<p>I know there is some interest in this topic on our forum. It seems that parents may have more to do with this issue than parenting (or vaccines!): [Further</a> Evidence For Genetic Contribution To Autism](<a href=“http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080715165523.htm]Further”>Further Evidence For Genetic Contribution To Autism | ScienceDaily)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not surprised. Every parent I know with an autistic kid has at least one parent who is a bit quirky.</p>
<p>Some think that genetics may play a role in predisposing a person to environmental injury. Is this a genetic cause, or an environmental one?</p>
<p>We have a few friends with autistic children and I know that this (why their kid got autism) is always a touchy subject for them (we’re on good terms and so can have deep discussions about it). As a scientist, I can objectively look at the available evidence and form my own, defensible, conclusions.</p>
<p>Our friends absolutely insist that their child’s autism was caused by vaccines. I’ve tried to have sensible conversations with them about how despite many studies, the available evidence just doesn’t support that conclusion, but what we do know for sure is that not getting vaccines really does have seriously bad consequences. </p>
<p>I’ve also put simple facts to them like how the vaccine ingredient they specifically blame for causing their child’s autism has been removed yet kids still get autism at the same rate… such a presentation of basic facts is usually counteracted with frustrated comments like “I know my kid and I know what caused it.”</p>
<p>Putting myself in their shoes, I can see why psychologically they would want to blame some external object for their child’s condition as opposed to accepting the much more likely reality that their child just inherited some bad genes. </p>
<p>As a scientist, I can accept that certain, otherwise normal, environmental conditions can further instigate the conditions of an autistic child, but as for the actual cause of the underlying condition it seems quite clear that it’s based in genetics. </p>
<p>If autistic symptoms could be caused purely by environmental factors alone then we would see older healthy individuals developing autism later in life… something that doesn’t happen.</p>
<p>There was also an article in Science last week about new genetic regions linked to autism – [here](<a href="http://www.healthnews.com/family-health/child-health/new-genetic-clues-autism-1401.html]here[/url]'s">http://www.healthnews.com/family-health/child-health/new-genetic-clues-autism-1401.html)'s</a> an summary of that article.</p>
<p>I know of a family that has 3 autistic children. This would seem to support the genetic theory.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s still genetic. If one has a deadly food allergy to some common food then the issue is with their own body and not with the ‘environmental factors’ they are exposed to (eg peanuts). There is nothing inherently bad with the peanuts, it’s just that they own immune system is defective in regards to peanuts. </p>
<p>Equally, some have suggested that they blame vaccines for autism because the children that got autism were overly sensitive to such environmental factors. However, again, even if this was true, this is an issue with the individual and not vaccines. If their system is hypersensitive to an immune response to a foreign virus in their body (eg the dead virus in a vaccine) then they would have similar problems when coming down with any virus that puts your immune system through a big workout (eg all the different nasty bugs that kids get over the years as a natural part of building up ones immune system).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it can be argued both ways. For example, if obesity (or diabetes, hypertension, etc.) runs in families, it can sometimes be prevented by careful dieting and exercise. So, the predisposition is there, but the actual manifestation of the problem can be controlled by managing the environment.</p>
<p>How does one explain the increase in autism if it is caused by genetics? I think that there is a genetic link, but there has to be something different in the environment from 50-100 years ago. Also, yes, medical professionals are better at diagnosing autism today, but there is still an increase that is not explained. Perhaps more people with Asperger’s Syndrome slipped through the cracks and were only labeled odd, or quirky, but someone with full blown autism could not be missed, IMO, unless they were hidden from the medical community.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It depends on what the condition is. In the case of obesity, there is plenty of evidence to show that a controlling of environmental factors (eg exercise and diet) can trump, or at least partially offset, the effects of genetics. Obesity can be caused by purely environmental factors. A healthy individual can turn fat if they stop exercising and eat BigMacs at McDonald’s every day. </p>
<p>However, there isn’t any evidence for that in the case of autism. If it was purely environmental and not genetic then there would be a lot of cases where otherwise totally normal children were presented with a change of environmental factors and suddenly then developed autism at a later age. That doesn’t happen. </p>
<p>Many parents insist that their child developed autism around the age when they were vaccinated. The most logical explanation of that is that the child always had autism from birth but that one really only notices a difference in behavior between ‘normal’ and autistic children at about the age when they start getting lots of shots since that’s when they start noticing that their child isn’t developing skills like some other children.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Prior to quite recently, these conditions simply weren’t taken seriously. People who weren’t ‘normal’ were just written off to mental hospitals or thought to just be a bit ‘slow.’ Society and the medical community have only recently started really looking at these issues and what causes them. </p>
<p>There simply isn’t enough data to actually say that the rate of autism is ‘increasing’ as opposed to simply the rate of diagnosis is increasing. Given the societal factors at work, an increase in diagnosis seems the most likely explanation by far.</p>
<p>At least they are no longer blaming autism on emotionally distant mothering as was done in the bad old days.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Predisposition” presumes a combined effect.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not really, if the environmental portion of the input is ‘normal’ environmental input. </p>
<p>It’s all really just semantics anyway. If someone has a condition that prevents them from living in a normal everyday environment without experiencing adverse effects then it’s their condition that’s the problem, not the environment.</p>
<p>If the ‘normal’ environment has been changing over the years (i.e., we are now exposed to higher levels of various substances than in the past), and the genetic predisposition to autism has remained the same, then the changing environment could be increasingly triggering autism. Is there evidence of this?</p>
<p>there are genetic predisposition to other things- like alcoholism-but behavior and environment makes a difference as well.
