Slashdot Mirror
More Evidence of Increase in Profound Autism
I am Jack's username writes "The New York times has an article (no registration required) about an increase in profound autism in California of 273% between 1987 and 1998. Between 1999 and 2001 more than 6 500 cases were reported, similar to the number reported between 1970 to 1995. The increase cannot be accounted for by misdiagnosis, increased awareness, childhood immunizations, emigration, birth injuries, and genetics. Some autism experts think the actual cases to be dramatically more than reported in the UC study. See also previous discussions about high-function geek rich areas like silicon valley."
I know very little of the condition, but considering autistic people have some extraordinary abilities, is it possible this could be an evolutionary step?
Could it be accounted for because of the change in population over the last few years in California? Perhaps there are more people having children now than before in that area, as it is becoming a place full of younger people, more apt to have children in order to start a family.
This is getting much talk in the conspiracy circles.
Many think the leading cause for autism comes from the regiment of shots we give our kids from birth to a few years of age.
I have to admit, it's alot of shots these days, and there's clear economic motives for the makers.
Funny thing is, if you scrutinize this, they label you a wacko, or some extreme religious zealot (because of stories of a parent's kid dying because the parent refused treatment based on religion.)
Just go to the news groups and do searches for this type of stuff. It's some very interesting reading.
I refused chicken pox (not smallpox) for my first two kids. It was just becoming mandatory in schools, then when they figured out that many babies were getting deadly disentary, they backed off.
It's crazy when you take your kid in, and get 4 different shots on some occasions.
Parents in the study were asked what might have caused their child's autism. Nearly half the parents in both groups said they did not know. A third blamed genetics; smaller numbers cited immunizations, birth injury or environmental factors.
So, just about half of parents are intellectually honest, then. We don't know what causes autism--there is nothing approaching a consensus among researchers, and there are few well-designed studies that even suggest a possible cause. Asking parents what caused their child's autism is like asking a non-technical person why their hard drive crashed. The answer as likely as not will be "I dunno, maybe I've got a virus?" Interesting for investigating the biases of the hapless user, but not a useful diagnosis.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I'm just surprised that nobody in the study thought to blame living near power lines--unless that's an "environmental factor".
Hypothesis: The incidence of autism is higher because children aren't being allowed to eat enough dirt. Exposure to more microorganisms when young strengthens the immune system. There exists a microbe (virus, perhaps) as-yet-uncharacterized that causes autism. (This happens sometimes with diseases. For example, most stomach ulcers are caused by the bacterium h. pylori and can often be cured with antibiotic therapy. This fact only came to light very recently, after decades of assuming that ulcers were essentially untreatable.) Children's weaker immune systems don't fight this pathogen as effectively as they used to, so they develop autism more frequently.
Solution: Feed all young children dirt.
This hypothesis actually has about as much grounding as many of the other suggested causes of autism. Based on very weak evidence, some parents have started to avoid immunizing their children, putting them at much greater risk for measles and other potentially deadly diseases. Bless the internet and its unquestioned authority on medicine.
~Idarubicin
California is no where near as polluted as it used to be. There are many other areas of the US which are substantially worse (Houstan, Atlanta). In addition, if it were an issue of pollution, you'd see substantial differences in Southern California, where smog hangs over the city, and the San Francisco Bay Area, where the prevailing winds blow most of the smog eastward.
The cake is a pie
"...will have to suffer their entire lives as unattractive and anti-social."
Austism has no connection with how you look. In some cases there may be other complications from the autistic person, such as downs, but that's a whole differnt disorder.
"It's nothing more than just an enhanced perception of life"
I can't really blame you for thinking of Rainman or other similar cases when thinking of autism, but to think that the average person is made better by this disorder is kind of ignorant. In most cases, it's not only a person's social development that is slowed/stopped/messed up. In fact, their cognative levels are supressed throughout their life.
Be a man! View at -1
acm.cs.uwec.edu
If you think autism is anywhere in the ballpark of "hypochondriacs" you need to spend some time with an autistic child. That is like saying people with brain tumors are just hypochondriacs. It's really quite distasteful.
Flat5
If you think autism is "an enhanced perception of life," you are terribly misinformed.
Please, go spend some time with autistic children. Between your comments, those about "California hypochondriacs", and about evolution(!?), I am surprised at the level of ignorance about this disease. It is a profound illness, not just lonely smart kids. Not even close.
Flat5
that still does not mean that in places where there is little air flow, you do not have much higher concentrations of polution thatn in any other place in the nation.
by the way, the mid west is a vey windy place, unlike LA.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Could I suggest that people who are really interested about vaccines consult references on both sides of the story? Or even read something based on facts, on scientific methods, peer-reviewed (scientific publications in refereed journals)?
/.! Never mind. ;-)
Oh, wait, this is
YS
"Arrr! The laws of science be a harsh mistress." -- Bender
This new epidemic in California is probably just a bunch of really smart people having children together.
Have they attempted to corrolate it at all with both parents starting families later in life?
Most of my friends (the very beginning of gen-x, born in the late 60s) started their families late. Even though we were 25 when we had our son (and I thought that was late... couple of years out of college), many just got started a year or so ago.
There's a good amount of data on chromosonal damage beginning in the thirties, including a real decline in late 30s. Add that to everyone using fertility drugs (hint: you're starting too late) and people having second and third kids in their 40s, and you've got to have more problems.
