Latest CDC number 1 in 36 children diagnosed with autism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is this one lunatic on this thread arguing with a ton of people? They apparently have a really, really vested interest in fighting the mere possibility that inflammation be even mentioned in the same sentence as ASD.

Which is really interesting and gets to the whole original point of this thread/new study: As you expand the definition of autism, and the spectrum gets wider, do you create a greater likelihood of non-shared interests and infighting -- resulting in people less likely to have their needs heard and met?

Certainly sounds like it, based on just the one really loud voice in this thread.

I have a vested interest in countering pseudoscience. Autism has been a lightening rod for pseudoscience and quackery since forever. It’s very important to be on the lookout for it. It’s not “infighting.”

DP. There are numerous articles about how autism research has focused on only a small handful of items (largely because most of the research is funded by just 3 sources) so there’s not really enough research to even say if something is pseudoscience or not.

Pseudoscience? Harvard would disagree...

https://hms.harvard.edu/magazine/pandemic/inflammation-link-autism

+1. I'm the poster about who was confounded that this one poster thinks the inflammation link is psuedoscience. I thought it was a pretty well acknowledged "potential" path of research, but one that has limitations too. There are a lot of major research organizations, mainstream journals, etc recognizing there is probably work to be done down this route.

Then you're both idiots who can't read. The article literally says that the scans show LOW levels of the marker/protein that is tied to brain inflammation.

What is wrong with you that you need to name call?

There’s one crazy on here fighting even the notion that inflammation might be worth researching vis a vis autism (I’ve been careful in my posts to not suggest a proven link, just small scale studies that merit further research and this poster is still going bonkers).

I think there are at least six posters countering the one crazy.

Yeah it's not one "crazy." (BTW, that's also name calling but it's okay when they support your view?)
It's most people who can read.

It is mostly one person, or was. I asked Jeff.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1121673.page

yes it’s me, but not only me. I’m not sure why bullying one person in a thread is taken as something substantive about their point. in fact, you are likely the one poster fixated on me, so right back atcha.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Autism is a medical condition causing brain inflammation. I wonder how many years it will take for this to be accepted ? How many kids will suffer, how many families will suffer?

There are so many groups trying to normalize autism, saying it's not a bad thing. That will hinder the search for a cause and a cure or prevention.

+100

I also think they'll eventually find that a least a large subset of ASD is inflammatory. PANDAS-caused ASD behavior is clearly inflammatory (and to an outsider, the behavior in that transient period looks identical to ASD). And small scale studies of kids diagnosed with ASD show statistically significant improvement in symptoms on steroid treatment (regression once the steroids inevitably have to be stopped).

I’m not sure what’s worse: this kind of pseudoscience bullshit pushing harmful treatments (steroids are no joke); or the adult “autism”
community interfering with the development and deployment of effective therapies; or the online self-diagnoses “autism community” blathering on about masking.

FWIW my DS supposedly on the spectrum is exactly like his dad, cousin and uncle. It’s not inflammation or a virus.

The people posting and reposting this “inflammation” and “gut biome” BS sound like MLM shillers.

Or Harvard researchers! Harvard https://hms.harvard.edu/news/gut-brain-connection-autism

This isn’t a “new “ thing or something that most parents see as bs. I’d say at least 75% if not more of the families I’ve worked with have caught on to this and FWIW it wasn’t because I told them about it (that’s outside my scope of professional practice). While I don’t think it’s a stand alone solution / possibility to such a complex issue I’m grateful there are more people studying this as I think there’s potentially more to it than people realize. I definitely see a difference between children that have parents who focus on internal healing through diet and nutrition in addition to other therapies. Yes it’s anecdotal observations but it certainly isn’t taboo as many people here seem to think. There’s just not enough specific research to be conclusive at this point. That certainly won’t stop parents from continuing to focus on this as part of their journey so I welcome the research. I think it’s something that warrants further investigative studies because more parents do question this whether they say it out loud to peers often or not. I just happen to work in an intrusive job where I see pretty much everything each parent is trying at any given time and get histories of what has been tried previously. The only thing really taboo about it is that people think talking about it is taboo. Not saying it’s the cause it’s just worth looking into further.

oh ffs. if researchers actually wanted to know whether diet impacts autism they would do a *credible* RCT on it. have they? let’s see those. until then - it is all woo.

but yes, you can find garbage research on it, that is touted by university comms, then reported credulously by the media.

eg: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6566629/?report=reader (did they ever disclose the underlying data?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Things that make you go hmmmm….

