s/o measles- skepticism and lifestyles

[Katy]

My thoughts aren't fully formed on this, but I thought it might make for an interesting spin off discussion.  In the other thread someone questioned toxins in other medicines vs vaccines.  Why aren't people as careful/skeptical of other lifestyle factors as they are of vaccines? 

For example, when I was discussing milk supply issues and that I was feeling guilty for needing to supplement with formula with my OB she was quick to say, "Fed is best" and mentioned increasing concern in her field that the link between jaundice and the rising rates of autism might have something to do with breastfeeding and babies not getting enough hydration in the critical hours after birth, or possibly toxins excreted in breast milk.  I said my pet theory about it had to do with any number of things that increase inflammation - like adding folic acid to every processed food and prenatal vitamin when more than 30% of people cannot fully process it and need natural folate. 

But now that I think about it, those aren't the only two major changes in the last 40 years that correlate with rising autism rates. We also snack more. We eat much more cheese.  We go out to eat and eat processed foods more.  There are microplastics in everything. There are drugs in our water supply. There is corn syrup in everything. People get less exercise. All of these factors increase inflammation and autoimmune issues. Yet people focus so much on just vaccines.  Why is that? Overwhelm? 

[Arcadia]

28 minutes ago, Katy said:

For example, when I was discussing milk supply issues and that I was feeling guilty for needing to supplement with formula with my OB she was quick to say, "Fed is best" and mentioned increasing concern in her field that the link between jaundice and the rising rates of autism might have something to do with breastfeeding and babies not getting enough hydration in the critical hours after birth, or possibly toxins excreted in breast milk.  

 

I have milk supply issues and “everyone” was telling us that any amount was better than nothing and to get breast milk from the breast milk bank because baby milk formulas are evil. My close friends were supportive and said it better that babies are fed and that not everyone is comfortable with getting breast milk from the breast milk bank. 

We have arsenic in rice and chicken, zeranol in meat. Beauty products have parabens and phthalates. Milk and poultry had growth hormones. My parents used mostly glassware or stainless steel for food. I used mainly plastic containers which probably has BPA. My kids used the SIGG water bottles which won’t BPA free because we didn’t know 😞

Steroid Hormone Implants Used for Growth in Food-Producing Animals https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/ProductSafetyInformation/ucm055436.htm

Questions & Answers: Arsenic in Rice and Rice Products https://www.fda.gov/food/foodborneillnesscontaminants/metals/ucm319948.htm

Arsenic-based Animal Drugs and Poultry https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/ProductSafetyInformation/ucm257540.htm

Milk, Hormones and Cancer https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/food-health-science-science-everywhere/milk-hormones-and-cancer

ETA:

I know someone my age with polio during my childhood days. We vax for all the common ones except for flu and gardasil. Flu and gardasil are relatively new so we want to wait and see. 

Edited February 12, 2019 by Arcadia

[Pen]

Personally I am concerned about a large range of things.  

Broadly under the categories of environment, nutrition, pollutants, and also epigenetics. 

I dont tend to bring them up unless someone else initiates discussion about it.

 

[scrapbookbuzz]

Personally, I question everything. It doesn't mean I avoid everything with questionable ingredients. If I did that, that's ALL I would be doing and not getting anything else done. You're right,though, in that many people will question ONE thing and yet not question others - with equally questionable ingredients.

[AbcdeDooDah]

Those things are choices. A big part of the what i heard when I was more of an anti-vaxxer is that we should be afraid of the government telling us what we MUST inject into our child's body. I don't think it's wrong to question that.

[Tanaqui]

There are a few factors within the past 40 years that correlate strongly with rising rates of autism diagnosis that you didn't mention:

1. Changing diagnostic standards which sweep up a lot more people, both with and without intellectual disability. Previously, if you didn't hit the diagnostic standards spot-on you were diagnosed with childhood schizophrenia (and yes, I'm aware that the two conditions have nothing to do with each other), and that's assuming that you were lucky enough to be referred for an autism diagnosis in the first place. Lots of people in the past were misdiagnosed as ADHD, as OCD, as mental retardation, or as nothing at all. You can actually look at the state records through time and see that diagnoses of mental retardation (which we now call intellectual disability) and childhood schizophrenia drop as diagnoses of autism increase.

2. Changed reporting laws in many areas. At around the same time that the DSM-IV came out, many states updated their reporting so that new autism diagnoses had to be reported to the state. Previously, this wasn't the case.