I'd expect this trend to be even stronger on the west coast where being a DINK is a class statement (and often necessary requirement to get that BMW 5 series, 5,000+ sq. foot house, clothes, etc).
*scoove*
From Autism Today:
Since 1977, when the first autism twin study demonstrated higher concordance rates of autism among identical twins than fraternal twins, the evidence for inherited factors in autism has gained widespread recognition among researchers.
This article does state that autism does not follow the standard patterns for dominant, recessive or X-linked disorders, however.
I consider gluten an unlikely culprit. It's hardly a new item in the environment... it's present in huge quantities in almost every wheat-based product, most notably bread, and always has been. You can't account for an upswing in autism by blaming gluten; we've been swimming in the stuff for centuries, and I doubt that California has suddenly experienced a massive increase in bread consumption.
I'll take these stories more seriously when I see convincing, controlled, peer-reviewed studies that show that they're for real.
--Larry
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence
Spend less time with computers and more time being interested in people.
I can understand "spending more time with people", but "spending more time being interested in people" is another matter.
How exactly does one force themselves to be more interested in something?
For example, suppose you don't like knitting, but it is deemed an important skill by socieity. How do you go about making yourself interested in it?
Again, I like talking to geeks in general, but non-geeks often talk about baseball, food, stupid movies, gossip about who F'd who, their aunt's health, etc.
If you have a magic technique to selectively change one's interest in something, I am all ears.
Table-ized A.I.
Most of the theories [guesses] seem to focus on genetics or environmental factors.
I don't think it's genetics. People haven't changed that much in general and there isn't a "California" gene pool to point to--new people are moving to California and having children all the time. (I was born and raised in California and I'm still live there [here] so I'm seeing this firsthand.) And I don't think that there are enough "geeks" to account for that big of a shift even in Silicon Valley--It still takes a small army of burger flippers, gas station attendants, janitors, car washers, etc. to support a high-performance "geek."
Under environmental factors there seem to be two areas being looked at: stuff happening or being done to children such as vaccinations, and general lifestyle such as poor diet.
I think that it is environmental and probably something unnatural. My guess is some government mandated program such MTBE in the gasoline.
--
But then again I thought VCR+ was a stupid idea and would die a quick death--so what do I know?
From the Wired article: "One thing nearly everyone in the field agrees on: genetic predisposition. Identical twins share the disorder 9 times out of 10."
I didn't see anything about twins separated at birth, though. This is usually the best test of genetic factors because it removes most environmental factors.
Table-ized A.I.
Yep, look at New York City. We're blessed with favorable climate conditions, so the air quality's much better than a lot of cities a tenth of our size.
Two things:
:) (it has happened before).
1) Have you heard of something called a normal distribution? This quote has to work on averages not individual cases...
2) He stated non-crying childs tend to be really smart. He didn't imply crying babies tend to be stupid, as you have read it.
And if you don't agree, well, maybe you where misquoted your IQ
unfinished: (adj.)
Whatever happened to plain vanilla "shyness". In my own experience there seems to be some correlation between shyness and above average intelligence. So lack of social skills or social anxiety cannot be the same as Autism or Aspergers which are both forms of brain dysfunction. I'm getting tired of so many geeks here listening to a description of Autism or Aspergers and automatically assuming "that's me, at least a little". There is such a thing as shyness, social anxiety, introversion, etc, which are not related to Autism or Aspergers. Most geeks are just shy, end of story.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
The New York times has an article (no registration required)
About farking time. Taco, perhaps you might want to add code to Googleize NYT links in stories?
Yes. Because "certain" social situations are difficult and awkward. To everyone.
Do you feel out of place sometimes?
Yes. Because sometimes I am out of place. Like that time I accidentally entered the wrong toilet in the fancy restaurant...
Do you have bizarre certain interests that no on cares about? *computers cough cough
Yes. I admit freely to not liking Britney-Spears and soccer. This indicates independent choise, and not disease.
Do you feel smart in certain area's but lack knowledge sometimes of other different area's?
Certainly ! Nobody but a complete idiot would think he knew everything, and nobody but a person with severe self-image problems would think he knows nothing. In other words, every healthy person will answer "yes" to this question.
Do you find expressing emotions difficult even though you have them?
No more difficult than the average person, that is to say, sometimes very difficult indeed.
Do you feel yourself to be somewhat clumsy ?
Not really. Motorical skills are mostly about training though, maybe if I didn't like surfing and rock-climbing I'd be less coordinated. I fail to see what that's got to do with anything though.
As a kid did you feel more interested in complex things like science or weather rather then playing GI joe ?
Sure. You mean a young boy who finds the apollo-missions more interesting than killing must be mentally sick in some way ?
Chances are you may be mildly autistic
And chanses are that with your "test" 90% of the population are autistic.
I feel free to take offense to your statement. I have Aspergers.
It makes it difficult for me to pay attention to uninteresting things, it made me less likely likely to have friends, it's given me some OCS-related characteristics, it made it virtually impossible to empathize with people, it's put me in situations which made me suicidal on several occasions.
And it's definately given me an excellent perspective on life, aside from the suicide. I know how the outcast feels. I've learned to recognize body language in people who go to efforts not to have any.
It's also had a hand in giving me an IQ of 134.
I've been through hell, and I've survived. I may be on Risperdal and Wellbutrin, but I wouldn't trade my needs for a normal life. Not ever.
What's this Submit thingy do?