Opinion about autism

blueheaven · Apr 9, 2007

My brother is 43 years old. He walked at the usual time but did not talk. He had tests ad nauseam at Children's Hospital in Columbus, Ohio and they couldn't figure out what was wrong with him. We (the family) figured that he fit the picture for autism more than any of the other things that MD's came up with. I am glad that there are more resources available now than there were when he was little.

My mother did not smoke or drink when she was pregnant. My dad drank alcohol. He also worked in a chemical plant and was exposed to all kinds of stuff which could have done something. We just don't know.

RNsRWe, ASN, RN · Apr 10, 2007

Posted by Noahm:

These guys knew years ago that the thirmosal in the vaccines could cause autism in kids who are genetically susceptible. These kids don't filter toxins out of their systems like other people do because of a chromosomal abnormality. The mercury in the vaccines is just too much for these special kids.

You really believe that "these guys" had complete knowledge that their vaccines could cause autism years ago, before they were introduced? That with this "knowledge" they still created and distributed it? I doubt there are many people at all, even believing that vaccines could be a potential link, who believe that there was a cadre of evil scientists rubbing their hands and saying "nah, they'll never find out that we're going to be destroying millions of children's lives..." Then again, conspiracy theorists always amuse me.

As for the second part of that message, about autistic kids having "a chromosomal abnormality", where do you get this information? They don't have chromosomal abnormalities. Their chromosomes are quite normal (unless you are referring to Fragile X Syndrome, which is often placed on the autism spectrum, but is not true autism). There has been significant research showing the autistic BRAIN as being different, recent mirror neuron research is impacting the scientific community as we speak (Scientific American had a lengthy, detailed article on this: fascinating), but autistics do not have a chromosomal disorder. They have a neurological one.

And as for them not being able to filter out toxins like mercury, that is a very old, very long debated theory, without scientifically-supported facts to hold it up. Sort of the chicken-or-the-egg approach: do autistic children have autism because they had too much exposure to mercury (or other heavy metals), so the excess metals CAUSED the autism....OR....do autistic children already have a a predisposition to retain heavy metals (such as mercury) so that's why children who are ALREADY autistic have higher levels of metals in their systems?

Absolutely neither of those suggestions has been proven either way, which is what affords people all the water-cooler debates in the world, and each feels they are onto the "truth". Everyone can have an opinion, it seems, because of so little fact. And even what is accepted as fact in the scientific and medical commuity often gets disregarded with laypersons, because it doesn't support what they believe (regardless of fact).

I, personally, don't believe vaccines caused autism and do believe the medical research that has for decades refuted the link; there is simply too much evidence in MY opinion to support continuing that line of research. Thimerosol HAS been dropped from routine vaccinations in children, it is NOT in pediatric use (unless a handful of MDs are illegally or unethically using out-of-date stock or stock meant for adults, and now we're starting to grasp wildly there), and yet the rates of childhood dx's keep increasing exponentially. A very well-regarded Danish study of a half million children (thanks, socialized medicine for the ability to do THAT one!) discounted the link several years ago. Caused quite a shake-up in the "vaccines did it to my kid" camp, as I recall. But then, since people prefer to spend time placing blame and wasting more money attacking the Deep Pockets Pharmacy Companies, only a short quiet time went by before the demand to prove the connection (once again) got raised. Less money will be spent on actual prevention studies as well as educational needs for the kids who are HERE NOW and need them. The internet is full of half-baked website supporting tons of unproven and far-reaching "links" to autism, as well as every other disorder known to man. Just because someone posted it online doesn't make it valid.

I was fortunate to have a firstborn child who was typically-developing, and LOADS of background in childcare, before my second-born autistic son came along. Had he been my firstborn, I am quite sure I would not have recognized the early signs of autism in him, as early as a few months. But as it happens, I DID recognize those early signs that most people miss, and while I didn't know THAT they were signs of autism, I knew something was up. And it wasn't good. Other people saw a "good baby", not a blessed thing amiss, so I'm quite sure that had he been my first, I would have agreed with them. It wasn't obvious. But I didn't know what I WAS seeing, and had to wade through many many months of everyone telling me "he's just fine" before getting a professional that had a clue to LOOK at my child and know he wasn't fine: he was autistic--and had been since birth.

I grow tired of this discusion, I have to admit, because so many people without fundamental knowledge of what autism is or does feel free to pipe in their own opinions of how often it's misdiagnosed, what the basis of dx should be, what should be "done" with "these kids", etc etc. I would never in a billion years presume to tell a family that has a child with a medical illness what are the (implied only) "right" social and medical choices, what is the "right" educational placement, what are the "right" therapies, and yet people feel compelled to tell those of us with autistic children exactly what we did right, wrong, and how to "fix" things for the future. Actually had one person (at a church gathering, if you can believe it) tell me that I must feel "awful" having given my child vaccines, knowing that he's "now" autistic. I imagine this type of person would also have, thirty years ago, told me that I must feel awful being a Frigid Mother, and causing an autistic child (as was the popular--and now disregarded--belief years ago).