There have been similar rises in ADHD. There is nothing that can convince me that the garbage we poison our food with isn’t related, especially since other nations that ban the use of artificial food coloring and pesticides are not seeing similar problems.

It is likely contributing to worsening health for children (and probably linked to the increase in colon cancer at young ages too). Instead of feeling guilty we should be angry at the food companies, distributors and regulators. The corporations already create alternate versions of these foods for Europe so it’s not like they don’t know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Things that make you go hmmmm….

There have been similar rises in ADHD. There is nothing that can convince me that the garbage we poison our food with isn’t related, especially since other nations that ban the use of artificial food coloring and pesticides are not seeing similar problems.

It is likely contributing to worsening health for children (and probably linked to the increase in colon cancer at young ages too). Instead of feeling guilty we should be angry at the food companies, distributors and regulators. The corporations already create alternate versions of these foods for Europe so it’s not like they don’t know.

food additives do not cause autism, then end

the rise in the rates in the US is likely driven by insurance and school funding models, as well as the creation of the autism-identification industry (more clinics, etc).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Things that make you go hmmmm….

There have been similar rises in ADHD. There is nothing that can convince me that the garbage we poison our food with isn’t related, especially since other nations that ban the use of artificial food coloring and pesticides are not seeing similar problems.

It is likely contributing to worsening health for children (and probably linked to the increase in colon cancer at young ages too). Instead of feeling guilty we should be angry at the food companies, distributors and regulators. The corporations already create alternate versions of these foods for Europe so it’s not like they don’t know.

food additives do not cause autism, then end

the rise in the rates in the US is likely driven by insurance and school funding models, as well as the creation of the autism-identification industry (more clinics, etc).

There are studies showing actual increases, not just increased diagnoses.

Autism happens at birth and it is well known that males are more susceptible to disruption, more fragile than females, so whatever combination of genetics and environment would impact boys more than girls. But it would still impact both, ultimately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I started working with children with autism when it was 1:750.

Some anecdotal observations:

-The effective treatments and diagnostic tools available now to then really aren’t much different despite the abundance of research.

-Parents will try most anything to help their child whether there is evidence to support it or not. I’ve seen it all from literal bowls full of vitamins, not allowing cell phones or plastics in the home, light table therapy, listening to what sounds like static to me, special diets, aromatherapy, feeding the kid coconut water from green coconuts (as parent almost chops their finger off trying to open it), acupuncture, massage, skin brushing, you name it I’ve probably heard of someone trying it.

The biggest differences from then to now:

-More funding sources

-Less stigma around the diagnosis

-Parents depend more on insurance and school than they did before to secure services.

-Asperger’s is now part of autism diagnosis (this used to be a huge distinction).

-Parents are less likely to form close social circles with other families with SN- I think this is likely because they don’t depend on each other as much to share ideas.

-It used to be that parents would hire a consultant and hire and train their own staff, run team meetings, create materials, etc. I don’t see that much anymore, parents are more hands off though not always the case. I’m obviously generalizing regarding what I see most.

What I’ve seen be most effective:

-Early diagnosis and treatment, the younger the better. As early as 9 months would be feasible for me.

-Some states allow for a pre-diagnosis given by pediatrician to obtain EI services more quickly. This is done at first signs or suspicions of developmental delay. Caregivers are then given time to put together appointments for more comprehensive diagnosis while comprehensive early intervention home-based services are started. In those places I was more likely to see children starting services in the 12-24 month range. In states requiring full diagnostic evaluations it’s closer to age 3-4.

-I’ve noticed I make more effective progress the younger I start. While getting started is often slower at that age, “catch up” to NT peers is closer by the time school starts. I can also typically tell when I work with an older child if they had EI services so unfortunately I don’t think that making up for this lost time is that easy/ it doesn’t always equate in the long run.

-I think parents also benefit from earlier intervention as the struggle of a constantly screaming 16 month old and how to deal with them can take a big toll on families. Parent training is /should be part of the EI process and many parents are grateful for it.

My 2 cents of what is effective:

-A comprehensive early intervention plan/team including ABA, speech, OT, PT, developmental pediatrician, parent training, nutritionist, educational advocate, case manager.

-Focus first on language, attending, imitation skills, and parent training.

-Get the junk (chemicals, sugar, etc) out of the diet

-Limit or eliminate all electronics until they are older because it inhibits the ability to focus on other skills that are lacking. Anything very distracting likely isn’t going to be beneficial in promoting skill acquisition, language, attending, or independence. (I’ve had to ban spoons from work time because they were distracting to a spoon-obsessed child so it’s not an I hate screens argument, it can literally be anything distracting).