3. The first two perforce lead to some bright sparks noticing an uptick in the number of reported diagnoses of autism. They start talking about it, and awareness jumps. Doctors are trained to "think horses, not zebras", so if you tell them that some condition is really rare, like one in ten thousand, they'll never consider it. Tell them that it's one in a hundred and now they think about it! This isn't restricted to autism, of course - ask anybody with a rare condition. (Not a few of which are also likely to be underdiagnosed rather than truly "rare" in the first place.)

4. The first three lead to reporting of same ending up in the popular press, so now laypeople start considering autism might explain quirks about their kids, their neighbors, their students, themselves. At this point we're well into a cycle that will continue until the diagnosis rate and the incidence rate are about equal.

There is virtually no evidence that the incidence rate of autism has increased. There is significant evidence that autism has historically been underdiagnosed. It is very common for adults to realize that they or other adults in their family are autistic because a child in their family got a diagnosis. Not all of these adults then seek formal diagnosis for themselves.

Quote

Those things are choices. A big part of the what i heard when I was more of an anti-vaxxer is that we should be afraid of the government telling us what we MUST inject into our child's body. I don't think it's wrong to question that.

 

Public health and the prevention of the spread of communicable disease is everybody's responsibility. When something is everybody's responsibility, it falls on the government to handle the logistics, including determining what should and should not be mandated.

[Farrar]

I think it's possible that any of the environmental factors being mentioned could have to do with the rising rates of autism. Or other things not named. Or they might be responsible for other things, like the lower sperm counts. Or with nothing at all. It's just so hard to know. Correlation is not causation and even when we're talking about scary sounding chemicals.

In terms of breastfeeding... I wish doctors and people educating mothers and families could get a clearer, calmer line going. Breastfeeding has benefits that formula doesn't. That's just true. Getting any amount of bf to you kid is better than getting none. Also true. Giving formula risks your supply. Also true. But when your supply is not enough, it's okay to decide not to go further. Formula isn't evil. It's a miracle product that can save babies' lives. And while bf is better, it's better the way that a lot of things we do or don't do are better. Like, in a perfect world, every child would be bf, get exactly the right number of hours outside, never have processed food, never be left to cry, never fall off the monkey bars, only have perfect teachers, never see a screen before a certain age, etc. etc. But the reality is that it's okay that pretty much NO child is going to have that level of perfection in upbringing.

[Lawyer&Mom]

I’m pretty sure I’m at least fourth generation Autistic, and absolutely the first one diagnosed.  At almost 40.  I have several Autistic friends who remain undiagnosed.  Diagnosis is still nowhere near incidence.  Girls are still hugely overlooked.  We are making much needed progress, but mistaking our improved understanding of Autism as an “epidemic” is really unfortunate. 

[Bluegoat]

2 hours ago, Katy said:

My thoughts aren't fully formed on this, but I thought it might make for an interesting spin off discussion.  In the other thread someone questioned toxins in other medicines vs vaccines.  Why aren't people as careful/skeptical of other lifestyle factors as they are of vaccines? 

For example, when I was discussing milk supply issues and that I was feeling guilty for needing to supplement with formula with my OB she was quick to say, "Fed is best" and mentioned increasing concern in her field that the link between jaundice and the rising rates of autism might have something to do with breastfeeding and babies not getting enough hydration in the critical hours after birth, or possibly toxins excreted in breast milk.  I said my pet theory about it had to do with any number of things that increase inflammation - like adding folic acid to every processed food and prenatal vitamin when more than 30% of people cannot fully process it and need natural folate. 

But now that I think about it, those aren't the only two major changes in the last 40 years that correlate with rising autism rates. We also snack more. We eat much more cheese.  We go out to eat and eat processed foods more.  There are microplastics in everything. There are drugs in our water supply. There is corn syrup in everything. People get less exercise. All of these factors increase inflammation and autoimmune issues. Yet people focus so much on just vaccines.  Why is that? Overwhelm? 

 

I have wondered about this too.  There are probably thousands of things that have changed.

(And FWIW that breast feeding theory seems pretty cracked!)

I've wondered if there in't something about the idea of vaccination that people find concerning , something about taking the problem substance into yourself on purpose.  Though, the principle is the same as homeopathy, so why don't they feel the same about that?

[Pen]

40 minutes ago, Lawyer&Mom said:

I’m pretty sure I’m at least fourth generation Autistic, and absolutely the first one diagnosed.  At almost 40.  I have several Autistic friends who remain undiagnosed.  Diagnosis is still nowhere near incidence.  Girls are still hugely overlooked.  We are making much needed progress, but mistaking our improved understanding of Autism as an “epidemic” is really unfortunate. 

 

There are people I know who seem like they could have high functioning asd or formerly aspergers. But there has been a huge rise in what I encounter irl as kids who are with severe often nonverbal or close asd symptoms which is very different than in my childhood when there were only two with such symptoms however diagnosed.  

