are making there way up the entire food chain... leading to a 300% increase in autism and other neuro-developmental anomalies that are occurring across species... as well as cancers and impairments to the immune system, from the coral reef polyps on up to the great Orcas... and to us... sitting at the "apparent" top of the food chain...
please see my blog on PCB's, ocean, plastic, autism, cancer
http://OpenDoorWorld.com/blog
"yes we can" do something to reduce the plastic and industrial chemicals still being dumped into the Ocean... "yes we can" launch efforts to remove the plastic still floating on the Oceans surface...
We passed the point of urgency when it became controversial if mothers can safely breast feed their newborn child... due to the risk of Autism from the industrial toxin PCB.... being passed to the innocent developing infants brain....
and please sign the petition at:http://OpenDoorWorld.com/petition
and join our Reef Team at:http://OpenDoorWorld.com/reef
capt larry --in key largo
Go Green to save the Coral Reefs!
http://OpenDoorWorld.com/solar
Thank you Mr. Kirby for rallying for the cause of my son and countless others. I have one question re: vaccines that can be illustrated by the following quote:
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.)
My question is - since the thimerosal was a voluntary recall, and also since vaccines are distributed in lots of thousands (hence the need for preservatives for long, long shelf life) has anyone ever questioned how many were actually voluntarily returned? It's one thing to offer a voluntary recall, it's another thing all together to actually see any returns. This recall is often referred to as an argument against the link to autism. Well since we recalled the mercury tainted vaccines, the rates of autism haven't dropped. Well how many were actually recalled?
(see part 2 to post)
Well, to all interested parties (David, Kim, Craig, etc)...I just finished reading the work (did you get a copy yet?)
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.
HuffPost's Pick
The study doesn't have to prove specific environmental causes – it proves the likely existence of an environmental mechanism by disproving the assumption of stability.
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?
Bravo, my friend.
One other thing:
You may want to read the link that Mr. Kirby so generously provided above.
David, have I ever told you how much you ROCK?
"The study doesn't have to prove specific environmental causes " it proves the likely existence of an environmental mechanism by disproving the assumption of stability."
No. It does not. It specifically and unequivocally addresses the sampling methods, qualification and organization of input variable (data), and presents the data according to another analytical/statistical model. That's it!
READ THE PAPER! It says nothing about environment. "it proves the likely existence of " OMG this is such baloney...and this is a Huffington Post Pick? Says a lot about how much these editors understand the scientific method.
" you have genetic epidemics?"
Yes. Read up on what happens when you force animals to mate later in their life-cycle. It's been done.
What would happen if people started having babies later in life? Instead of the average age of 23, it becomes 25. Then 27. What if, because of changes in economics, career development, and social view, people were waiting later and later to get married and have babies? How about into their 30's? Sound like a trend to you? Sound like something that might be happening? Why don't you look at births according to age and see what has been happening with GenX in this country. Look at what is happening in the California, with the disproportionately high number of technology jobs. Look at when they are having their babies. Think this will not produce some effects?
"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
Time to START?! Hello? Well, only 20 years late...
Thank you David Kirby for continuing to ask why known environmental toxins, like MERCURY, are in vaccines that are injected into the human bloodstream when we wouldn't allow them to be dumped into a river. I do think we need to move on from some studies (see example below) but not from studying ALL environmental "triggers" for the "autism" that presents as brain damage, gut damage, mitochondrial damage etc. I saw a link to a really stupid study posted on Age of Autism:
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.
The big uninvestigated link with Autism now is aluminum. See Dr. Sears' book on vaccines. I'd start with that.
I liked Kim's comment related to Bernie Madoff. It's like the medical equivalent of a great big ponzi scheme.
In addition to all of the above the whole pre-natal and direct post-natal procedere should be under the microscope. In my support group of 25 families (I am the organizer) with children on the Autism Spectrum, all report that even the slightest difficulty with birth was answered by a flood of medications that supposedly do not penetrate the placenta. 90% of the women had a cesarian. All of this happens with the consent of women who are kept in the belief that the best is done for them and of whom many perceive childbirth as some kind of illness that should be overcome with medication - thanks to our screwed up culture.
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.
Excellent points about how our modern pregnancy and birth management techniques probably have a strong link to autism. Another angle to consider is post-birth trauma. My son was born with a high fever I now think was a result of my being exposed to strep-B in the workplace when I was pregnant. When my son was less than two days old his fever spiked to 106 and he became severly dehydrated; he was given a spinal tap and a chest x-ray then placed in intensive care on an IV. I was breastfeeding him even so but I still think that the illness plus the post birth trauma could not have been helpful to him. Yes I believe that my son would have died without some form of medical intervention but perhaps more of our medically fragile babies live nowdays and a high percentage of them develop autism.
Thanks MIND Institute and David Kirby for the study / article.
Evening out the funding for autism and enviornmental factors is way over due.
Please let this be a sign of CHANGE.
For years I would have bet my house that a major university would present findings very similar to this. Both my husband and I have lived all of our lives (close to 50 now) in a valley where agriculture is the major industry with all it's component pollutants, plus we have horrendously poor air quality. My husband, at one time worked in the agricultural chemicals industry directly testing pesticides on crops. Our only child has autism and so do many, many children in our community. Perhaps it's just a coincidence but I think not. We are slowly poisoning ourselves with our air, water and food qualilty and it's showing up in our children.
From the abstract:
"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?
There it is! There's that denial; there's that spin. Anything to deny that there is an epidemic and anything to deny helping the kids that were damaged.
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!
Craig,
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.
Environmental considerations must include GMO ingredients (in 70% of processed foods on supermarket shelves for past 10 years, according to Jeffrey M Smith) -
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
Sooner rather than later the vaccine appologists must come to the realization that tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of parents are not wrong, vaccines precipitated a sudden catastrophic decline in their childrens development. Vaccines are, by their nature, not passive nor are they benign. They have risks and the reality is the more vaccines the more risks we subject our furture generations to.
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.
Dr. Sears has done a very thorough examination of vaccines and, in his book on the subject, points to increase in the use of aluminum as a possible issue. Take a read.
Who is saying genetics alone account for the rise in diagnosis? Harry, are you even aware that the DSM criteria for "autism" have changed over the last 20 years?
With the new version of the DSM (V) coming soon the term "autistic" may disappear or even "surge". whichever way fits neatly into psych-research funding opportunities and/or marketing schemes for Rx drugs.
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.
Dr. Sears has done a very thorough examination of vaccines and, in his book on the subject, points to increase in the use of aluminum as a possible issue. Take a read.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
