Most extraordinary- When even the scientists at the CDC now agree with us that autism must consist of a genetic factor and an environmental factor, all the big bucks go to studying the genetic factor. Elementary logic could tell you that finding and removing the environmental factor would be easier and could conceivably end autism altogether.
Paul Jaep has made one of the best points here today, by the way. A malady such as autism would never expand rapidly. It would vanish from the gene pool or become reduced to about one in 50 or a 100 thousand (IF it ever existed on a gene to begin with) Why aren't these so called scientists ashamed to show their ignorance of basic biology and genetics?
To some of those posting here- This is precisely why some of us do not spend a great deal of our time reading those "well-designed studies" that show no link between autism and vaccines. Just take a look at poor Dr. Verstraeten. He thought that he had done a study which showed that there should be further study of the question of a link to vaccines, but the CDC decided on his behalf that his study had shown clearly that there was no link. I wonder what he is thinking today, seeing that junk scientist Thorsen get 2 million dollars and all he got was a new job at Merck

I saw several of the comments directed towards me as bordering on attacks, because of the language used in them. I've always tried to keep things polite and in a sort of formal tone, when I could have easily used far more passionate language. I don't blame you all for using passionate tones and such, it's to be expected, but I suppose I just took offence at some of the things that were directed at me. When I first posted here, I did see a lot of firm views, and I wrote that I hoped I wouldn't be 'attacked' for my own views because I was worried that I might be seen as disagreeing with some here, when I was only trying to put some other ideas out there. I largely do agree with a lot of what is said here, but I think other factors are important too, and I didn't see the other factors as getting much airtime.

I disagree that my last post seemed too different from my first few. I have never denied there is a huge increase in autism, nor have I ever implied that there is no epidemic rise, rather better diagnostic tools. It is true I believe diagnostic tools are better nowadays, but I do also believe there is a huge rise in autism levels. I never once said, nor do I feel I implied there wasn't a huge rise occuring.

I would not give a numerical figure on what I classify as a 'huge contributor', and I don't think it's fair for others to assume one either. Nobody can really say how much is 'huge'. It's a highly ambiguous term. Perhaps I used it wrongly. I do think there are significantly improved diagnostic tools today than there were in the past, and this has had an impact on the rates of people being diagnosed. I'm not saying it's the sole reason why autism rates are increasing, not at all. And I don't want that to be assumed. I know very well that it's not merely down to better diagnostic tools. I know that rates of autism are increasing, and I never said, nor do I feel I implied, that this wasn't the case.

I believe I can tell the difference between being attacked and being challenged. I'm also involved in politics, and there is a very fine line there! Also, I have been discussing autism with people my entire life, and I've battled with people who say those with autism cannot do anything at all, something I'm sure those here do not agree with. That's why I've always tried to use polite language and such when I've posted here, because I wouldn't like for someone to think I am being rude or attacking them. Challenging is fine, but when it's framed in hostile language, I think it starts to teeter on the border of an attack. I can handle being challenged, but I don't think attacks are appreciated by anyone here.

Also, I never said that LFA kids were being overlooked at the rate of 1 in 66 50 years ago. Never at all. I just said that I think teachers in the past would not have always known what these kids had. I did not mean for my posts to appear as if I had only had experience with HFA kids. I've worked and lived with children all over the spectrum, HFA, yes, but also a lot of non-verbal and highly self-injurious kids. One child I worked with had severe autism as well as Down's syndrome. He was a real challenge, absolutely, but he was gorgeous as well. So please do not think I am ignorant to what those with children with severe autism face on a daily basis, I have experienced this too. And I know it's incredibly tough, and I truly admire each of you.

Karen H, your last post sounds different from your first few. We are not misreading you. You said, "I think a huge contributor to the 'epidemic rise' in diagnoses of ASD over recent years is down to people being able to better recognise the signs." Huge contributor doesn't mean 5% or 24% but implies that there is not really an epidemic rise as most of the increase in diagnoses is due to better diagnosis. Althought you acknowledged there may be some increase, most of your posts describe why you believe autism was simply overlooked in the past. Our kids could not have been overlooked. But thanks for clarifying that you believe "There can be no denying there is a huge increase in rates of autism worldwide in recent years." That did not come through in your prior comments at all.