[BusyMom5]

Overuse of antibiotics in infancy.  We know they change bacteria in our bodies, we know those bacteria are needed in a healthy gut.  Is it possible that they contribute?  I think it's possible.  I do worry about our good supply, and I hope it isn't too late to chsnge!  

 

I'm not going to buy that it's just a change in amounts of people diagnosed.  Any teacher who taught 30 years will tell you kid's have changed.  Not just parenting, not technology,  but the rates of kids having issues has gone up.  It's not just a few kids who have impulse issues, its a much bigger part of the class!  

[HS Mom in NC]

3 hours ago, Katy said:

My thoughts aren't fully formed on this, but I thought it might make for an interesting spin off discussion.  In the other thread someone questioned toxins in other medicines vs vaccines.  Why aren't people as careful/skeptical of other lifestyle factors as they are of vaccines? 

For example, when I was discussing milk supply issues and that I was feeling guilty for needing to supplement with formula with my OB she was quick to say, "Fed is best" and mentioned increasing concern in her field that the link between jaundice and the rising rates of autism might have something to do with breastfeeding and babies not getting enough hydration in the critical hours after birth, or possibly toxins excreted in breast milk.  I said my pet theory about it had to do with any number of things that increase inflammation - like adding folic acid to every processed food and prenatal vitamin when more than 30% of people cannot fully process it and need natural folate. 

But now that I think about it, those aren't the only two major changes in the last 40 years that correlate with rising autism rates. We also snack more. We eat much more cheese.  We go out to eat and eat processed foods more.  There are microplastics in everything. There are drugs in our water supply. There is corn syrup in everything. People get less exercise. All of these factors increase inflammation and autoimmune issues. Yet people focus so much on just vaccines.  Why is that? Overwhelm? 

Do people just focus on vaccines, or does focusing on vaccines get the most press because it's the most controversial and controversy gets the most attention from viewers/readers/posters?

Edited February 12, 2019 by Homeschool Mom in AZ

[DesertBlossom]

What makes you think people aren't concerned about those other things? 

I've seen an increase in concern over what's in our soaps, cleaning supplies and beauty products. I've seen an increase in people wanting to eat cleaner, avoid meats raised with hormones and antibiotics, etc. I've seen an increase in people wanting to cure chronic illness through nutrition instead of pharmaceuticals. I've seen a huge increase in breastfeeding. I've seen an increase in cloth diapering or chemical-free diapers, not just for the environmental impact, but also over concern over the effects on babies. Likewise, there is an increase in use of reusable menstrual products for the same reason.  Etc, etc.  And these things are being adopted by all kinds of people, definitely not just by anti-vaxxers.

[Pen]

4 minutes ago, BusyMom5 said:

Overuse of antibiotics in infancy.  We know they change bacteria in our bodies, we know those bacteria are needed in a healthy gut.  Is it possible that they contribute?  I think it's possible.  I do worry about our good supply, and I hope it isn't too late to chsnge!  

 

I'm not going to buy that it's just a change in amounts of people diagnosed.  Any teacher who taught 30 years will tell you kid's have changed.  Not just parenting, not technology,  but the rates of kids having issues has gone up.  It's not just a few kids who have impulse issues, its a much bigger part of the class!  

 

I agree.

 

I chose this clip not because of the vaccination issue raised on it, but because it is short and I think not too extreme or triggering.

 

I see and hear kids that act / sound like this frequently nowadays.

I didn’t when I was younger.

And I personally don’t buy it that lots of people had parents and grandparents like this but just not diagnosed.

 

[DesertBlossom]

1 hour ago, Tanaqui said:

Public health and the prevention of the spread of communicable disease is everybody's responsibility. When something is everybody's responsibility, it falls on the government to handle the logistics, including determining what should and should not be mandated.

 

But this is a slippery slope. Why is the government mandating vaccines like Hep B and HPV, which are not contagious in a way that others are? One could make an argument for polio, measles, pertussis, for example. But why tetanus? And why chicken pox when it is considered such a mild disease? A lot of countries do not vaccinate for chicken pox at all. 

A lot of people in these vaccine threads have admitted to skipping the HPV shot altogether for their family. Others have admitted to skipping or delaying other shots. When you adopt this idea that government is responsible from saving us from ourselves, you risk that at some point, they are going to overstep their bounds and mandate something that even you aren't comfortable with.  
 

[Katy]

59 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I have wondered about this too.  There are probably thousands of things that have changed.

(And FWIW that breast feeding theory seems pretty cracked!)

I've wondered if there in't something about the idea of vaccination that people find concerning , something about taking the problem substance into yourself on purpose.  Though, the principle is the same as homeopathy, so why don't they feel the same about that?

