http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/Increase_in_autism_diagnosis.png/400px-Increase_in_autism_diagnosis.png


Reported cases of autism in the United States appear to indicate a rise in the incidence of autism. Scientists however, attribute this increase to improved diagnostic criteria and screening, since the relatively recent description of its symptoms by Leo Kanner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Kanner) in 1943.

Speculations about the putative causes of this epidemic range from genetic causes, pollution and food additives to childhood vaccinations.

So what are your view points on this?
Is there an autism epidemic? Or not?

Is there an autism epidemic? Or not?
Yes.

deleted

Autism is like AIDS; it exists to the extent that it is looked for, to the extent in turn that a professional elite thrives because of it.

A few years older than AIDS, but much the same in that when some of us went to school it had not yet been heard of and we got along well enough without the worry.

You mean autistic people can live perfectly normal lives?

deleted

That is what has changed since 1943, the idea of a perfectly normal life as if there were some kind of choice to market, and some kind of authoritative knowing of the need to be perfectly normal.

While the context changes to define the object, people per se are much the same as ever.

So you mean they keep inventing new ways that people are flawed?

I think there might be some environmental factor stimulating the rise in autism. Perhaps the gene for milder autism is being selected for, due to the particular facilities it offers to people in the modern environment. Perhaps this gene also results in more severe autism in some cases.

Perhaps some chemical in the environment is actually causing a rise in autism.

I think the improvement in diagnosis is one factor. I would have benefited from a diagnosis earlier in life. Sure, I got by somehow, but I also suffered. There were some things I did as a result of my social failures that almost resulted in death. I happened to be lucky. Now that I know the cause, I am much happier and well adjusted. Autism is real, and milder autism is often overlooked since other abilities make up for ones lost.

I agree with the scientists. People who were autistic in the past were more likely to just be labeled as retarded or abnormal instead of autistic. Today, the diagnostics are better. Afflictions in general are more likely to be diagnosed as such these days. There may, like spidergoat said, be an environmental factor, causing higher levels of autistic kids. I've heard that people with dyslexia and autism tend to have higher levels of testosterone than other kids. (Autism and dyslexia disproportionately afflict boys.) Environmental factors could do this. Like say, for example, perhaps the mother carrying the embryo in her uterus is eating meat from cows that have been treated with hormones. Perhaps those hormones could affect the development of the fetus. Or she might be drinking milk from cows that were treated with hormones to create more milk. If an abnormal amount of hormone gets into the embryo, it could potentially cause problems. If the fetus gets too much testosterone or other male hormones, it could potentially increase the chances of that child developing autism or dyslexia.

Embryos are very susceptible to environmental factors, which is why it's important for pregnant women to not smoke or drink. That's why smart women don't do that sort of thing. I've also read something else about mice who were injected with choline supplements during pregnancy. Those baby mice developed to have superior memory. The extra choline made available during prenatal development made the brain during adulthood better at remembering. It made for more, more long-term potentiation. Here's an article I googled that says something about it. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1592525


However, I think it's mostly just that those with autism are more likely to be diagnosed as such these days.

Speculations about the putative causes of this epidemic range from genetic causes, pollution and food additives to childhood vaccinations.

So what are your view points on this? Is there an autism epidemic? Or not?

Back in the old days, crazy people were shunned and kept away from the others in society and no permitted to breed. So naturally there was less passing on of the crazy genes.

Now days, we not only allow them into our society, but we permit them to marry and to breed. As ye sow, so shall ye reap!

Baron Max

deleted

Baron,
Autism is not insanity. Severely autistic people rarely breed, if ever.

Sauna,
There are brain scans that reveal differences in autistic brains.

deleted

There is no real test for schizophrenia either, is that a real phenomenon?

There are indications that autism may have a genetic basis:

NIMH-funded scientists have linked a gene on chromosome 7 that may influence human brain development with autism susceptibility. Rare mutations in WNT2 may significantly increase susceptibility, while a common variant may contribute to the disorder to a lesser degree, say the researchers.

If a test can be devised to genetically recognise autistics, what do you suppose are the ramifications?

Yeah, plus autism runs in families.