Gets a little tiring, I have to say.

allnurses Guide · Apr 10, 2007

Posted by Noahm:
You really believe that "these guys" had complete knowledge that their vaccines could cause autism years ago, before they were introduced? That with this "knowledge" they still created and distributed it? I doubt there are many people at all, even believing that vaccines could be a potential link, who believe that there was a cadre of evil scientists rubbing their hands and saying "nah, they'll never find out that we're going to be destroying millions of children's lives..." Then again, conspiracy theorists always amuse me.
As for the second part of that message, about autistic kids having "a chromosomal abnormality", where do you get this information? They don't have chromosomal abnormalities. Their chromosomes are quite normal (unless you are referring to Fragile X Syndrome, which is often placed on the autism spectrum, but is not true autism). There has been significant research showing the autistic BRAIN as being different, recent mirror neuron research is impacting the scientific community as we speak (Scientific American had a lengthy, detailed article on this: fascinating), but autistics do not have a chromosomal disorder. They have a neurological one.
And as for them not being able to filter out toxins like mercury, that is a very old, very long debated theory, without scientifically-supported facts to hold it up. Sort of the chicken-or-the-egg approach: do autistic children have autism because they had too much exposure to mercury (or other heavy metals), so the excess metals CAUSED the autism....OR....do autistic children already have a a predisposition to retain heavy metals (such as mercury) so that's why children who are ALREADY autistic have higher levels of metals in their systems?
Absolutely neither of those suggestions has been proven either way, which is what affords people all the water-cooler debates in the world, and each feels they are onto the "truth". Everyone can have an opinion, it seems, because of so little fact. And even what is accepted as fact in the scientific and medical commuity often gets disregarded with laypersons, because it doesn't support what they believe (regardless of fact).
I, personally, don't believe vaccines caused autism and do believe the medical research that has for decades refuted the link; there is simply too much evidence in MY opinion to support continuing that line of research. Thimerosol HAS been dropped from routine vaccinations in children, it is NOT in pediatric use (unless a handful of MDs are illegally or unethically using out-of-date stock or stock meant for adults, and now we're starting to grasp wildly there), and yet the rates of childhood dx's keep increasing exponentially. A very well-regarded Danish study of a half million children (thanks, socialized medicine for the ability to do THAT one!) discounted the link several years ago. Caused quite a shake-up in the "vaccines did it to my kid" camp, as I recall. But then, since people prefer to spend time placing blame and wasting more money attacking the Deep Pockets Pharmacy Companies, only a short quiet time went by before the demand to prove the connection (once again) got raised. Less money will be spent on actual prevention studies as well as educational needs for the kids who are HERE NOW and need them. The internet is full of half-baked website supporting tons of unproven and far-reaching "links" to autism, as well as every other disorder known to man. Just because someone posted it online doesn't make it valid.
I was fortunate to have a firstborn child who was typically-developing, and LOADS of background in childcare, before my second-born autistic son came along. Had he been my firstborn, I am quite sure I would not have recognized the early signs of autism in him, as early as a few months. But as it happens, I DID recognize those early signs that most people miss, and while I didn't know THAT they were signs of autism, I knew something was up. And it wasn't good. Other people saw a "good baby", not a blessed thing amiss, so I'm quite sure that had he been my first, I would have agreed with them. It wasn't obvious. But I didn't know what I WAS seeing, and had to wade through many many months of everyone telling me "he's just fine" before getting a professional that had a clue to LOOK at my child and know he wasn't fine: he was autistic--and had been since birth.
I grow tired of this discusion, I have to admit, because so many people without fundamental knowledge of what autism is or does feel free to pipe in their own opinions of how often it's misdiagnosed, what the basis of dx should be, what should be "done" with "these kids", etc etc. I would never in a billion years presume to tell a family that has a child with a medical illness what are the (implied only) "right" social and medical choices, what is the "right" educational placement, what are the "right" therapies, and yet people feel compelled to tell those of us with autistic children exactly what we did right, wrong, and how to "fix" things for the future. Actually had one person (at a church gathering, if you can believe it) tell me that I must feel "awful" having given my child vaccines, knowing that he's "now" autistic. I imagine this type of person would also have, thirty years ago, told me that I must feel awful being a Frigid Mother, and causing an autistic child (as was the popular--and now disregarded--belief years ago).
Gets a little tiring, I have to say.

This is a good post.