What I think parents should push for:
-Pre-diagnosis/ more focus on comprehensive early intervention including home based birth to 3, with programs that move easily to home and school based at age 3.

What causes it? My guess is genetic predisposition and environmental factors. I doubt I’ll get a real definitive answer in my lifetime. I try to focus on how to help now regardless of the why but respect the researchers trying to pinpoint more specific causes.

Thank you for the one helpful reply on this thread. My son has ASD similar to the former Asperger's. He's turning 4 and we're just getting the ball rolling on speech, OT, and ABA. Dad and I are both in the medical field (adults) and I feel awful that we missed so many signs until now. Do you have any specific observations for kids with Asperger's?

Age 4 is actually very early for an autism diagnosis. The most common age of diagnosis for level 1 autism is age 12.

This is very much dependent on the area and resources. What was once considered Aspergers typically has a later diagnosis but those falling more into the level 2-3 areas of autism are typically going to exhibit signs at an early age whether they are diagnosed at that age or not.

I guess we were lucky then. My DD who is level 1 was diagnosed at 2.5. She had a slight language delay and challenges with pragmatics. Very few sensory issues or at least not really apparent. Some restricted interests but you can move her on. We were a bit surprised when she was diagnosed—but don’t really doubt it now. I think they are getting better at diagnosing sooner (and also think there’s likely something going on environmentally too).

2.5 is a great age to get started! Glad you found a diagnostician that was able to recognize the more subtle early signs- this isn’t always easy to do. While I’m not a diagnostician I’ve found time and experience with different children has given me the ability to recognize signs younger and younger. Most tests are hard to administer if a child lacks basic skills required to conduct a test. Kind of a catch 22. You can’t really “test” a 9 month old or a constantly screaming 18 month old- you have to really understand and observe behavior and what is or isn’t typical at that age. Sometimes you just have to say well there could be a delay so doing something is better than doing nothing.

Kind of a vent but I could probably observe a child at 9-12 months and tell you if there are delays but I’m not a diagnostician so I could never say that to a parent. I wish there were an easier path to becoming a diagnostician for those that have other experience in the field of autism. Something like if you have 20 years of experience in ABA, SLP, OT, PT, Special education or educational advocacy and have served individuals with developmental disabilities ages birth-3 for at least 10 of those years then you can complete x,y, z training to provide a pre-diagnosis of PDD-NOS to get EI services started. Something that doesn’t require another 2-4 years of grad school in another field would be nice because that’s not realistic for experienced professionals in secure lines of work. I don’t want to have to change careers mid-life to learn to do something I already possess the skills to do. There’s no motivation for experienced professionals to expand the diagnostician pool despite the fact that those are often the people making first contact with these children and families.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been in a home serving an older sibling and a parent asks me if their younger child might have autism as well. I might be screaming to myself OMG obviously, but have to use my most professional voice and say well I’m not a diagnostician but you might want to have him seen by a developmental pediatrician if you have concerns. It feels like such a generic and frustrating answer to give and I know the parents think that as well. Some have flat out told me that. What would happen if I could instead say well can I take an hour and play with them? Then at the end I hand them a pre-diagnosis and they can get services started immediately while awaiting more formal diagnostic testing. Not saying IRL it would go that smoothly (consent forms, legalities, etc) but I think there’s a missed opportunity here and with the strain on current diagnostic resources it could really help a lot of children to receive earlier diagnoses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Things that make you go hmmmm….

There have been similar rises in ADHD. There is nothing that can convince me that the garbage we poison our food with isn’t related, especially since other nations that ban the use of artificial food coloring and pesticides are not seeing similar problems.

It is likely contributing to worsening health for children (and probably linked to the increase in colon cancer at young ages too). Instead of feeling guilty we should be angry at the food companies, distributors and regulators. The corporations already create alternate versions of these foods for Europe so it’s not like they don’t know.

food additives do not cause autism, then end

the rise in the rates in the US is likely driven by insurance and school funding models, as well as the creation of the autism-identification industry (more clinics, etc).

Did you even read the article? There’s not enough evidence to say that it’s a rise in diagnosis rates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Things that make you go hmmmm….

There have been similar rises in ADHD. There is nothing that can convince me that the garbage we poison our food with isn’t related, especially since other nations that ban the use of artificial food coloring and pesticides are not seeing similar problems.

It is likely contributing to worsening health for children (and probably linked to the increase in colon cancer at young ages too). Instead of feeling guilty we should be angry at the food companies, distributors and regulators. The corporations already create alternate versions of these foods for Europe so it’s not like they don’t know.

food additives do not cause autism, then end

the rise in the rates in the US is likely driven by insurance and school funding models, as well as the creation of the autism-identification industry (more clinics, etc).

