Study links autism to prenatal pesticide exposure

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The genetic predisposition is certainly clear. That doesn't mean we should drown ourselves in environmental triggers.

Plus there is no denying that there is a huge increase in the more profound autism cases, not just asperger's. Huge, huge undeniable increase that anyone can see for themselves. We don't need to say "Oh, it's because we are diagnosing more now" -- that is nonsense meant to fool the gullible or the very young or the very scared.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The genetic predisposition is certainly clear. That doesn't mean we should drown ourselves in environmental triggers.

We are in our infancy of understanding what environmental triggers exist and how they affect genetic predisposition. We know practically nothing. So do what you think helps, but don't make any assumptions that you are "safe" from having a child with autism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The genetic predisposition is certainly clear. That doesn't mean we should drown ourselves in environmental triggers.

Plus there is no denying that there is a huge increase in the more profound autism cases, not just asperger's. Huge, huge undeniable increase that anyone can see for themselves. We don't need to say "Oh, it's because we are diagnosing more now" -- that is nonsense meant to fool the gullible or the very young or the very scared.

I completely and totally disagree. I come from a family of people who meet the criteria for autism NOW, but never did before. My DS would never have been diagnosed in a previous era. It used to be that only children with intellectual disabilities were diagnosed with autism. The idea of a spectrum didn't exist until the 1980s. The DSM III had a very limited definition of autism. It wasn't until the DSM IV that we had a definition that included the higher functioning forms of autism. There were also those at the lowest functioning end of the spectrum that were diagnosed with "mental retardation" instead of autism. The obvious evidence of that is that as rates of autism have risen, rates of mental retardation have fallen in equal numbers. With such a profound change in the definition of the disorder, of course there's been a large increase in cases.

I'm not saying autism rates haven't gone up, only that its completely untrue that "there's no denying" or that there is a "Huge, huge undeniable increase that anyone can see for themselves." I am not gullible, I am certainly not young and I'm not in the least bit scared. I have lived with autism in family members all my life and I have studied this issue in some detail. Its simply not clear where the change in definition ends and an increase in actual cases begins.

[Anonymous]

Chemical companies want the EPA to approve use of pesticide near schools -

http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2014/06/thousands-schools-would-be-close-toxic-spray-zones

[Anonymous]

Why not spray near schools? They're all installing WiFi anyway!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The genetic predisposition is certainly clear. That doesn't mean we should drown ourselves in environmental triggers.

We are in our infancy of understanding what environmental triggers exist and how they affect genetic predisposition. We know practically nothing. So do what you think helps, but don't make any assumptions that you are "safe" from having a child with autism.

I think the exact opposite. If there is something -- anything -- I can do to reduce the risk, why not do it? I know it won't prevent any risk, but lowering risk is a rational goal.

And the study VERY clearly demonstrates a correlation between proximity to pesticides and autism. That's not exactly "knowing practically nothing."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The genetic predisposition is certainly clear. That doesn't mean we should drown ourselves in environmental triggers.

We are in our infancy of understanding what environmental triggers exist and how they affect genetic predisposition. We know practically nothing. So do what you think helps, but don't make any assumptions that you are "safe" from having a child with autism.

I think the exact opposite. If there is something -- anything -- I can do to reduce the risk, why not do it? I know it won't prevent any risk, but lowering risk is a rational goal.

And the study VERY clearly demonstrates a correlation between proximity to pesticides and autism. That's not exactly "knowing practically nothing."

Correlation is not causation. Repeat and rinse. And one study means very little. Sure, do anything to reduce your risk but don't assume you are safe. And don;t judge those of us with children with ASDs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The genetic predisposition is certainly clear. That doesn't mean we should drown ourselves in environmental triggers.

Plus there is no denying that there is a huge increase in the more profound autism cases, not just asperger's. Huge, huge undeniable increase that anyone can see for themselves. We don't need to say "Oh, it's because we are diagnosing more now" -- that is nonsense meant to fool the gullible or the very young or the very scared.

I completely and totally disagree. I come from a family of people who meet the criteria for autism NOW, but never did before. My DS would never have been diagnosed in a previous era. It used to be that only children with intellectual disabilities were diagnosed with autism. The idea of a spectrum didn't exist until the 1980s. The DSM III had a very limited definition of autism. It wasn't until the DSM IV that we had a definition that included the higher functioning forms of autism. There were also those at the lowest functioning end of the spectrum that were diagnosed with "mental retardation" instead of autism. The obvious evidence of that is that as rates of autism have risen, rates of mental retardation have fallen in equal numbers. With such a profound change in the definition of the disorder, of course there's been a large increase in cases.

I'm not saying autism rates haven't gone up, only that its completely untrue that "there's no denying" or that there is a "Huge, huge undeniable increase that anyone can see for themselves." I am not gullible, I am certainly not young and I'm not in the least bit scared. I have lived with autism in family members all my life and I have studied this issue in some detail. Its simply not clear where the change in definition ends and an increase in actual cases begins.

