Addiction in Society

Two immediate thoughts:

The 'desperation'? We're all so intent on having perfect kids now, everybody has to be 'just right', there is so little tolerance of diversity and difference. Imagine being the hapless child of a pair of perfection-desperate parents! As a relatively timid and highly sensitive child, wouldn't YOU want to withdraw more and more from such increasingly desperate people?

Second, I have the fortune to have a very well documented family through several centuries. As I look back over reports and anecdotes, it's as clear as the nose on my face that many of these folks were at least Aspies. Scores of them - all 'undiagnosed' and uncounted. Yet they were all successful and functional...probably because no one labelled them as 'diseased' and 'impaired': their parents and families encouraged their strengths and supported their weaknesses. A nephew of mine is a case in point: now he's a millionaire at a young age because his parents supported him and his Aspie genius and simply didn't focus on the difficulties he often presented. In other words, they loved him.

How abysmal and crushing to be the different child of a family that essentially doesn't accept and love who you are....

Like many other disorders in de novo form, older fathers are causing autism in some of their offspring. Schizophrenia and bipolar are also created by new sperm mutations from copy error or from epigenetic changes in the sperm.

Found a potential problem with his reasoning:

"1. Autism isn't really exploding. Can the rise in the prevalence of autism from 1 in 10,000 infants to 1 in 150 in a few decades really be due simply to our greater awareness of and readiness to diagnose the disease? Boy, that's as hard to swallow as the thimerosal linkage. Maybe greater sensitivity to - and a broadening of the definition and criteria for - autism account for some of the increase since 1992, but all of the 1500% increase? Autism often causes a major - sometimes near-total - failure at functioning (as it did with Noah Greenfeld). Did we really miss all of these until recently? Not likely."

Well, don't we call it "autism spectrim disorder" now? Do the numbers that he cites count only the most severe cases of autism, or anything falling under the "autism specrtum" ? Also, in the past, many severely autistic people were misdiagnosed as mentally retarded, or as having some other disorder.

So, can someone help out a bit and get me some stats on autism? If I am right, then it could mean that the genetic cause is more plausible than he cites.

In point one you suggest its as hard to swallow as the vaccine ideas. It really isn;t. You have only covered a few of the issues suggesting why there isn;t really an autism epidemic.

Greater awareness and likelihood of diagnosis are both parts of the puzzle. Other parts are diagnostic substitution. People who were once diagnosed with thigns like mental retardation and schizophrenia are now being diagnosed with ASD. There are numerous studies supporting this.

You seriously underplay the effect the altering of ASD criteria had in the 90's. W went from a very small select criteria to a huge wide set of criteria that now includes classical autism, PDD-NOS and Aspergers Syndrome.

Scientists are looking in all of the wrong places for what is causing autism, which is unquestionably on the rise. While some of the latest studies are designed to examine everything under the kitchen sink -- then test the water coming out of the tap -- the damage to the fetus may well be done before a pregnant woman hops off her ob-gyn's ultrasound table.

There is plenty of scientific evidence that 1) ultrasound has several serious bioeffects, such as heating tissue; 2) FDA approved ultrasound machines and ultrasound settings are not related to safety; and 3) the FDA mandated safety indicators are either misunderstood or ignored by most ultrasound operators -- 78 percent or more -- ending any hope of reliably safe practices.

Does prenatal ultrasound harm all babies? Obviously not. But it is fair to say that, given the wide variations in training (none is currently required), the amount of acoustic output during a scan (the higher the definition, the higher the risk) and even the role that genetic weaknesses may play, the possibility that prenatal ultrasound could, in some circumstances, harm babies is very real.

Here's another fact that will surprise most people: There is no evidence that prenatal ultrasound improves the outcome for mother or child, even when major birth defects are discovered, making the whole "risk-vs.-benefit" argument unsupported.

If I were pregnant today, I would refuse all prenatal ultrasound scans. If my doctor insisted, I would change doctors.

Readers who want to know more can read my article at midwiferytoday.com

Your column was like a breath of fresh air. It makes clear that many syndromes (despite their celebrity advocates and enormously profitable fund drives) are nothing more than popular fiction. However, I doubt you're going to create greater awareness or change many minds. People seem to need fatuous clinical labels as much as they need religion.

It is a persistent annoyance on the internet to see autism disorders dismissed as slightly different personalities attributable entirely to genetic causes. For many people with autistic disorder who are severely autistic like my 13 year old son. Those with serious intellectual, communication and behavior deficits of the kind that result in serious self injury, death and lives spent in institutional care of one degree or another are not just brilliant "Aspies" whose parents could be more understanding.