Did you even read the article? There’s not enough evidence to say that it’s a rise in diagnosis rates.

lol ok where’s the evidence for food additives causing autism?

almost all observers acknowledge that most if not all of the increase is due to increased identification and changing DSM criteria.

[Anonymous]

“ It’s easy to believe that disease categories simply report divisions in nature. But political and social factors also affect disease rates, as well as who receives treatment. Autism rates aren’t spiking because more children are developing this condition, but instead because of the deinstitutionalization movement, insurance legislation, and data collection methods. These social factors control which conditions receive more funding for treatment and research, and have helped create a system in which children with developmental disorders often cannot get the support they need without a diagnosis with social influence. They are even powerful enough to fuel an “epidemic.””

https://www.statnews.com/2022/02/10/theres-no-autism-epidemic-but-there-is-an-autism-diagnosis-epidemic/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“ It’s easy to believe that disease categories simply report divisions in nature. But political and social factors also affect disease rates, as well as who receives treatment. Autism rates aren’t spiking because more children are developing this condition, but instead because of the deinstitutionalization movement, insurance legislation, and data collection methods. These social factors control which conditions receive more funding for treatment and research, and have helped create a system in which children with developmental disorders often cannot get the support they need without a diagnosis with social influence. They are even powerful enough to fuel an “epidemic.””

https://www.statnews.com/2022/02/10/theres-no-autism-epidemic-but-there-is-an-autism-diagnosis-epidemic/

Disagree. It's comforting to think that - but there's a real problem and, genetic or environmental, ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Autism is a medical condition causing brain inflammation. I wonder how many years it will take for this to be accepted ? How many kids will suffer, how many families will suffer?

There are so many groups trying to normalize autism, saying it's not a bad thing. That will hinder the search for a cause and a cure or prevention.

+100

I also think they'll eventually find that a least a large subset of ASD is inflammatory. PANDAS-caused ASD behavior is clearly inflammatory (and to an outsider, the behavior in that transient period looks identical to ASD). And small scale studies of kids diagnosed with ASD show statistically significant improvement in symptoms on steroid treatment (regression once the steroids inevitably have to be stopped).

I’m not sure what’s worse: this kind of pseudoscience bullshit pushing harmful treatments (steroids are no joke); or the adult “autism”
community interfering with the development and deployment of effective therapies; or the online self-diagnoses “autism community” blathering on about masking.

FWIW my DS supposedly on the spectrum is exactly like his dad, cousin and uncle. It’s not inflammation or a virus.

The people posting and reposting this “inflammation” and “gut biome” BS sound like MLM shillers.

Or Harvard researchers! Harvard https://hms.harvard.edu/news/gut-brain-connection-autism

Stop trying to Science. The article in no way supports your claim. It just has a headline with words (you think) you know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is this one lunatic on this thread arguing with a ton of people? They apparently have a really, really vested interest in fighting the mere possibility that inflammation be even mentioned in the same sentence as ASD.

Which is really interesting and gets to the whole original point of this thread/new study: As you expand the definition of autism, and the spectrum gets wider, do you create a greater likelihood of non-shared interests and infighting -- resulting in people less likely to have their needs heard and met?

Certainly sounds like it, based on just the one really loud voice in this thread.

I have a vested interest in countering pseudoscience. Autism has been a lightening rod for pseudoscience and quackery since forever. It’s very important to be on the lookout for it. It’s not “infighting.”

DP. There are numerous articles about how autism research has focused on only a small handful of items (largely because most of the research is funded by just 3 sources) so there’s not really enough research to even say if something is pseudoscience or not.

Pseudoscience? Harvard would disagree...

https://hms.harvard.edu/magazine/pandemic/inflammation-link-autism

+1. I'm the poster about who was confounded that this one poster thinks the inflammation link is psuedoscience. I thought it was a pretty well acknowledged "potential" path of research, but one that has limitations too. There are a lot of major research organizations, mainstream journals, etc recognizing there is probably work to be done down this route.

Then you're both idiots who can't read. The article literally says that the scans show LOW levels of the marker/protein that is tied to brain inflammation.

What is wrong with you that you need to name call?

There’s one crazy on here fighting even the notion that inflammation might be worth researching vis a vis autism (I’ve been careful in my posts to not suggest a proven link, just small scale studies that merit further research and this poster is still going bonkers).

I think there are at least six posters countering the one crazy.

Yeah it's not one "crazy." (BTW, that's also name calling but it's okay when they support your view?)
It's most people who can read.