If we seem ready to attack (and really, I try just to argue rather than attack) keep in mind that it's pretty darn frustrating to be told over and over that there isn't really an increase in autism, and that oft repeated line forms a context in which your comments are received.

Good grief. I am being read rather wrongly, I feel. And I don't appreciate people telling me what experiences of views I have. For one thing, I don't only have experience with those with Asperger's or high functioning autism, JessicaF. I don't sit here and tell you what forms of autism those you encounter have, so don't tell me who I deal with. I have worked and lived with children who are non-verbal, who injure themselves out of frustration, who do not eat, who bang their heads, smear faeces, have uncontrollable and frightening tantrums, who have injured me myself in fits of rage and frustration etc etc...so please don't tell me that I have my head in the sand when it comes to those with severe autism. Please do not incorrectly assume my experiences.
I never once said anything along the lines of doctors needing TIME magazine to help diagnose people on the spectrum. This greater awareness is coming from increased numbers of those being diagnosed with autism, and then research into discovering just why. It may well be vaccines playing a part. I never said it wasn't. And I never said there wasn't an epidemic going on. Again, JessicaF, you are assuming what I say. And you are assuming rudely, unfairly, and incorrectly. There can be no denying there is a huge increase in rates of autism worldwide in recent years. I never once said there was not a huge increase. It seems I am being attacked for what I am not saying, which is rather uncalled for. More diagnoses are calling for more parents and professionals to seek answers for exactly why the numbers are rising as they are, and it's only fair for these answers to be sought. I am not criticising any of you in any way whatsoever. We don't know precisely what is causing this increase, we all have our own ideas, and vaccines are definitely one idea. And fair enough too. So more answers are trying to be ascertained via more research, which are leading to more articles being published about autism, about what is showing to account for this increase, what treatments are working, which are not, etc etc...and this leads to more awareness, which is leading to more parents being able to identify and recognise their childs bahaviour as potentially autistic, which is leading them to get a diagnosis, then to seek answers...it's a circular system.
I think all of you are doing an amazing job here. You obviously care about your children, as I do about my sister and all the children I have worked with. I see the frustration and the desperate search for answers when I work with families of children with autism, and I am so encouraged that you are all so passionate about helping your kids. All of your children are so incredibly lucky to have you as parents. I hope that together we can try to make life better for those in our lives with autism. Kia kaha - stay strong.

Okay Karen, let's try this a different way.

Autism is this big, shrieking spectrum. The children you describe who would have been overlooked as just odd, quirky, different, blah blah... are NOT the children I see today being diagnosed with autism.

You are describing super high-functioning children who could skate past the public school system and just be "weird" to everyone. That must be a lovely world. Sometimes, just sometimes, I feel like people who only have experience with HFA or Asperger's don't have a clue what the other end of the specrtum looks like.

My son's autism is nothing like that, never has been. He was in a room with 10 other non-verbal kindergarten age children. These kids would absolutely not have been overlooked by anyone 10, 20, 50 years ago, whatever. Who "overlooks" a non-verbal 6 year old? Who overlooks a feces-smearing 12 year old? Who overlooks a 4 year old that's had constipation every day since birth? Who overlooks a 2 year old pounding their ears in and beating their head on the wall?

You present a chicken/egg scenario. Did we all magically become so "aware" of autism because of the media, and doctors began diagnosing the shit out of children ... OR, did autism explode in front of our faces, and the media simply reports what American children look like today? You mean to tell me US doctors need TIME magazine to help them diagnose children correctly?