For many years as argued by Teresa Binstock in 1999 the medical research authorities discouraged research of environmental causes of autism. They pushed the "its gotta be genetic" paradigm which, autism if researchers did not follow it, would restrict their ability to obtain funds for their research. The IOM Report on autism and vacccine safety after noting the absence of biological evidence of any connection expressly discouraged such research ... for public policy reasons.

Today that 100% genetic paradigm is giving way amongst credible professional, medical and research authorities to the view that, notwithstanding the huge part played by genetics, environmental factors, or triggers, also play a role in causing the various autism spectrum disorders. Not all cases where an identical twin has an autism disorder result in the other identical twin also having the disorder. The IACC, the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee has recognized the need for more research into environmental factors in autism with its strategic plan for autism research.

Even the allegedly disproven vaccine link to autism is anything but disproven. The epidemiological studies have been critiqued by such persons as Dr. Bernadine Healy who noted the absence of lab and clinical research and in particular the failure of epidemiological studies to address vulnerable population subsets. Dr. Julie Gerberding and Dr. Duane Alexandre amongst many others have cited the need to do more research especially research on non-vaccinated groups.

My son's severe autism is not explained by the family history of quirky personalities of other persons. Such persons are free to attribute their child's, or their, Aspergers or high functioning autism to the family tree. I prefer to keep an open mind and let the research be done. Kev and other ideologues can make all the pronouncements they want. Concerned parents will keep asking questions despite such empty rhetoric.

If autism is truly increasing, and not just down to increased diagnosis of people who would have been missed in previous generations, what about viruses or other infections, or things that affect myelin? Is that possible?

Mine is a cultural analysis of a large-sale, mysterious epidemic and its conflictful social consequences for the United States. The eight comments so far posted reinforce, I think, my analysis without any of them commenting directly on it. These eight comments fall into the following three categories:

1. New environmental explanations (viruses, 33+ year old fathers, ultrasound). Their variety and the lack of compelling evidence for any of these - as well as the logical unlikelihood of such an alarming increase being due to a single as-yet unknown environmental cause - is I think consistent with my view of our panicked irrationality in this area.

2. Fictitious epidemic. Four responses maintain that there is no epidemic (one compliments me for pointing out autism isn't real - perhaps because of my dubiousness about the thimerosal link). One of these comments points to the broadening boundaries for the malady which I say cannot possibly account for the 1500% increase in the diagnosis in less than two decades. While changed criteria may have contributed to some of the initial leaps in autism rates, they certainly cannot account for the continuing growth in its incidence.

3. The fight among genetic, environmental, and epistemological explanations. Comment 7 is fascinating. It takes issue with the first comment's undercutting the seriousness of autism (which I also discount), then argues against familial causes, then argues for a significant genetic component - combined with unknown environmental triggers - which simply do not work to explain the continuing growth of the condition.

These comments reinforce my analysis of the social consequences of this frightening and unknown - perhaps unknowable - modern condition.

Do you really think it may be unknowable? If it is down to abnormal brain function, for whatever reason, any of the reasons listed, a combination, or something else, surely the more knowledge we have about the brain in general, the more we will understand what is happening differently in autism? It may not be knowable any time soon, but I would think in 30, 50 years time we will know a great deal more than we do now.

We know so much more about other neurological conditions today than we did 50 years ago, so why not autism?

Has there been enough time for enough diagnosed autistic children to grow and reproduce in a way that could be studied for genetic trends? For those who are social enough to form a sexual relationship, it would be interesting to see if there is a significant increased liklihood of producing a child who also has autism. It would sure give credability to the genetic theory, even though we don't yet understand it in first generation autism patients.

I am surprised at the cavalier way Dr. Peele dismissed the possibility that prenatal ultrasound is causing autism.

A 2006 Yale study found that pregnant mice exposed to prenatal ultrasound produced offspring with disruptions in neuronal migration consistent with those found in autopsied autistics. Is this not a clue?

Studies in the '70s found that ultrasound could damage or destroy mitochondria, which -- as anyone familiar with the Hannah Poling case would know -- is a clue.

Early studies also found that children who had been exposed to prenatal ultrasound had a higher incidence of delayed speech or left-handedness -- both considered to be markers for neurological problems -- possibly another clue?

What is to be gained by dismissing the possibility that prenatal ultrasound is causing autism without appropriate studies, which have been lacking for decades?

The dilemma of autism, and what a dilemma indeed! This is one of modern day's most perplexing disorders and I think it's going to remain that way for quite some time. As a researcher of autism myself and alternative therapies, I find that I become more and more perplexed by its features and how unpredictable they are. Cases vary so much that it's almost impossible to develop a complete picture of the disorder.