 

That was my first thought too, until I googled after that discussion and found multiple articles and studies that discussed the correlation. Apparently there is a high concentration of toxins in breast milk, and the older the mother is the more there are.  Also the earlier in birth order the more likely a child is to be autistic, and these toxins are apparently highest with the first baby decreases with each subsequent pregnancy. The correlation between severe autism diagnosis and the rates of breastfeeding being reported in the last 50 years is apparently strong. And if more women are older when they first give birth, and these toxins are more concentrated in the old...

Still, obviously correlation is not causation.

[Katy]

39 minutes ago, Homeschool Mom in AZ said:

Do people just focus on vaccines, or does focusing on vaccines get the most press because it's the most controversial and controversy gets the most attention from viewers/readers/posters?

 

I don't know.  I don't hear the vaccine thing in my family, and we have multiple extended family members on both sides on the spectrum.  With each one it was obvious they were different from birth.  There is another child with sensory issues that was definitely born different. But then I haven't heard anyone dwell on the causes at all.  They're too busy raising their children.

[DesertBlossom]

18 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

I don't know.  I don't hear the vaccine thing in my family, and we have multiple extended family members on both sides on the spectrum.  With each one it was obvious they were different from birth.  There is another child with sensory issues that was definitely born different. But then I haven't heard anyone dwell on the causes at all.  They're too busy raising their children.

Just pointing out again that if they follow the CDC's recommended schedule babies are vaccinated on the first day of life. At 2 months they receive several more vaccines. Again at 4 months, 6 months, etc. So just because a baby was "different from birth" does not rule out vaccines at all. I can link it later, but a recent study showed the Hep B vaccine (given on day 1) can cause neurological damage. 

[Pen]

8 minutes ago, DesertBlossom said:

Just pointing out again that if they follow the CDC's recommended schedule babies are vaccinated on the first day of life. At 2 months they receive several more vaccines. Again at 4 months, 6 months, etc. So just because a baby was "different from birth" does not rule out vaccines at all. I can link it later, but a recent study showed the Hep B vaccine (given on day 1) can cause neurological damage. 

 

Or at this point could be that increasingly babies would be from mother’s who had much modern toxic load including vaccinations. 

 

[Katy]

5 minutes ago, DesertBlossom said:

Just pointing out again that if they follow the CDC's recommended schedule babies are vaccinated on the first day of life. At 2 months they receive several more vaccines. Again at 4 months, 6 months, etc. So just because a baby was "different from birth" does not rule out vaccines at all. I can link it later, but a recent study showed the Hep B vaccine (given on day 1) can cause neurological damage. 

 

Except that Hep B wasn't recommended for all children until 1991. Until then it was only recommended for those deemed at risk, and at that point that strategy was found to be ineffective. So those born before that point, or those who had home births are obvious exceptions.

As a foster parent I totally approve of Hep B for all kids.  I haven't had a medically fragile baby placed in our home whose mother wasn't positive for Hep B. You don't find out if the baby will have it despite vaccines for months.  Most of these mothers came from unstable families, but a few of them came from very good families and they never would have predicted their popular daughter would end up hooked on drugs, behaving irresponsibly, and losing custody of her newborn due to refusing rehab. Babies shouldn't be at risk for liver cancer due to an accident of birth if that cancer is preventable.

[Liz CA]

3 hours ago, Pen said:

Personally I am concerned about a large range of things.  

Broadly under the categories of environment, nutrition, pollutants, and also epigenetics. 

I dont tend to bring them up unless someone else initiates discussion about it.

 

 

Epigenetics is something we are learning more about and are definitely a factor. Studies have also been done by generations starting (I think) with late 40s and 50s when post WWII fast food exploded onto the scene, food fillers, sodas, etc. The first generation who was exposed to those things didn't seem to show much effect, however it looks different a few generations down the road. When the kids of the 50s had kids in the 70s and 80's, effects were still somewhat mild. We are almost 3-4 generations ahead now and many of the effects are beginning to crystallize.

[DesertBlossom]

11 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

Except that Hep B wasn't recommended for all children until 1991. Until then it was only recommended for those deemed at risk, and at that point that strategy was found to be ineffective. So those born before that point, or those who had home births are obvious exceptions.

As a foster parent I totally approve of Hep B for all kids.  I haven't had a medically fragile baby placed in our home whose mother wasn't positive for Hep B. You don't find out if the baby will have it despite vaccines for months.  Most of these mothers came from unstable families, but a few of them came from very good families and they never would have predicted their popular daughter would end up hooked on drugs, behaving irresponsibly, and losing custody of her newborn due to refusing rehab. Babies shouldn't be at risk for liver cancer due to an accident of birth if that cancer is preventable.