I don't buy a single friggin ounce of any of this. Besides, Karen, what's the point? Is there, or is there not an epidemic? My guess is you don't think so, we are all just so "aware" these days. That's cool, that's your opinion, like I have mine. No amount of your "extensive research" is going to change that. As you say, you are "qualified" to say what you are saying. As the parent of a vaccine-injured child, I am qualified to have my opinion too. Sorry it doesn't gel with yours.

Esa,

I would like to address an additional example for an epigenetic effect of vaccination resulting in autism. We know from the Hannah Poling case that DHHS medical officials conceded that her regression due to mitochondrial dysfunction was the result of immune stimulation that exceeded metabolic reserve.

Vaccine developers use aluminum compounds as adjuvants specifically because they upregulate the immune response, with their focus on increasing immunoglobulin production. But they know they're not just upregulating immunoglobulin production, and until we investigate what they have unleashed when they unnaturally provoke increased translation of immune system proteins no one can make the claim that vaccines can't cause autism.

You note the genetic heritability of schizophrenia. Research delving into the mechanisms involved in gestational influenza viral infection and increased rates of schizophrenia in the offspring reveals that it is the mother's immune response to that viral infection, not the virus itself that is involved in producing the neurological disease that manifests as behavioral symptoms in the offspring. Knowing this, why are we vaccinating pregnant women?

PS We have don't have any known family/ancestors with autism or schizophrenia. My daughter is the first to exhibit such.

Karen H, that is another "standard talking point" that we hear ad nauseum. And I'm not launching an "attack", but expressing aggravation at hearing this over and over again.

Epidemiologists at UC Davis did a large study where they looked at many factors and concluded that these other factors could only explain a minority of the increase in autism diagnosis. Improved diagnosis is one factor, but not a "huge contributor".

Diagnosis of mental retardation and mental illness has not fallen as would be expected if different diagnosis was a major factor.

School statistics show an alarming rise. See: http://www.fightingautism.org/idea/autism-prevalence-report.php

I was born over fifty years ago, and if any of my friends' siblings had either disappeared into institutions or grown up at home with autism I would have known.

Dr. Thomas Insel, Director of the NIMH, summed it up the personal experience of many professionals well when he said:

"My personal sense, just from my clinical experience... when I was in training, I never saw a child with autism. So I went through four years of training as a psychiatrist, including a rotation – a long one – through a year of child psychiatry, and never saw a case. I got interested in autism through work I was doing in basic science research, and I wanted to see children with autism. I couldn’t find them. This was in the mid-1980s, and I had to find a specialty clinic at Children’s Hospital in Washington, and I got to see my first case there. And now I wouldn’t have to go any further than the block where I live to see kids with autism today. So if that’s not a change, I don’t know what is. On a personal experience basis, I don’t think that’s unusual. Most people who I’ve trained with would say much the same thing."
See the link to Dr. Insel's comments (in which he also discusses autism statistical increases) at the bottom of the page here: http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/12/david-kirby-dr-insel-on-rising-asd-numbers-no-question-about-environmental-factors-.html

The children today with significant learning disabilities and/or full blown autism could not simply have been below the radar in prior decades. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and a person who is unable to talk, work, drive, or live independently (regardless of diagnosis or lack thereof) would need society's help, and would be obvious in school and as an adult, not falling below the radar due to lack of knowledge of autism.

You said, "And now, there are articles in every magazine and newspaper, there are university courses educating people in autism, there is so much more information and awareness emerging..." That is because now autism is so common. Formerly autism was quite rare.

Esa,

Regarding Jeannette, I questioned her understanding of epigenetics for the very reason that she doesn't see the obvious environmental influence introduced through vaccination. You believe she made a rather reasonable argument--where? I stand behind Twyla's and Tim Kasemodel's responses to Jeannette's comments. When countless parents have the same experience of their child starting a downward trajectory, within "days after" a vaccination and not "days before" a vaccination I'd like to emphasize, it is indeed rational to question any temporal environmental influence.

You wrote, "because you see epigenetics and immediately think vaccines which I don't entirely understand why." In the context of what happened to my daughter, yes, I do think vaccines. I also think depakote (histone deacetylace inhibitor) when I see epigenetics. Again, temporal environmental influence and my daughter's reaction to it.