There are indications that autism may have a genetic basis:

Serious samcdkey:
Plus, autism runs in families.


If a test can be devised to genetically recognise autistics, what do you suppose are the ramifications?
Who knows? Autism comes in different levels of intensities. Obviously, severe autism is bad and not advantageous to a human. However, I think there may be some advantages to being autistic to small degrees. High functioning autistics (HFA) are known to be pretty intelligent and logical. One of the jokes is that if you want to find people who are autistic, one needs to only look in an engineering department. If there were no advantage to autism, I'd imagine the autism genes would be selected against. There are actually a number of famous and successful people who are autistic. Here's a list of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_speculated_to_have_been_autistic
It's also been speculated that Bill Gates is somewhat autistic.

Wikipedia actually has a very good article about autism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism

deleted

I agree with the scientists. People who were autistic in the past were more likely to just be labeled as retarded or abnormal instead of autistic. Today, the diagnostics are better. Afflictions in general are more likely to be diagnosed as such these days. There may, like spidergoat said, be an environmental factor, causing higher levels of autistic kids. I've heard that people with dyslexia and autism tend to have higher levels of testosterone than other kids. (Autism and dyslexia disproportionately afflict boys.) Environmental factors could do this. Like say, for example, perhaps the mother carrying the embryo in her uterus is eating meat from cows that have been treated with hormones. Perhaps those hormones could affect the development of the fetus. Or she might be drinking milk from cows that were treated with hormones to create more milk. If an abnormal amount of hormone gets into the embryo, it could potentially cause problems. If the fetus gets too much testosterone or other male hormones, it could potentially increase the chances of that child developing autism or dyslexia.

Embryos are very susceptible to environmental factors, which is why it's important for pregnant women to not smoke or drink. That's why smart women don't do that sort of thing. I've also read something else about mice who were injected with choline supplements during pregnancy. Those baby mice developed to have superior memory. The extra choline made available during prenatal development made the brain during adulthood better at remembering. It made for more, more long-term potentiation. Here's an article I googled that says something about it. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1592525

However, I think it's mostly just that those with autism are more likely to be diagnosed as such these days.

*************
M*W: I couldn't agree with you more. In the USA, our children's bodies (and ours) are bombarded with environmental chemicals, pesticides, hormones, and god only knows what else, from the food we eat. Added to that, prenatal ultrasound is a major culprit. Science has already determined that prenatal ultrasound can cause speech and hearing defects. Introduced to the public around 1970, prenatal ultrasound could be one of the reasons we are diagnosing ever increasing autism. After all, this is a brain dysfunction. There's no good reason to even use prenatal ultrasound. In very high risk pregnancies, it may be a valid diagnostic tool, but for about 99% of the scans, it's for the doctor's convenience only.

Sauna,
I must assume you have never met a schizophrenic person.

I don't see myself as a victim. My self-diagnosis provides relief only because I realize now that my personal traits are not a character flaw, rather they are innate.

deleted

If you try and try to be something it is impossible to be, wouldn't that drive anyone crazy? Why is what I say a bad thing? I realize I'm not a victim of a bad childhood, or bad schooling, or anything else. My only problem was trying to live up to unrealistic expectations. Only after I discovered that, was I was able to take better control of my own life and become successful.

I don't expect any different treatment. I have not told my employer about it. How am I being a victim?

deleted

Sauna,
I must assume you have never met a schizophrenic person.

I don't see myself as a victim. My self-diagnosis provides relief only because I realize now that my personal traits are not a character flaw, rather they are innate.

Character flaws can't be innate? I'm afraid that's not true. You can be genetically predisposed to having "character flaws."

If you can't change it, you can hardly be responsible for it.

Doesn't mean it's not a flaw.

Yes, actually, it does.

So if a person is genetically predisposed to be a sociopath, it's not a flaw. It's not a flaw because he can't change who he is. No dude. That's a totally bogus argument. You would probably also say that Down Syndrome isn't a flaw then either. Just because a trait is triggered by genetics does not mean it can't be a flaw.

deleted

So if a person is genetically predisposed to be a sociopath, it's not a flaw. It's not a flaw because he can't who he is. No dude. That's a totally bogus argument. You would probably also say that Down Syndrome isn't a flaw then either. Just because a trait is triggered by genetics does not mean it can't be a flaw.