It is interesting that brain injury- has similar symptoms to genetic disorders-
Id like to see if the brain response is similar.</p>
<p>Our daughter was selected to be in a study for autism- however- the requirements of the study- that we all give blood and have DNA mapped- that she have several MRIs- at a time when she would not let me brush her teeth or her hair let alone wash her clothes- made me think, that was a stress that I could easily do without- despite the potential of the study.</p>
<p>But just as some people develop severe allergies- where others do not, I think that it is reasonable to assume that some people have a neurological response to environmental toxins. ( I was exposed to heavy metals while pg)</p>
<p>When studies are not conclusive- it does not mean there is no evidence.</p>
<p>With my own daughter- she does not have full blown autism or even aspergers-, but other symptoms that overlap and they occurred from birth.</p>
<p>However- I believe that there is a huge problem with reluctance to diagnose in the medical community. Despite huge issues impacting her development and behavior- drs insisted that she was not autistic because she looked at you when you talked , yet they could not explain other symptoms.
Because of the lack of diagnosis, that impacted any services that she might have been eligible for- and as a result, we had to pay for anything ourselves- which limited any therapy. Even when a school district OT did agree that she had numerous symptoms that could benefit from therapy, they were not at the level where it would be offered by the district.</p>
<p>[Investigating</a> the Environmental Origins of Autism: Scientific American](<a href=“http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=investigating-environmental-origins-of-autism]Investigating”>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=investigating-environmental-origins-of-autism)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Better information and communication is needed definitely.
[Possible</a> Mercury, Autism Connection Found in Study - Los Angeles Times](<a href=“http://articles.latimes.com/2005/mar/17/science/sci-autism17]Possible”>Possible Mercury, Autism Connection Found in Study)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not really. </p>
<p>Of course if one is exposed to an abnormal condition (eg eating a lot of lead paint) then there can be effects… but these pie-in-the-sky ideas that we’re now being bombarded with stuff but that we used to be all clean really doesn’t have much basis in scientific fact. In fact, it’s probably the opposite. Compared to our ancestors, we live in very clean environments and are exposed to much less in regards to nasty chemicals and germs. Although there can be localized issues, on the whole the air we breath is cleaner, the water we drink is safer and the environment we face each day is cleaner that what most previous generations faced.</p>
<p>Now that the whole ‘thimerosal causes autisim’ (the previous target of the vaccines cause autism movement) myth has been thoroughly debunked they now focus their arguments on the vaccines themselves saying that they cause the immune system to overreact and attack the brain. However, again if that was actually happening, there’s no evidence of this, then the child would equally have the same issue when they got sick (as every kid does). The arguments against vaccines simply don’t hold up to scrutiny.</p>
<p>The above study about mercury makes for interesting headlines, but the actual stats they’re citing aren’t really statistically significant. When they’re looking at changes of just a percent or two then that’s not a big enough difference to really conclude much of anything… let alone consider that even if the change was significant there are many other factors that could come into play. Obviously we need to reduce mercury emissions, but this study seems like just another shot in the dark at trying to find someone or something to blame for autism, other than the obvious genetic conclusion.</p>
<p>I have two 1st cousins (who are also 1st cousins to each other) who each have an autistic child (one is a boy, one is a girl … my male cousin had the girl, my female cousin had the boy). None of the parents involved is any quirkier than most folks I know. Our family is of the opinion that “stuff happens.” We suspect that there is some type of toxin link that is triggered in those with a predisposition. They have been involved in some studies of genetic links, in an effort to help solve the autism puzzle.</p>
<p>
Okay, but there may be a triggering difference between substances with which we evolved, and substances that are new to us. E.g., how do ambient levels of estrogens (or anything else “new”) correlate to autism incidence? I assume this has been studied by now, and correlation is not causation, but may justify study.</p>