You wrote, "Can you point me to a paper that discusses how vaccines alter epigenetic status? Or explain the mechanism yourself?" I'll try to be as succinct as possible in summarizing the argument for vaccines altering epigenetic status. First, Jill James, I believe, was the researcher that identified that mercury (thimerosal) interferes with methionine synthase activity which leads to undermethylation, so b12 doesn't get methylated and folate ends up getting trapped. Some of these kids, especially those with the MTHFR (methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase)mutation can get really messed up. DNA does not get methylated.

One can also introduce a live virus vaccine such as the MMR that can induce intestinal inflammation, specifically ileal inflammation, whereby B12 isn't absorbed resulting in severe deficiency of B12, again interferring with DNA methylation.

This is an oversimplification of one of the studied mechanisms whereby vaccines can epigenetically induce DNA translational dysfunction resulting in multi-system metabolic dysfunction leading to the (behavioral) diagnosis of autism.

PS No one is looking at retroviral epigenetic effects of the attenuated or recombinant (mutated) viral vaccines, or are they?

Anyone noticing that "we've got to stop wasting time and money studying vaccines and autism" is turning into one of the standard talking points?

And it makes, like most of those standard talking points, zero sense.

Yes, millions have been spent on bad studies designed to deny any connection between vaccine and autism. What does that have to do with all these sick kids, who have not been studied?

Per Dr. Martha Herbert, M.D. Ph.D.:

"It is often said that autism is the most highly genetic of the neurobehavioral disorders, and that there is little or no evidence of environmental factors. However, observations about environmental factors relevant to autism go back decades, though they have been obscured in recent years by the dominance of a genetic focus. The view of autism as genetically determined is supported by observations of high “concordance” (matching autism diagnoses between identical twins) and high recurrence (increased chance of subsequent children having some kind
of autism spectrum disorder after an autistic child is born into a family). In addition, a claim that autism is predominantly genetic rests on an assumption that our environment is stable and/or that we are not affected by environmental changes.

"When we examine the frequently cited figure of a 90 percent “concordance rate” among identical twins (meaning that if one twin is autistic, there is a 90 percent chance that the other one will also be autistic), we can see that it overstates the case. Among identical twins, there is a 90 percent chance that if one twin is fully autistic, the other will have some autistic features, but only a 60 percent chance that the second twin will be fully autistic. While some researchers tend to focus on the 60 percent to make a case for genetic predisposition, we need to explain the 40 percent as well. To explain this nonconcordance we need to think about not just genes, but also the environment. Moreover, we also need to explain recent reports of high concordance among dizygotic (fraternal) twins, which suggest environmental rather than genetic factors.

"We also know that the number of people diagnosed with autism has skyrocketed, both in the U.S. and in other countries. The current figures are running ten times higher than they were 15 or 20 years ago. The twin concordance data just discussed may not even apply to the new cases, since the studies were done before these increases were observed. Some say that the increases are merely due to better awareness and diagnosis of autism, or expanded diagnostic criteria. However, we would need solid proof of this claim in order to dismiss the possibility that something new, different and harmful is going on with our children—and such proof does not exist. Autism increases point to a role for the environment, since genes don’t change that fast. The uncertainty and debate have not excluded the possibility that at least some portion of the increase in diagnoses is real. This gives us the responsibility to apply our serious and focused attention and resources to addressing what may be causing these alarming trends and what we can do about them."
http://www.unlockingautism.org/atf/cf/%7B64d87213-a160-4224-8ed7-702ed372e4b1%7D/HARVARD%20RESEARCHER%20MARTHA%20HERBERT.PDF

Twyla, I think you've misunderstood what I meant by heritable. Please take a look at this page (specifically the section on twin studies) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_autism. And yes, i know citing wikipedia is lame when there's actual scientific literature to be found, but wiki is free while many of the articles are not and i've read through it and it's actually a pretty good summary of the landmark studies. Also, relevant to this article, there's a list of the primary "autism genes" and a description of what they do and how they were discovered.