That's not what I meant. I wasn't talking about all the people who are diagnosed now who would not have been diagnosed before. I said all the cases of autism that are PROFOUND that have increased. It is clear that cases of kids who cannot communicate with others and are lost in their own world have gone up. It is undeniable. I knew one kid my entire childhood who came even close to this (although he could communicate). ONE. The expanding definition of autism is a red herring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The genetic predisposition is certainly clear. That doesn't mean we should drown ourselves in environmental triggers.

We are in our infancy of understanding what environmental triggers exist and how they affect genetic predisposition. We know practically nothing. So do what you think helps, but don't make any assumptions that you are "safe" from having a child with autism.

Where did PP say this? I'm on the spectrum and have several older relatives who were somewhere from "quirky" to institutionalized, so I don't think I'm "safe" from anything. But PP is right - just because the family twig is bent that way means I shouldn't do what I can to urge it to incline another direction, so speak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The genetic predisposition is certainly clear. That doesn't mean we should drown ourselves in environmental triggers.

Plus there is no denying that there is a huge increase in the more profound autism cases, not just asperger's. Huge, huge undeniable increase that anyone can see for themselves. We don't need to say "Oh, it's because we are diagnosing more now" -- that is nonsense meant to fool the gullible or the very young or the very scared.

I completely and totally disagree. I come from a family of people who meet the criteria for autism NOW, but never did before. My DS would never have been diagnosed in a previous era. It used to be that only children with intellectual disabilities were diagnosed with autism. The idea of a spectrum didn't exist until the 1980s. The DSM III had a very limited definition of autism. It wasn't until the DSM IV that we had a definition that included the higher functioning forms of autism. There were also those at the lowest functioning end of the spectrum that were diagnosed with "mental retardation" instead of autism. The obvious evidence of that is that as rates of autism have risen, rates of mental retardation have fallen in equal numbers. With such a profound change in the definition of the disorder, of course there's been a large increase in cases.

I'm not saying autism rates haven't gone up, only that its completely untrue that "there's no denying" or that there is a "Huge, huge undeniable increase that anyone can see for themselves." I am not gullible, I am certainly not young and I'm not in the least bit scared. I have lived with autism in family members all my life and I have studied this issue in some detail. Its simply not clear where the change in definition ends and an increase in actual cases begins.

That's not what I meant. I wasn't talking about all the people who are diagnosed now who would not have been diagnosed before. I said all the cases of autism that are PROFOUND that have increased. It is clear that cases of kids who cannot communicate with others and are lost in their own world have gone up. It is undeniable. I knew one kid my entire childhood who came even close to this (although he could communicate). ONE. The expanding definition of autism is a red herring.

It may not be what you meant, but it is the story behind the numbers. I am not aware of any study showing an increase in Kanner autism (which is probably what you mean) and I don't know if you could tease that out except that as rates of autism in general go up, rates of mental retardation have gone down. Those kids are being recategorized. And when I was going up those kids were more likely to be in institutions.

It isn't a red herring and your anecdotal "sense" of things is not science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And I guess i'm the lone voice saying that at least for Asperger's = totally genetic. I can see it throughout DH's family.

I agree with you, but two things:

One, epigenetics. One hundred percent of,the people in your husband's family don't have Aspberger's, correct? Some do some don't. Quite likely there is some factor in the environment that "flipped the switch" to turn 'On' the Aspberger's constellation of genes in some family members that carry them.

Two, someday science is going to prove that profound classic autism and Aspberger's are two separate conditions and shouldn't be lumped together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And I guess i'm the lone voice saying that at least for Asperger's = totally genetic. I can see it throughout DH's family.

I agree with you, but two things:

One, epigenetics. One hundred percent of,the people in your husband's family don't have Aspberger's, correct? Some do some don't. Quite likely there is some factor in the environment that "flipped the switch" to turn 'On' the Aspberger's constellation of genes in some family members that carry them.

Two, someday science is going to prove that profound classic autism and Aspberger's are two separate conditions and shouldn't be lumped together.

Nope, science will not prove that as Aspergers as a separate disorder no longer exists. Its all autism now, because there were no meaningful distinctions. I do think they will find eventually that there are different kinds of autisms. But its not accurate to distinguish "profound" and Aspergers as if there's nothing in between. There are people who can speak and have above average IQs who are very disabled. There are people who start out nonverbal and end up with extensive language skills. You can't put people with ASDs into simple boxes.

As far as the switch, you assume its environmental. In my family its sex-linked, all the males. Also, just because something is genetic doesn't mean the genes are passed on to everyone in the family. Thats the case with all genetic disorders. In Huntington's not every child of an adult with the disease will get it, there's a 50% chance. But everyone who does inherit the gene acquires the disorder. So you could saw 100% of people in a Huntington's family don't get the disorder but environmental factors have nothing to do with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The genetic predisposition is certainly clear. That doesn't mean we should drown ourselves in environmental triggers.