So says the eugenicist. In an ideal world, francois would get to say who lived and who was not allowed to live.

So says the eugenicist. In an ideal world, francois would get to say who lived and who was not allowed to live.

You make it seem like I'm the one who's being cruel. In reality, it's people who don't want to improve the human condition who are cruel. If I were to decide whether or not an embryo which was predestined to get early Alzheimer's were to develop, I would choose for it to never begin to develop into a human. Wow, I'm a terrible person for not wanting to see a person experience the horrible emotional pain of Alzheimer's. Not to mention the pain of the family. Yeah, I'm a real jerk.

You, on the other hand, would let it all happen. Quite a humanist you are.

I agree with the scientists.
It's better diagnoses.
Consider how many of these cases of autism are high functioning autism that barely fit the description.
The graph really doesn't display enough detail. If it showed more detail in severely autistic people, then we could exptrapolate as I would suspect that most of the severely autistic have been diagnosed since the condition was defined by Kanner and Asperger. That number would, in other words, remain relatively stable.

You would probably also say that Down Syndrome isn't a flaw then either.
It is no character flaw. Down syndrome people and William's syndrome people can have really great personalities, kind and helpful, inquisitive and sometimes amazingly intuitive.
genetically predisposed to be a sociopath
...is not a character flaw, actually killing people is.

Down syndrome people and William's syndrome people can have really great personalities, kind and helpful, inquisitive and sometimes amazingly intuitive.

And sometimes not! What's the percentages, Spider?

Baron Max

It is no character flaw. Down syndrome people and William's syndrome people can have really great personalities, kind and helpful, inquisitive and sometimes amazingly intuitive.

...is not a character flaw, actually killing people is.

Killing people is not a character flaw. Having an inclination to kill people is a character flaw. People are killed by other people all the time, by accident and it's not a character flaw. A sociopath, even one who's never killed a person, is still a flawed character.

A man who is not attracted to women, but is very sexually attracted to men is a homosexual--even if he has never had sex.

Speculations about the putative causes of this epidemic range from genetic causes, pollution and food additives to childhood vaccinations.

Id agree its the result of unhealthy food ,and not enough nutrition,
with all the junk and chemical additives average N.American eats Im not surprised people get sick.
just look at what people eat for breakfast for example.all those dehydrated wheat cereals full of sugar, colors,and who knows what else.
shit even a horse or cow wouldnt survive and be healthy on such junk!

And sometimes not! What's the percentages, Spider?

Baron Max

Doesn't matter. I judge people as individuals, not as statistical averages.

Doesn't matter. I judge people as individuals, not as statistical averages.

Well, in that previous statement, you DID judge them as statistical averages. You said, "Down syndrome people and William's syndrome people can have really great personalities, kind and helpful, inquisitive and sometimes amazingly intuitive." That statement, whether you realize it or not, judged the diseased people as a group, not individually as you claim.

Baron Max

Well, in that previous statement, you DID judge them as statistical averages. You said, "Down syndrome people and William's syndrome people can have really great personalities, kind and helpful, inquisitive and sometimes amazingly intuitive." That statement, whether you realize it or not, judged the diseased people as a group, not individually as you claim.

Baron Max

Baron when one says "can have" its not an exclusive criteria, but an inclusive one.

i.e. people can have good days is not equal to people only have good days.

And remember it takes only one.:)

Baron when one says "can have" its not an exclusive criteria, but an inclusive one.

Sure, of course. But when one says things like that, they're making the statement about the whole group, not just one individual. Spider was specific in talking about the whole group.

i.e. people can have good days is not equal to people only have good days.

Yes, and you're making a judgement call about the entire group of people. Sure it only takes one, but the statement is specific about the group, not about each individual.

Baron Max

Sure, of course. But when one says things like that, they're making the statement about the whole group, not just one individual. Spider was specific in talking about the whole group.