Jeanette said, “so much research money and resources have been wasted still trying to test the ‘vaccines cause autism’ idea, and ALL of them (save for that one fake study that has already been repeatedly proven wrong and rigged) have clearly shown that there is absolutely NO CONNECTION.” Jeanette, cite one study that showed there is absolutely no connection between vaccines and autism. Name one. There is no such study.

Jeanette also said, “No offense meant, but maybe to a small extent there is guilt and denial involved here... I can imagine how it would make us feel so much better if we can place blame on other people or other things.” If it was just our genes, that would be much less guilt inducing than to know that we chose to give our children an insane number of vaccines containing a variety of unstudied ingredients, resulting in harm to our beloved children.

And, “But maybe it will be a better use of everybody's time and efforts to instead figure out how to take care of affected people...” Believe me, we are caring for our affected children every day. This is not an either-or.

“And keep looking for real causes...” That’s exactly what we’re doing. And that’s exactly what we wish our government and mainstream medicine were doing.

“Let me just point out that this vaccine thing you're all still so eager to believe came from the same process (albeit a terribly flawed version), but now that it has been disproved, you all still want to believe it and damn every other scientific evidence?” I guess by that you mean that Dr. Wakefield’s study was flawed, and that we should be consistent in either damning all science or believing all science? In the first place, Dr. Wakefield’s study was not flawed. In the second place, you are not making any sense.

Karen H, yes most likely there are multiple causes. Autism is a spectrum defined by behaviors, and may have various etiologies. But vaccines are the prime suspect for the majority of the increase in autism that has occurred over the past 30 years. Yet vaccines are actually the most under-researched causal factor. A few flawed biased epidemiological studies, and that’s pretty much it.

See http://www.putchildrenfirst.org/index2.html and http://www.fourteenstudies.org/ranked.html

Esa said, “The fact of the matter is autism is one of the most heritable psychological disorders we know of, second only to schizophrenia.” Esa, the vast majority of children with autism today do not have parents or grandparents or greatgrandparents with autism. Yeah, there may be nerds in the family, but not full blown autism in prior generations.

What may well be heritable is the susceptibility to harm from environmental factors including vaccines.

Karen H,
You opin that I am narrow-minded because I believe there is enough evidence to implicate vaccines in the very real epidemic level increase of autism spectrum disorders. First, let me make clear to you, I have never claimed vaccines are responsible for all cases of autism diagnoses. But, I do believe that they are responsible for the huge upsurge in ASD numbers, as well as some other childhood chronic diseases.

I'll agree with you that I am desperate in the sense that I am driven with a conviction born of watching more and more children needlessly suffer with no end in sight, and I will argue against the injustice of it all, and the lies that allow it to claim more victims.

There are too many intelligent, educated parents who have done their homework on this issue and trying to convince otherwise, those of us who understand how vaccines have played a part in disabling their children, by regurgitating what the MSM media has been spoon feeding you doesn't cut it here. You and Jeannette are never going to convince me that autism is just an unfortunate static genetic disease. The honest scientific evidence is on my side.

So tell me, since you believe so strongly that vaccines could not possibly cause autism, what is it about vaccines that, biologically speaking, convince you that they cannot induce a disease process that is diagnosed as autism? Considering all the immunological, neurological, gastrointestinal, endocrinological, evidence that currently exists for the disease process of autism, how is it vaccines don't have an effect and/or can't induce damage to these biological systems?

From "across the pond" to Jeannette and Esa (please read as applicable).

Please look at the official website of the State of California Department of Developmental Services and read the very long report identifying a 273% increase in the numbers of autists between 1988 and 1997 (more up-to-date reports are also available). N.B. Children under three years of age and those people with diagnoses of Asperger's Syndrome were not included in those numbers.