And you're welcome to make that argument for the necessity of Hep B. My point was, don't point out that a baby was different from birth like it's proof vaccines are not having an effect on them.

[J-rap]

Maybe vaccinations feel a lot easier to control.  It's nice to be able to just blame one thing.  And maybe that feels easier to understand, as well?  The anti-vaxxers I know are actually not very concerned about environmental issues and eating healthy.   They tend to put their focus on just a few areas.

Edited February 12, 2019 by J-rap

[Wheres Toto]

My brother is definitely autistic but he was diagnosed adhd and "minimal brain damage".  

I do think it's true we didn't see as many kids with issues back in the 70s/80s but a lot of times the kids with severe issues weren't in mainstream classrooms, so you wouldn't see it. My brother was in special ed classes despite being smart.  All the special ed kids were bussed to one high school so none of them attended my high school.  

[Violet Crown]

The most interesting theory (possibly not the most convincing one) I've seen for the increase in autism diagnoses is "assortative mating": briefly, where my lawyer grandfather back in the day married his secretary, my grandmother, today he would marry a female lawyer of a more similar educational level. Across a society, this sort of thing increases the likelihood of two sets of genes predisposed to autism and an increase therefore in diagnoses.

(More convincing, though less intriguing, is the proposal that increased autism diagnoses match decreased diagnoses for other conditions, a thing you would expect since autism used to be blamed on "refrigerator mothers": a doctor who didn't feel mom was a Bad Mother would be less likely to think therefore that the child could be autistic. My own child's diagnosis (not autism) was much rarer a couple decades ago when it was attributed to trauma--and in the absence of known trauma, to parental sexual abuse. An accurate diagnosis effectively became evidence of child abuse. Even in The Current Century, I had to deal with one medical professional who was convinced she must have experienced some kind of trauma I wasn't mentioning.)

[DesertBlossom]

6 minutes ago, Violet Crown said:

The most interesting theory (possibly not the most convincing one) I've seen for the increase in autism diagnoses is "assortative mating": briefly, where my lawyer grandfather back in the day married his secretary, my grandmother, today he would marry a female lawyer of a more similar educational level. Across a society, this sort of thing increases the likelihood of two sets of genes predisposed to autism and an increase therefore in diagnoses.

(More convincing, though less intriguing, is the proposal that increased autism diagnoses match decreased diagnoses for other conditions, a thing you would expect since autism used to be blamed on "refrigerator mothers": a doctor who didn't feel mom was a Bad Mother would be less likely to think therefore that the child could be autistic. My own child's diagnosis (not autism) was much rarer a couple decades ago when it was attributed to trauma--and in the absence of known trauma, to parental sexual abuse. An accurate diagnosis effectively became evidence of child abuse. Even in The Current Century, I had to deal with one medical professional who was convinced she must have experienced some kind of trauma I wasn't mentioning.)

Autism is diagnosed based on a set of behaviors, but a lot of children with autism have a number of other physical issues going on, like gastrointestinal problems. A genetic theory doesn't account for their physical ailments, which seem to point to environmental factors.

[Crimson Wife]

4 hours ago, Tanaqui said:

There is virtually no evidence that the incidence rate of autism has increased.

FALSE

https://health.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/20090218_autism_environment/

[Pen]

52 minutes ago, Violet Crown said:

The most interesting theory (possibly not the most convincing one) I've seen for the increase in autism diagnoses is "assortative mating": briefly, where my lawyer grandfather back in the day married his secretary, my grandmother, today he would marry a female lawyer of a more similar educational level.

 

Since I’m currently seeing a lot of kids that have autism or what looks like autism, and live in a rural area without much in the way of lawyers marrying lawyers instead of secretaries , or engineers marrying engineers, that concept doesn’t make much sense to me.  It doesn’t seem to be a problem confined to higher education levels.  Though the more autism there is, probably the more we will see autistic couples having children .  But it doesn’t seem to fit the start of the problem.  

[BeachGal]

The microbiome appears to play a role in autism.

Researchers Rhonda Patrick and Bruce Ames published a paper about the causal link between Vitamin D, serotonin synthesis and autism.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140226110836.htm

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, DesertBlossom said:

Autism is diagnosed based on a set of behaviors, but a lot of children with autism have a number of other physical issues going on, like gastrointestinal problems. A genetic theory doesn't account for their physical ailments, which seem to point to environmental factors.

Why wouldn't the gastro stuff also be linked to genetics in some way? Things like IBD, Celiac, and others are genetic in some ways. 

[Pen]

There may not be a single thing that causes autism.  