Plus there is no denying that there is a huge increase in the more profound autism cases, not just asperger's. Huge, huge undeniable increase that anyone can see for themselves. We don't need to say "Oh, it's because we are diagnosing more now" -- that is nonsense meant to fool the gullible or the very young or the very scared.

I completely and totally disagree. I come from a family of people who meet the criteria for autism NOW, but never did before. My DS would never have been diagnosed in a previous era. It used to be that only children with intellectual disabilities were diagnosed with autism. The idea of a spectrum didn't exist until the 1980s. The DSM III had a very limited definition of autism. It wasn't until the DSM IV that we had a definition that included the higher functioning forms of autism. There were also those at the lowest functioning end of the spectrum that were diagnosed with "mental retardation" instead of autism. The obvious evidence of that is that as rates of autism have risen, rates of mental retardation have fallen in equal numbers. With such a profound change in the definition of the disorder, of course there's been a large increase in cases.

I'm not saying autism rates haven't gone up, only that its completely untrue that "there's no denying" or that there is a "Huge, huge undeniable increase that anyone can see for themselves." I am not gullible, I am certainly not young and I'm not in the least bit scared. I have lived with autism in family members all my life and I have studied this issue in some detail. Its simply not clear where the change in definition ends and an increase in actual cases begins.

That's not what I meant. I wasn't talking about all the people who are diagnosed now who would not have been diagnosed before. I said all the cases of autism that are PROFOUND that have increased. It is clear that cases of kids who cannot communicate with others and are lost in their own world have gone up. It is undeniable. I knew one kid my entire childhood who came even close to this (although he could communicate). ONE. The expanding definition of autism is a red herring.

It may not be what you meant, but it is the story behind the numbers. I am not aware of any study showing an increase in Kanner autism (which is probably what you mean) and I don't know if you could tease that out except that as rates of autism in general go up, rates of mental retardation have gone down. Those kids are being recategorized. And when I was going up those kids were more likely to be in institutions.

It isn't a red herring and your anecdotal "sense" of things is not science.

"The California study was prompted by a 1999 report from the state's Department of Developmental Services, which reported that the number of children with ''full spectrum,'' or profound, autism had increased by 273 percent, to 10,360 in 1998 from 2,778 in 1987. The study did not deal with milder forms of the disorder, like Asperger syndrome."

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/18/us/increase-in-autism-baffles-scientists.html

[Anonymous]

Did they look at the rate of "pure" diagnoses of mental retardation? Because other studies have found those declining as rates of Kanner autism rise. Aside from the fact that the definition has changed across the board, it is being recognized more where before it wasn't.

I am not saying the rates haven't gone up. But I don't think they've gone up to the extent people are saying and I am particularly skeptical of explanations like pesticides. Pesticide use has not gone up since the 1980s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The genetic predisposition is certainly clear. That doesn't mean we should drown ourselves in environmental triggers.

Plus there is no denying that there is a huge increase in the more profound autism cases, not just asperger's. Huge, huge undeniable increase that anyone can see for themselves. We don't need to say "Oh, it's because we are diagnosing more now" -- that is nonsense meant to fool the gullible or the very young or the very scared.

I completely and totally disagree. I come from a family of people who meet the criteria for autism NOW, but never did before. My DS would never have been diagnosed in a previous era. It used to be that only children with intellectual disabilities were diagnosed with autism. The idea of a spectrum didn't exist until the 1980s. The DSM III had a very limited definition of autism. It wasn't until the DSM IV that we had a definition that included the higher functioning forms of autism. There were also those at the lowest functioning end of the spectrum that were diagnosed with "mental retardation" instead of autism. The obvious evidence of that is that as rates of autism have risen, rates of mental retardation have fallen in equal numbers. With such a profound change in the definition of the disorder, of course there's been a large increase in cases.

I'm not saying autism rates haven't gone up, only that its completely untrue that "there's no denying" or that there is a "Huge, huge undeniable increase that anyone can see for themselves." I am not gullible, I am certainly not young and I'm not in the least bit scared. I have lived with autism in family members all my life and I have studied this issue in some detail. Its simply not clear where the change in definition ends and an increase in actual cases begins.

That's not what I meant. I wasn't talking about all the people who are diagnosed now who would not have been diagnosed before. I said all the cases of autism that are PROFOUND that have increased. It is clear that cases of kids who cannot communicate with others and are lost in their own world have gone up. It is undeniable. I knew one kid my entire childhood who came even close to this (although he could communicate). ONE. The expanding definition of autism is a red herring.

It may not be what you meant, but it is the story behind the numbers. I am not aware of any study showing an increase in Kanner autism (which is probably what you mean) and I don't know if you could tease that out except that as rates of autism in general go up, rates of mental retardation have gone down. Those kids are being recategorized. And when I was going up those kids were more likely to be in institutions.

It isn't a red herring and your anecdotal "sense" of things is not science.

Am I wrong in thinking that the rates of mental retardation have gone down because of improved prenatal screening?