Please then read the Material Safety Data Sheet for the MMR II to be found on Merck's official website. It contains lists of primary and secondary adverse vaccination reactions - the secondary AVRs include encephalitis (brain inflammation) and encephalopathy (brain damage) - in the old days both conditions were found after severe cases of childhood infectious illnesses. N.B. google "Merck MMR vaccine" to find the PDF document.

Yes, there are genetic causes of autism (Fragile X is reportedly the commonest) but the enormous increase has to be down to environmental causation of whatever origin/s.

I don't think anyone is claiming that it is only genetics that contributes to development of autism. For all of your information, there are a whole host of other studies that try to look into other factors that contribute to ASD, including epigenetics, and yes, vaccines. In fact, so much research money and resources have been wasted still trying to test the "vaccines cause autism" idea, and ALL of them (save for that one fake study that has already been repeatedly proven wrong and rigged) have clearly shown that there is absolutely NO CONNECTION. It's a big waste of resources, it's gotten ridiculous at this point.

One of the main reasons there seems to be an "explosion" of autism cases in past decades is that is has been poorly recognized before. There have been learning and social disabilities since recorded history existed, most of them now being categorized into ASD; people are just paying a lot more attention to it now.

No offense meant, but maybe to a small extent there is guilt and denial involved here. We can't help what our genes are and which ones we pass on to our kids, but I can imagine how it would make us feel so much better if we can place blame on other people or other things. It's hard to accept that some conditions happen that we have very little control over, and seems random (ex. "My kid didn't just come out 'different', he BECAME 'different', because so-and-so did it to him.").

It seems callous of me, but really, I sympathize. But maybe it will be a better use of everybody's time and efforts to instead figure out how to take care of affected people- kids and adults alike. And keep looking for real causes, instead of stubbornly holding on to unfounded claims (I meant vaccines, if that wasn't clear)- and stop ripping the heads of people who are just trying to figure this out so there's hope of having a real cure at some point.

People are so quick to blame science for everything, when they have benefited so much from it in most aspects of their lives, and from reading the comments here and the related articles, clearly don't have any idea what they're talking about (or reading about, even). Let me just point out that this vaccine thing you're all still so eager to believe came from the same process (albeit a terribly flawed version), but now that it has been disproved, you all still want to believe it and damn every other scientific evidence? Maybe we should ask why? Clearly it's not just the scientific process that you have a problem with, so which is it? You just choose what to believe? Based on what? There's significantly more kids that have received vaccinations and did not develop ASD, so it can't be from your interaction with other parents, and your experience with your own kid is an even smaller number to base your assumptions on.

Very powerful comment Bendetta. By every empirical measurement, the environment is far cleaner today than it was when I was a kid (late 60’s). It is cleaner because the people demanded the wanton pollution stop, and Congress and state legislatures bent to the will of the people. Consider also that the old Soviet Union and Eastern Europe had much worse industrial pollution than we had in the 1960’s, yet had no autism epidemic.

The difference between then and now is the amount of pollution dumped directly into our kid’s bloodstreams. Unlike what is dumped in a river, now that we know the truth, we as individuals can control what they put in our kids. Word is getting out, people are listening. Look around and notice all the “H1N1 vaccines are here now!!” signs at the drug stores. They are desperate to get rid of this garbage; the public declined to participate and called them on their bullshit. The anger I harbor for what my son must endure is tempered knowing that others will be spared by the work done here.

The following is from my site ..Autism is caused by antibiotics downgrading gut flora [down the maternal line ]and therefore immunity ..read my site for an in-depth explanation, and how and why autism is linked with the Honey bee crisis
http://www.yeast-candida-infections-uk.co.uk/

The Genetic Cause. Myth

It won’t have escaped your attention that genes have been commonly implicated in any number of human frailties. Scientist have at various times declared themselves to have found the genes responsible for obesity, schizophrenia, homosexuality, criminality, violence even shoplifting. In fact we now know, almost nothing about us is so accommodatingly simple.