[SKL]

At least some of us do try to limit all kinds of potential toxins.  I almost never gave my kids any kind of meds.  If they had a fever, I used natural methods to bring it down; in their first few years I think I resorted to Tylenol one time.  I bought organic food and didn't use soap in their bath except to wash hair occasionally (and then it was mild baby wash until they were well into school age).  It was a general lifestyle choice that we tried to be "cleaner" or whatever word is appropriate.  Of course there were exceptions due to practical limitations, but I tried to keep them to a minimum.

As the kids have gotten bigger and I've gotten older / tired-er, I am less selective than I would prefer to be.  I let the kids get the chickenpox vax at age 5 (to avoid fighting with the school), and I let them eat lots of junky food and take Tylenol for period cramps.  But I do think it's different when wee babies' brains are developing.

[SKL]

10 minutes ago, Pen said:

There may not be a single thing that causes autism.  

Yes, I never understand why people say "well xyz couldn't have caused his autism, because my kid has autism and we didn't do xyz."  Autism is not diagnosed based on the cause, but on the symptoms, right?  Also autism is a spectrum, and it may be that a milder case from genetic causes can be aggravated by environmental factors.

[Bluegoat]

3 hours ago, BusyMom5 said:

Overuse of antibiotics in infancy.  We know they change bacteria in our bodies, we know those bacteria are needed in a healthy gut.  Is it possible that they contribute?  I think it's possible.  I do worry about our good supply, and I hope it isn't too late to chsnge!  

 

I'm not going to buy that it's just a change in amounts of people diagnosed.  Any teacher who taught 30 years will tell you kid's have changed.  Not just parenting, not technology,  but the rates of kids having issues has gone up.  It's not just a few kids who have impulse issues, its a much bigger part of the class!  

 

I think there have been a lot of changes in schools though that account for at least some of this perception.  Particularly streaming, but also maybe larger classes, and the tendency to expect more of younger children, and other things that just mean the teacher is less able to focus on the students and accommodate their needs.  

[J-rap]

1 hour ago, Violet Crown said:

The most interesting theory (possibly not the most convincing one) I've seen for the increase in autism diagnoses is "assortative mating": briefly, where my lawyer grandfather back in the day married his secretary, my grandmother, today he would marry a female lawyer of a more similar educational level. Across a society, this sort of thing increases the likelihood of two sets of genes predisposed to autism and an increase therefore in diagnoses.

(More convincing, though less intriguing, is the proposal that increased autism diagnoses match decreased diagnoses for other conditions, a thing you would expect since autism used to be blamed on "refrigerator mothers": a doctor who didn't feel mom was a Bad Mother would be less likely to think therefore that the child could be autistic. My own child's diagnosis (not autism) was much rarer a couple decades ago when it was attributed to trauma--and in the absence of known trauma, to parental sexual abuse. An accurate diagnosis effectively became evidence of child abuse. Even in The Current Century, I had to deal with one medical professional who was convinced she must have experienced some kind of trauma I wasn't mentioning.)

Are you saying (or rather, the theory), that similar personalities that are attracted to each other have a higher incidence of having similar brain conditions (such as autism), therefore increasing the chance of their children having it?

[Ausmumof3]

The anti vaxxers I know are also grow your own fruit and vege and live in a straw bale house while making your own soap types so I think they are all round skeptics. 

[Crimson Wife]

34 minutes ago, Pen said:

There may not be a single thing that causes autism.  

That's because it's becoming clear that what we call "autism" is similar to "fever" in that there are many different underlying disorders causing it.

My daughter's autism turned out to be part of a neurological syndrome. I was SOOOO sure it couldn't be genetic because no one else in the family has ASD (not even undiagnosed Asperger's/HFA). Turned out that it was the result of a spontaneous "de novo" mutation. We never even would've gotten a proper diagnosis if I hadn't been pushy enough to fight for whole exome sequencing genetic testing. 

[DesertBlossom]

43 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I think there have been a lot of changes in schools though that account for at least some of this perception.  Particularly streaming, but also maybe larger classes, and the tendency to expect more of younger children, and other things that just mean the teacher is less able to focus on the students and accommodate their needs.  

This might account for some of the mild autism/Asperger's in people who are otherwise functioning adults. But there is most certainly an increase in severe autism.

[Pen]

54 minutes ago, SKL said:

Yes, I never understand why people say "well xyz couldn't have caused his autism, because my kid has autism and we didn't do xyz." 

 

Yes.  It’s quite illogical. Even from people who often study logic along with homeschooling their children.  

It’s somewhat like declaring that black swans are impossible because they have white swans.