I will be 50 this summer. I distinctly remember when I was in college in the early 80's being taught that many of the childhood neurological problems in children were caused by "frigid" mothers and absent fathers.

Many books read then were written in the 50's and 60's . . one I especially loved was "Children With Emerald Eyes" by Mira Rothenberg. But her theories back then were not looking at genetics or even vaccines but parenting.

It is a very good book though - she writes with passion and the children in that book have lived with me for 30 years.

steph

LydiaNN · Apr 10, 2007

Hmmm... when I get tired of a discussion, I leave it.

2curlygirls · Apr 10, 2007

I keep hearing about high rates or Autism in places like Silicon Valley. A theory is that there's so many people with similar brains that their kids get bred into having superconcentrated brain areas.

My uncle, the ped neurologist autism researcher believes it is genetic. Many AS kids have very intellectual/Silicon Valley software engineer type fathers (I live in SV BTW). I'm sure that iisn't always the case, but he has noted a strong association.

And I thought the Geiers had been discredited.

Multicollinearity, BSN, RN · Apr 10, 2007

This is a good post.
I will be 50 this summer. I distinctly remember when I was in college in the early 80's being taught that many of the childhood neurological problems in children were caused by "frigid" mothers and absent fathers.
Many books read then were written in the 50's and 60's . . one I especially loved was "Children With Emerald Eyes" by Mira Rothenberg. But her theories back then were not looking at genetics or even vaccines but parenting.
It is a very good book though - she writes with passion and the children in that book have lived with me for 30 years.
steph

Steph,

I'm trying to understand your point here. Can you clarify? Are you saying that parenting is a cause of autism in your opinion? This is what I am interpreting from your post. If not, why do you wax fondly about a book that does advance this out-dated theory?

twinmommy+2, ADN, BSN, MSN · Apr 10, 2007

Steph,
I'm trying to understand your point here. Can you clarify? Are you saying that parenting is a cause of autism in your opinion? This is what I am interpreting from your post. If not, why do you wax fondly about a book that does advance this out-dated theory?

I think what she is pointing out is that is what people used to think caused these symptoms, now people think it is related to vaccinations or what have you, and in 10 years it may very likely be something completely different they think causes it.

allnurses Guide · Apr 11, 2007

I think what she is pointing out is that is what people used to think caused these symptoms, now people think it is related to vaccinations or what have you, and in 10 years it may very likely be something completely different they think causes it.

Thanks, I would never advocate that terrible hurtful theory.

I was responding to the following in part of the post that I quoted:

"I imagine this type of person would also have, thirty years ago, told me that I must feel awful being a Frigid Mother, and causing an autistic child (as was the popular--and now disregarded--belief years ago)."

I still have the book because of the children and their stories. And I do remember when these theories were still taught - now I'm getting really really old but truly it wasn't that long ago.

I myself don't put alot of credence in the vaccine theory but only because of the scientists I know about at MIT and other places who are doing research into the brain.

steph

KYCNM · Apr 11, 2007

In a recent Medscape article, autism was linked to older mothers and fathers. After the age of 30, there is an major increase for each decade for both mother and father. I keep thinking about what the nun that taught me OB in '63 said about the golden age of motherhood being 20-24.

Here is the link.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/554710?src=mp

Multicollinearity, BSN, RN · Apr 11, 2007

Thanks, I would never advocate that terrible hurtful theory.
I was responding to the following in part of the post that I quoted:
"I imagine this type of person would also have, thirty years ago, told me that I must feel awful being a Frigid Mother, and causing an autistic child (as was the popular--and now disregarded--belief years ago)."
I still have the book because of the children and their stories. And I do remember when these theories were still taught - now I'm getting really really old but truly it wasn't that long ago.
I myself don't put alot of credence in the vaccine theory but only because of the scientists I know about at MIT and other places who are doing research into the brain.
steph

I'm glad I asked you. I somehow missed the part in the post you were addressing. Thanks for explaining.

allnurses Guide · Apr 11, 2007

I'm glad I asked you. I somehow missed the part in the post you were addressing. Thanks for explaining.

No problem -

I did read a story in the paper when I was preggers with #4 at 43 years of age with a 47 y.o. husband that the risk of schizophrenia was higher with older parents . . . . . I got so sick of all the warnings from medical folks.

Sometimes it is enough to make you want to go hide out on a tropical island. Without TV, newspapers, etc.

steph

zuzi · Apr 20, 2007

Who knew where I can find statistical data (may be some WHO statistical data) and comparative scientifique studies about asperger syndrom on adults and childrean and also statistical data and comparative scientifique studies about autistic adult and childrean?

What are differencies beetwen a Child and an Adult Asperger? All about, diagnosis for Asperger, how to deal with an Asperger...some good links, please

The information that I have didn't help me too much...to find some...