Yes, and you're making a judgement call about the entire group of people. Sure it only takes one, but the statement is specific about the group, not about each individual.

Baron Max

I disagree. If I say people with Downs Syndrome can be nice, it may be either because I have either met one or known one. Statistically, if one person with Downs Syndrome is nice, there is a probability of other people with Downs Syndrome out there who are nice. In fact I may even believe that ALL people with Downs Syndrome are nice until I meet one who is not. Thats just generalisation based on limited sample size and everyone does it.

However if you say that ALL people with Downs syndrome are not nice, and I say they can be nice, and I am basing my observation on only one person, it still falsifies your assertion, so it does not matter whether I mean one person or a group.

All apples are red is easily refuted by saying, but apples can also be green (even if its ONLY one green apple in hundreds and thousands of reds).

Interesting.

Hopefully, we'll soon be able to screen babies for signs of autism and abort them before they can come out, that way we won't have to deal with them!....

Personally I prefer the rational company of an authenticated Asperger's case to the usual fare of intelectual recklessness.

Then perhaps you and people like you should be required to care for those Asperger's children who can't care for themselves?

But why do you insist on society caring for them when you can't or won't yourselves?

Baron Max

Then perhaps you and people like you should be required to care for those Asperger's children who can't care for themselves?

But why do you insist on society caring for them when you can't or won't yourselves?

Baron Max

On what basis do you decide who society should or should not care for?

Even "normal" children are not free from abuse and exploitation.

On what basis do you decide who society should or should not care for?

We're supposed to be a free society, thus the members of that society should make that decision with a vote. Or those who think others should be cared for should jump right in and do it ....not try to force others who don't want to help to help or pay taxes for it. Forcing people to care is not the way any society should care for it's less fortunate members.

Even "normal" children are not free from abuse and exploitation.

No, they aren't. But it's a crime to abuse or exploit children in most societies of the world.

But I'm not talking about abuse, Sam, I'm talking about caring for some of those "diseased" children for the rest of their lives. It just should not be the duty of society to do it when they had no choice in the conception or birth of that "diseased" child. If you want me to pay for "diseased" children, then I should have some say in whether it's aborted or not ...don't you think???

Baron Max

So says the eugenicist. In an ideal world, francois would get to say who lived and who was not allowed to live.

so he's gonna get a sex change and decide to abort his unborn babies, or is he gonna get a job as a Doctor so he can do it himself personally?

society already permits 'deciding who gets to live and die'

flaw or no flaws

http://www.myspace.com/theoryofr

The modern illnesses/diseases.
IMO autism is an illness, it is genetic and passed onto the child...the defective genetics go back a long way, maybe 2-4 generations.

The genetic changes are not so much gene modifications, but biochemical changes in the environment of the gene expression.

You know, a little lead here, a touch of mercury there and plenty of cadmium, with a pinch of Polonium 210, LOL

But seriously these children/adults suffer... you suffer if you are not "normal" and the biochemical pollution goes on, passed on through habits, polluted necessities and all supported by ignorance and a lack of control on the integrity of our environment by the people who love to look after us....the authorities.The whole population is poisoned, and the level of mental degradation is now becoming a worry to ????who is left????

Don't worry, if normal is in free fall, one day you maybe classed an Einstein

LOL

Sadly and wonderfully
not all the world is polluted to the max..... some "primitive races" may yet rise and dominate the world
Sanity v insanity (genetic misexpression)

Maybe it is already happening... I love it.

JOKE... yes unless you are autistic.

An autistic president...oh yeah.

>> it's people who don't want to improve the human condition who are cruel >>

If you had a choice would you like scrambled enzyme concentrations as your legacy? and become autistic or have Downs, or even worse.

What life do these people lead ?, is it a life worth living ?
Would you rather being "normal"

Cruelty to let them survive, IMO
More cruel to allow the state of world pollution to continue, because sub-clinical levels of toxics alter you in subtle ways... but the perpetrators are all intoxicated with their own daemons.

Let this poor little world go free..of pollution and let the creatures become whole once again so they can walk a truly sensible path in life and enjoy each other.

A shame on the Earth's population,........ sanity thrown away because money is more valuable.