Or if I broke a finger in a soccer game telling me that’s impossible I couldn’t have broken a finger from soccer, because either they played soccer and never had a broken finger, or alternatively because they did have a broken finger and never played soccer, or because soccer is not played with hands and thus the possibility of a broken finger seems impossible to them.  

If even one case of autism was caused by x, then x can cause autism.  That doesn’t mean that all autism is caused by x.   One black swan proves the possibility of black swans. One finger broken during a soccer game proves that that is possible.

 

 

54 minutes ago, SKL said:

Autism is not diagnosed based on the cause, but on the symptoms, right? 

 

Generally.  Though I increasingly see cases of what appears to be “autism” defined out of the “autism” category if some “cause” seems known, or if something done seems to improve it...as if there is a category of “real” “autism” that by definition must have no ascertainable cause.

 

 

54 minutes ago, SKL said:

Also autism is a spectrum, and it may be that a milder case from genetic causes can be aggravated by environmental factors.

 

And  also it may also be that environmental factors can be mutagenic in ways that could cause various problems — including what we call “autism” .   What gets triggered de novo may depend on what is already a weak point in an individual, or perhaps in when something is encountered, or the dose, or aggravating factors.  

[Katy]

1 hour ago, Crimson Wife said:

That's because it's becoming clear that what we call "autism" is similar to "fever" in that there are many different underlying disorders causing it.

My daughter's autism turned out to be part of a neurological syndrome. I was SOOOO sure it couldn't be genetic because no one else in the family has ASD (not even undiagnosed Asperger's/HFA). Turned out that it was the result of a spontaneous "de novo" mutation. We never even would've gotten a proper diagnosis if I hadn't been pushy enough to fight for whole exome sequencing genetic testing. 

 

That's interesting.  I read recently there's something like 105 genes associated with autism now.  I wonder if we did whole exome sequencing for every person on the spectrum we'd figure out that it was frequently spontaneous mutations, perhaps triggered by something environmental that used to be more rare.

Many years ago I read that parents in the San Francisco Bay Area love the theory of it being genetic, because SO MANY programmers kids have it, and they all have some autistic traits even if they wouldn't fit diagnosis criteria. I think the article said it was one of the highest concentrations of kids with the diagnosis in the country, but it's been so many years since I read that I no longer even remember the source.  Probably something like Wired or NYT.

[KidsHappen]

Because vaccines are permanent and irreversible whereas most other things are not.

[Arcadia]

10 minutes ago, Katy said:

I think the article said it was one of the highest concentrations of kids with the diagnosis in the country, but it's been so many years since I read that I no longer even remember the source.  Probably something like Wired or NYT.

 

East Bay Times “Study reveals autism clusters in parts of Peninsula, no clusters in East Bay” https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2010/01/05/study-reveals-autism-clusters-in-parts-of-peninsula-no-clusters-in-east-bay/amp/

Scientific American “Autism Clusters Found in California's Major Cities” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/autism-clusters-californiahighly-educated-parents/

A friend’s fraternal twin son was diagnosed with autism but not her fraternal twin daughter.  A neighbor’s identical twins were both diagnosed with autism. 

[Pen]

1 hour ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I think there have been a lot of changes in schools though that account for at least some of this perception.  Particularly streaming, but also maybe larger classes, and the tendency to expect more of younger children, and other things that just mean the teacher is less able to focus on the students and accommodate their needs.  

 

Locally there’s only one public school average of around 15 students per year. Has been so for decades.  With a few extra specialty area teachers, it makes for around a 1:10 faculty student ratio .  

  A few of the worst ASD children  take a bus to a school in bigger city that can handle them , but the percent of kids with autism or “autism “ like symptoms grows.   Around 1/4 of the kids seem to have some sort of obvious “problem” and quite a lot more have something “invisible” like high functioning asd or dyslexia.  I can believe that the “invisible” cases may be a matter of changed perception.  But not the huge increase in the ones that are obvious.

 

Used to be there was more Down’s Syndrome around. Now very little of that .  But the “obviously” something wrong kids — it’s not just changed perception.  It’s like Down’s kids or Thalidomide kids—something is going on. But both Down and Thalidomide were relatively rare as compared to the current situation of something wrong.    That wasn’t that way in times past.  And I think just calling it a “difference” and not wanting to recognize that something may be needing to be changed to protect health (which might perhaps affect more than just humans depending on the causes) may be a way to avoid facing up to a problem.  

 

Now possibly this is not true in the area where you are.  Maybe where you are the rising rate of cases of something clearly obviously very wrong , especially in an “autism” like way , have not increased.  If that’s so, then that’s interesting and differences between such places could yield some potentially useful retrospective study information.