It is mostly one person, or was. I asked Jeff.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1121673.page

yes it’s me, but not only me. I’m not sure why bullying one person in a thread is taken as something substantive about their point. in fact, you are likely the one poster fixated on me, so right back atcha.

I posted on that linked thread now, too. The person who claims you're sock posting and combative should be banned for bullying and calling people crazy onna special needs board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ It’s easy to believe that disease categories simply report divisions in nature. But political and social factors also affect disease rates, as well as who receives treatment. Autism rates aren’t spiking because more children are developing this condition, but instead because of the deinstitutionalization movement, insurance legislation, and data collection methods. These social factors control which conditions receive more funding for treatment and research, and have helped create a system in which children with developmental disorders often cannot get the support they need without a diagnosis with social influence. They are even powerful enough to fuel an “epidemic.””

https://www.statnews.com/2022/02/10/theres-no-autism-epidemic-but-there-is-an-autism-diagnosis-epidemic/

Disagree. It's comforting to think that - but there's a real problem and, genetic or environmental, ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

ok then! I guess it’s the food additives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is this one lunatic on this thread arguing with a ton of people? They apparently have a really, really vested interest in fighting the mere possibility that inflammation be even mentioned in the same sentence as ASD.

Which is really interesting and gets to the whole original point of this thread/new study: As you expand the definition of autism, and the spectrum gets wider, do you create a greater likelihood of non-shared interests and infighting -- resulting in people less likely to have their needs heard and met?

Certainly sounds like it, based on just the one really loud voice in this thread.

I have a vested interest in countering pseudoscience. Autism has been a lightening rod for pseudoscience and quackery since forever. It’s very important to be on the lookout for it. It’s not “infighting.”

DP. There are numerous articles about how autism research has focused on only a small handful of items (largely because most of the research is funded by just 3 sources) so there’s not really enough research to even say if something is pseudoscience or not.

Pseudoscience? Harvard would disagree...

https://hms.harvard.edu/magazine/pandemic/inflammation-link-autism

+1. I'm the poster about who was confounded that this one poster thinks the inflammation link is psuedoscience. I thought it was a pretty well acknowledged "potential" path of research, but one that has limitations too. There are a lot of major research organizations, mainstream journals, etc recognizing there is probably work to be done down this route.

Then you're both idiots who can't read. The article literally says that the scans show LOW levels of the marker/protein that is tied to brain inflammation.

What is wrong with you that you need to name call?

There’s one crazy on here fighting even the notion that inflammation might be worth researching vis a vis autism (I’ve been careful in my posts to not suggest a proven link, just small scale studies that merit further research and this poster is still going bonkers).

I think there are at least six posters countering the one crazy.

Yeah it's not one "crazy." (BTW, that's also name calling but it's okay when they support your view?)
It's most people who can read.

It is mostly one person, or was. I asked Jeff.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1121673.page

yes it’s me, but not only me. I’m not sure why bullying one person in a thread is taken as something substantive about their point. in fact, you are likely the one poster fixated on me, so right back atcha.

I posted on that linked thread now, too. The person who claims you're sock posting and combative should be banned for bullying and calling people crazy onna special needs board.

Huh, I didn’t even notice that. They sure do like name calling - lunatic, idiot, crazy - then running to Jeff to tattle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Autism is a medical condition causing brain inflammation. I wonder how many years it will take for this to be accepted ? How many kids will suffer, how many families will suffer?

There are so many groups trying to normalize autism, saying it's not a bad thing. That will hinder the search for a cause and a cure or prevention.

+100

I also think they'll eventually find that a least a large subset of ASD is inflammatory. PANDAS-caused ASD behavior is clearly inflammatory (and to an outsider, the behavior in that transient period looks identical to ASD). And small scale studies of kids diagnosed with ASD show statistically significant improvement in symptoms on steroid treatment (regression once the steroids inevitably have to be stopped).

I’m not sure what’s worse: this kind of pseudoscience bullshit pushing harmful treatments (steroids are no joke); or the adult “autism”
community interfering with the development and deployment of effective therapies; or the online self-diagnoses “autism community” blathering on about masking.

FWIW my DS supposedly on the spectrum is exactly like his dad, cousin and uncle. It’s not inflammation or a virus.

The people posting and reposting this “inflammation” and “gut biome” BS sound like MLM shillers.

Or Harvard researchers! Harvard https://hms.harvard.edu/news/gut-brain-connection-autism

Stop trying to Science. The article in no way supports your claim. It just has a headline with words (you think) you know.

I did not claim anything - if there is a claim of someone else’s you’d like to address then feel free. It appears you misunderstood my post.