I think human beings are the silliest creatures in the whole universe.

I think human beings are the silliest creatures in the whole universe.

Silliest? Perhaps. But the problem is much more dangerous than the word "silly" implies. Humans are destroying their own home planet ...and I don't exactly call that silly, do you?

Baron Max

Look at you, Baron the environmentalist.

Baron is just so very contrary.
That's his whole existence here.

"You say tomato. I say tomahto.
You say potato. I say tomahto.
2+2=5..."

Look at you, Baron the environmentalist.

No, no! Heavens no! I was just pointing out man's natural tendency towards hypocrisy. We talk up a big, lovely game, but when the chips are down, we're all nothing but selfish, lying, cheating, gluttonous, greedy, vicious animals. ...and I say that with humble apologises to the "lower" animals.

Baron Max

I agree with the scientists.
It's better diagnoses.
Consider how many of these cases of autism are high functioning autism that barely fit the description.

Some of it may also be over diagnosis. Since one of my four children has Down's syndrome, my wife and I associate a lot with the other parents in special ed. Some of these kids are practically vegetables, not able to talk or even move. Yet they carry the diagnosis, among others, of autism.

How does one determine if a kid that sits drooling in a wheelchair has delays of "social interaction, language as used in social communication, or symbolic or imaginative play,"?

I'll tell you how, the doctor just ticks it off on his superbill. "The kid can't talk, must be autistic" The more diagnosis you have, the better the chance to get paid by the insurance company.

Some of it may also be over diagnosis. Since one of my four children has Down's syndrome, my wife and I associate a lot with the other parents in special ed. Some of these kids are practically vegetables, not able to talk or even move. Yet they carry the diagnosis, among others, of autism.

How does one determine if a kid that sits drooling in a wheelchair has delays of "social interaction, language as used in social communication, or symbolic or imaginative play,"?

I'll tell you how, the doctor just ticks it off on his superbill. "The kid can't talk, must be autistic" The more diagnosis you have, the better the chance to get paid by the insurance company.

I have to agree. My husband's best friend is a school teacher and he was commenting the other day that half the children in his grade 3 class are on ADHD or ADD medications. But all he sees in them are just normal boisterous children who are inquisitive and get bored easily. Several of them get bored and become destructive, abusive and behave in ways synonamous of ADD or ADHD kids because of their boredom in the classroom. He decided to test them and found they were acting out not because they were sick, but because they were literally too intelligent to be in that grade. He did however notice that after they had been moved up one or more grades, they were no longer classified as suffering from ADD or ADHD and no longer required the medication. The other children he found were just over active children who needed an outlet for their pent up energy. As he found himself, their parents fed them junkfood for just about each meal. These kids rarely ate home cooked meals and were mostly from families that were divorced and did not have access to the other parent on a regular basis. That some children do suffer from it is agiven. But that many? Every second child now seems to be on medication for personality disorders. It just doesn't sit well with me that so many do suffer from it. It seems so easy to just medicate the kids and have them like obedient zombies.

Doctors nowdays are very quick to over-diagnose children with autism and disorders such as ADD.

Some of it may also be over diagnosis.

Good point. I'd have to agree with your post as well. A true sign of our times.
It's not merely about the doctors being paid though, in my opinion, but rather about them being overcautious in regards to missing a diagnosis. I think they'd prefer to overdiagnose than underdiagnose as far as malpractice goes.
Someday something really needs to be done to get a handle on this situation. I understand that doctors need to be held accountable for their actions, but malpractice lawsuits and insurance has driven health care costs so high that healthcare is becoming prohibitively expensive.

I don't know if I'm for nationalized healthcare because of how inefficient such systems usually are, but I think that getting some type of control over malpractice and also reigning in the insurance companies (which are feeding on both ends of the stick) would really help to bring things back to a state of some sort of sanity.

Off-topic, I know.

Hey guys, I am sorry to sprout my opinion, if it offends you because you have affected children.

But if you demetalise you could have "perfect" children!

I am just speaking as a scientist, no harm intended.

I am truly sorry if you have an affected child, it is not the choice you would normally make.
:) peace