It could well be that there are population areas that aren’t affected by the problem.  Then it could be that environmental factors are different or genetic factors...  could also be that it just hasn’t happened where you are yet.  

If our area is much more badly affected, perhaps  it could relate to radiation, or to herbicides or both.  

eta : We don’t tend to fit the city clusters or children of programmers clusters very well.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Pen

[Violet Crown]

2 hours ago, Pen said:

Since I’m currently seeing a lot of kids that have autism or what looks like autism, and live in a rural area without much in the way of lawyers marrying lawyers instead of secretaries , or engineers marrying engineers, that concept doesn’t make much sense to me.  It doesn’t seem to be a problem confined to higher education levels.  Though the more autism there is, probably the more we will see autistic couples having children .  But it doesn’t seem to fit the start of the problem.

I agree. Another objection is that the female lawyers the men would be marrying now aren't some new breed of brilliant but autism-prone women: they're the women who were the secretaries in earlier generations. Like I say, not the most convincing argument.

[Pen]

9 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

 

East Bay Times “Study reveals autism clusters in parts of Peninsula, no clusters in East Bay” https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2010/01/05/study-reveals-autism-clusters-in-parts-of-peninsula-no-clusters-in-east-bay/amp/

Scientific American “Autism Clusters Found in California's Major Cities” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/autism-clusters-californiahighly-educated-parents/

A friend’s fraternal twin son was diagnosed with autism but not her fraternal twin daughter.  A neighbor’s identical twins were both diagnosed with autism. 

 

I also know a family with twins where one is and one is not autistic.  

EMF radiation has been implicated in DNA damage which could explain some clusters in areas that were at the forefront of the computer industry. 

Do cancer cluster areas and autism cluster areas follow similar patterns by any chance?

Edited February 13, 2019 by Pen

[Arcadia]

18 minutes ago, Pen said:

EMF radiation has been implicated in DNA damage which could explain some clusters in areas that were at the forefront of the computer industry. 

Do cancer cluster areas and autism cluster areas follow similar patterns by any chance?

 

No idea. Stanford in my area has reputable autism center and cancer care centers so more people might be able to seek help and get a diagnosis too. 

Some interesting news articles:

2016 article Thyroid cancer cases rising in Northern California communities https://www.kcra.com/amp/article/thyroid-cancer-cases-rising-in-northern-california-communities/6427178

2015 article Marin County's Breast Cancer Rate Has Plummeted. Why? https://www.kqed.org/stateofhealth/90042/marin-countys-breast-cancer-rate-has-plummeted-why

2016 article Napa explores reasons for high cancer rates https://napavalleyregister.com/news/local/napa-explores-reasons-for-high-cancer-rates/article_0b5dfeac-73a7-59d8-bc21-7e7bc3809029.amp.html

Edited February 13, 2019 by Arcadia

[ktgrok]

regarding the skepticism, I do find it funny that some people will pontificate about how vaccines can't be trusted because pharmaceutical companies are in it for the money, and then shell out big money to MLM essential oil and vitamin companies. Um, those aren't exactly nonprofit!

[Aura]

My answer is twofold:

One, as others have noted, they ARE careful/skeptical in other areas, but the vaccine issue gets way more press. I think that one reason why it's such a passionate issue is that it's not a matter of you-do-you/live-and-let-live. A vaccinated/unvaccinated society affects everyone. If Mom decides to ban plastics from her house and cook everything from scratch, that really affects only her and her household. But if Mom decides not to vaccinate, this carries risks to those who can't get vaccinated.

Two, is how much and how many vaccines small infants get at a time. The 3 mos old gets the same amount that the adult gets. Many (most?) parents are extremely careful what their babies ingest, especially that first year. As the child grows, those concerns typically are reduced. The child has developed enough that they don't need to worry about as many things. But so many vaccines are recommended in the first year that I think some parents see a disconnect.

[Pen]

10 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

 

The reason you see fewer kids with Down Syndrome now is that most are aborted, not because of environmental changes or anything. 

 

Yes, dear, I know about aborting Down’s fetuses.  

The point I am trying to make is that I am seeing a large increase in children who have a different syndrome (often called “autism”) , but that is not something that would have gone unnoticed when I was younger.  Just as Downs (not always, some were more mild) was quite noticeable in many cases in times past.

Edited February 13, 2019 by Pen

[Tanaqui]

4 hours ago, Crimson Wife said:

FALSE

https://health.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/20090218_autism_environment/

 

You are both rude and wrong. Multiple repeated studies have shown that adults simply were undiagnosed or misdiagnosed. How do you explain the corresponding decrease in diagnoses of intellectual disability or childhood schizophrenia? You don't, you simply use bold and all caps in the hopes of skipping that.