Yeh, early intervention is most successful when the delay is caught before age 5.
I don’t think the rise in autism rates can be fully explained by new diagostics, it went from 1:10,000 to 1:80. Some may have been miss diagnosed but that is too great of a disparity to be explained away so simply.
These are scientists who put these findings forth. You are not doing your reading are you?
See the links (name removed by moderator) listed.
I suppose someone who was a conspiracy theorist could say that they have all been bought off by the drug companies, but other than making the claim, one actually needs to come up with some proof.
Either that, or they are so calloused that they don’t care how many kids have the problem. And I don’t buy that either.
According to what I have read, in the 70’s and 80’s, the rate was about 1 in 2000.(not 10,000) and the rate now is about 1 in 150 for 8 year olds; however, that rate includes autism, Asperger’s syndrome and pervasive developmental disorder, so it is lumping two other issues together with autism.
And in fact there is a serious debate going on as to whether or not there actually has been an increase, and if so, how large. Part of the issue could be under reporting in the past; and there is at least one research in England, over two 3 year periods showed no significant increase (American Journal of Psychiatry, 2005); studies in the US seem to differ with that.
Some of the increase may be due to labeling (10 years ago, a child with autism might be labeled mentally retarded). There are at least 60 different disorders associated with autism; genetic, metabolic and neurological. Most scientists are agreeing that a combination of genetics and environmental factors may be sourcing the problem.
In genetics, if one identical twin has it, there is a 75% chance the other will too; if the twins are fraternal, the chance is 3% - which doesn’t lend itself to a simple “magic bullet” of vaccinations.
Additionally, if a family has one child with autism, there is an 8% chance another will have it. Add to that that people are having children later (meaning their first one), and there appears to be a link there too.
Environmental issues, such as the use of pesticides in farming appear to increase with the increase in the number of pounds/acre used. PCBs, previously used in electrical equipment, florescent lights and other products are suspect; and they linger a long time in the environment. They are known developmental neurotoxins. And while organic form of mercury is also toxic to the brain, there is no evidence that children with autism have raised levels of it, and the Institute of Medicine has ruled out vaccines as causal.
Researchers at UC Davis took samples of mothers of children with autism, mothers with children with other non-autistic developmental delays, and mothers with children with no symptoms, and ran tests on the mothers’ immune system antibodies, and tested on brain tissue samples from fetuses; the antibodies were more likely to react with the brain tissue from the mothers whose children had autism than those who did not, and those with autism showed a unique patter to the reactions.
The antibodies were then injected into animals; and the animals displayed abnormal behavior when injected with samples from the autism group, and other animals injected with the non autism group did not.
All of the studies point towards a combination of issues, but not to one specific one.
The DPT is given before age 1 and that usually has the fetal cell line.
What are you thinking of?
. jk of course. I’m not complaining really. I haven’t been able to find much commentary on this subject so i was glad to read the article. Even if it was subpar.
I thought maybe there would be more general interest and disgust. I’m surprised at how many people would defend the use of fetal (BS, let’s call it what it is) dead babies in their vaccines. And I am amazed by the verve with which they defend the position.