Why we can't solve autism may include a variety of reasons. Firstly, we are always seeking quick answers as a scientific society. We seek to KNOW everything, and perhaps that which is not knowable. We may not ever find out what's causing autism, but we may be able to find treatments that can help children become independent, or gain some independence, and help parents cope with their child's disability.

Secondly, grassroots movements have had a hand in creating techniques that may prolong or complicate further understanding of autism. For example, the augmentative technique known as facilitated communication (used with children who have autism, usually the nonverbal type) was created by a teacher some decades ago and was said to have helped autistic children develop and communicate normally. Scientific proof for this has not been found, but a plethora of parents, teachers, and advocates still support it. When we have such techniques claiming success with children who have autism whom we know are unable to function as a result of deficits in certain brain regions, it further complicates the already complicated puzzle/picture of the physiology of autism (especially for parents and laymen), causing confusion and a host of new theories.

Thirdly, the virus and vaccination argument has currently been disregarded by science and the law. We can sort of put to rest the idea that vaccines and viruses cause autism. Perhaps there is a correlation or relationship between viruses/certain vaccines and autism, but there is certainly no causality here. There's a cliche for statisticians: "correlation doesn't imply causality." In other words, just because something appears to be related to something else, doesn't mean that that thing is causing it.

Forth, teratogens or environmental agents affecting the fetus/embryonic development may cause autism, but research has failed to find support for this. Institutions such as John Hopkins University is further researching this possibility. There may indeed be a big possibility that autism may be caused or exacerbated by certain teratogens. Unfortunately we lack substantiating data for this theory as well.

Lastly, there aren't enough longitudinal studies (studies researching something over the course of development) being conducted to help researchers determine the basis of autism and whether there is a environmental component to the development of autism.

Essentially as you can see, there are so many theories yet so little answers. There are good ideas, yet very few scientific leads. There are also many avenues we can take in further studying autism, but there is either not enough researchers willing to do the research, funds are lacking, public interest, or we've hit a rock and we're completely lost at this point and need to turn around and go back.
We could also simply be looking for answers in all the wrong places. There are still disorders that science cannot explain such as the development of schizophrenia, narcissism, borderline personality disorder, psychopathic disorders (i.e., antisocial personality disorder); and some medical conditions such as Parkinson's disease and Tourett syndrome. The inability to solve autism is nothing new, in fact, it is something that surrounds much of science. Although science has made impressive break-through's, it may not be able to answer all the questions we seek.

Dr.T

Autism, Dyslexia, Attention Deficit Disorder are all potential pitfalls when a child doesn't have proper child development. I think all families should be wary of this.

I recently attended a DAN conference on the biomedical apporach to autism which relates environmental toxins and known biochemical abnormalities common in Autistic children to successsful treatment. There is a lot of misinformation about Autism, and I had to wonder why the people at the conference were so passionate about their approach. The only reason I can think of is that its scientifically based and it works- and its not a placebo effect. Looking at the often quoted studies, it is difficult to believe that it works, but if you look for the right studies supporting this approach then you might find that there are reasonable explanations. Talk to the parents of a recovered autistic child and you will be convinced that there is something there. Don't denounce it- look at www.autism.com for the other side of the story. I was once skeptical but now am as passionate as everyone else about this

Autistic kids have one if not both parents with a mental illness. Jim Carrey and his wife are ostensibly bipolar. These so called miracle cures are touted by parents with serious mental problems. These anomalies are of the brain as is my condition,ADD. Autism is not a unique mental illness. Great work-Sincerely,David

David...interesting, just interesting.

I'm not too sure you are correct, although many have thought as you do. For example, Leo Kanner (1940) observed parents of children with autism and stated the peculiarities of the parents who were well educated, yet cold and distant. The children were almost completely representative of their parents distant-like behavior. The name "refrigerator mother" was the result of his observations.

While there may be some children with autism who have cold, distant, and unloving parents, I'm not sure all do and research shows that there is no correlation. The idea of a genetic predisposition is not absurd, however. Concordance rates of monozygotic (identical) twins and dizygotic (fraternal) twins show that if one identical twin had an ASD (autism spectrum disorder), the chances of the other identical twin having an ASD increased. This was not true for the fraternal twins or other siblings (Frith, 2003).

Nonetheless, your ideas are not absurd, many have thought like you. I wouldn't be so sure that this is the truth, however. But I also don't think it's wise to disregard the fact that perhaps there is a genetic predisposition from the parents to the child.

I must add also...Jim Carey is not the biological father of his girlfriend's son. So anything wrong with Jim would not affect his adopted son.

Dr.T

Yes I actually did know that wasn't his son, I only meant it as an observation concerning how the mentally ill often marry someone with it as well.Of course he sides with her in their shared delusion. Thank you for the informative response I enjoyed it very much. Sincerely,David

I agree with you 100% that the Autism research commmunity should be focusing more on services that help individuals with Autism rather than on "cures." This disorder is obviously much to complicated to be cured by a simple approach. For every individual that is cured, all do respect Stevie, there are countless others for whom interventions make no real impact on behavior.

Additionally, all of these kids with Autism are growing up into a world that provides limited services for them as adults. Even the statistics you cited in your article state the numbers of individuals with Autism as being from 3 to 22 years old. Is the research community even aware of the number of adult individuals on the spectrum?

I also agree that finding a cure is not the approach we need to be taking. As a teacher for the leading school for autistic children in New England, I have seen what the ASD encompasses. I have also seen autistic children make huge strides that no one thought possible. The parents of these children can attest to the treatments of Applied Behavior Analysis. I'm sure there are more approach's out there as well. Autism may never be cured so the focus should be on how to help these individuals.

If lead, yes lead the metal PB was proven to be an effective vaccine preservative would you use it ?

If you would not use lead why would you use as a preservative thio\merosal a compound many times more toxic than lead.

Please answer that question first.

About curing autism, please stop using the word "autistic" to describe kids that have been affected by injecting this crap in their system sistematically

Using the misnomer autistic confuses the real issue, lawyers and judges regulary play this word game:

Does thiomerasol in vaccines cause autism ?

No, it does not !

They are right, thimerasol does not cause autism, this is so stupid is like asking can thimerasol cause children to be Mexicans.

One bastard asking another bastard should say:

Does thiomerasol in vaccines cause neurological damage in children when injected at their most vulnerable stage that can manifest in similar traits and symptoms similar to autism due to mercury poisoning ?

The answer would be yes.

Medical community stop playing stupid, shame on you for perpetuating this "game' take responsibility.

Numbers this high on children world wide could only be seen as a mutation that would take at least a hundreds of years (yes of course faster if harmful substances were introduced , thimersal anyone)

Just a couple of comments : My son is a happy and affectionate Autistic(you read that all the time) What a freaking OXYMORON

You have a kid that his or hers neurological system has been injured but despite of their incapacities they as humans are able to feel,desire and provide love.

The second comment is about "autism experts" they are all over the place, ask them what causes "autism" ? They do not know !

Aks them how to treat it ? They do not know !

Ask them how to prevent it ? They do not know!

So what in the hell they are experts or speciallist on.

Everyone, stop playing games and start doing something about it, autism researchers at CAN,autism speak, etc. Light a freaking fire under your desk and get something or get yourself disqualified, you been geeting an easy meal and for at least fifteen years in some of these organizations you have not come up with anything other than getting a paycheck.

Please do not tell me you just compared us on the Spectrum to the Black Death!!

Even if not meaning anything by it, this will be offensive to many of us, even if read in the wrong context. You need to watch how you word things. Many of us are quite tired of being seen as an epidemic, something that is a plague on society.

Seriously folks, how would you feel if someone made a list of your problems, slapped a label on them, and then called your kind an epidemic, as though you are a plague on society? Doesn't feel nice does it?

You have to remember that there is a very large spectrum, and autism effects all of us in very different ways. It is not right to dismiss some of us who have been a bit more sucessful as those with quirky habits but nothing wrong. That is inaccurate! Many of us deal with issues that can be quite dilibiltating at times. Such as sensory issues. I for one can be sent into total meltdown simply by being around to much of the color yellow!

But to go to the other extreme is also not good. Each case needs to be looked at individually. Nothing should be dismissed and also nothing should be blown out of proportion.

Autism is a part of who I am. It is why I think the way I do, act as I do, see the world the way I do. I want to be accepted as who I am as a whole person, not just in part and have the other part be seen as defective. I will work on my weaknesses, with doctors and therapists. But stop seeing me as a puzzle!!

I am not a puzzle to be solved. I am a person! The sooner that is recongnized, the sooner we will be able to work together to find what works best to help my weaknesses instead of disecting me or discounting me.

I am not a part of the New Black Death, here to take the children! I also am not someone who is just quirky with social issues who was slapped with a label to feel special.

The correct answer is 4: child-rearing style.

Autism is an accidental product of parenting. It may not be a popular idea but it is the only way to explain such diverse problem behavior and skill deficits.

The geneticists will be looking for the "autism genes" for an eternity, the lunatics will be blaming thimerosal, and everyone else will be blaming vague "environmental factors". If we all just accepted the obvious answer we could really do a lot to help these kids.

You might not blame a hiker for getting mauled by a bear in the woods. But he /was/ in the woods. There are accidental dangers in parenting, autism is one of those.