This is clearly a pity in one Important sense, for if you had individual genes that determined a propensity for diabetes or any other distinguishing trait it would be easy – comparatively easy, anyway – to isolate and manipulate them. Unfortunately, thirty-five thousand genes functioning independently is not nearly enough to produce the kind of physical complexity that makes a satisfactory human being. Genes therefore must co-operate. A few disorders- haemophilia, Huntington’s disease, cystic fibrosis, for example –are caused by lone dysfunctional genes, but as a rule disruptive genes are weeded out by natural selection long before they can become permanently troublesome to a species or population. So looking for a genetic cause in a condition with explosive growth such as autism is not just bad science it’s spectacularly bad science.

I use the present tense because dismayingly 75% of all available funding in looking for the cause[s] of autism is spent looking for a genetic involvement. It’s a disaster of unprecedented proportions. it tells us how adrift academia/doctors are in their understanding of autism and in disease progression in general

There is one way to have a genetic epidemic. A retrovirus incorporates its DNA into the host DNA. If it manages to incorporate into the gene line (sperm and egg) then the virus becomes part of the host species. MLV is like this, with most mice immune to the virus particles that mice now produce.

Perhaps we should be searching for a gene or a virus for willful ignorance endogenous to the CDC, NIH and AAP. We might be able to find a cure. There is hope!

"...CMA identified deletions or duplications in 18.2% of the cohort, 7% of which were considered clinically significant, including variants associated with known genomic disorders..."

Okay, so this new, great, definitive test actually shows abnormality in 18% and less than half of those abnormalities are linked to ASD? This is science?

And what known genomic disorders are they talking about? What percentage of the abnormal results were clinically significant for autism as opposed to this other, 'known genomic disorder'?

In other words, did the researchers stack the deck for themselves? Was the study at all honest?

And does anyone know if the researchers have pharma connections, or if it's just that Autism Consortium that's blatantly biased?

> Genetics .. smetics! I grow tired of the genetic talk ... since not one reseacher or research study will accept my identical twins (one with ASD and one not) into a study! Seems we disprove their theory! I have great subjects to advance the study of autism and no one cares!

I assume someday when Dr. Insel, Offit and Dr. Nancy find the "Autism gene" they will be on hand to perform a genetic test on television and then abort a little autism rascal...

If ADHD is genetic, about one in six will need to go down the same road...

Jen (the veterinarian),
So glad you posted about the defect in collies! We have an Australian shepherd who it turns out has that MDR1 defect you spoke about. She was a perfect, smart, very social puppy. Then, at 3 months (right after her rabies vaccine and starting monthly heart worm medication) she developed all sorts of strange symptoms, which looked eerily familiar (dilated pupils, rapid breathing, temperature, irrational fears, severe aggression, her hind legs didn't work well, just to name a few). We didn't know what happened until someone told us to test for that defect. We almost had to put her down, she was so aggressive. We were just starting with DAN type treatments with our kids, so just for fun, I thought I'd see if it might work for the dog.. My husband thought I was crazy, but I switched the dog to a GF natural diet, added some B vitamins and magnesium (and continued behavioural training). To my surprise and relief, she improved dramatically! Today (6 years later), she is the best dog I've ever had (some stranger anxiety still, but nothing we can't handle). She can not tolerate most meds, or she starts to regress (she also has hip dysplasia, so we have done trial medications for pain, but her aggression returns. She's better just on minimal supplements).My frustration is that if you go to the Unv. of Washington website, there is a whole list of meds dogs like these should NOT receive. If there is a list of avoidable meds FOR DOGS, you'd think the least our medical community could do is also create a list for CHILDREN, for God's sake! How messed up is that?!

I don't mind them looking into genetics because perhaps eventually that could lead to identifying suceptibiity. What I mind is them ONLY studying genetics. I am mildly on The Spectrum and my son has Autism...yet he has NOT ONE of these Autism genes (I have not been tested).

I can speak from experience that GFCF diet and biomed work. My own functioning has vastly improved from these. Like a lot of our kids, I used to not like to eat and self limit. I was sooo thin. All that stopped the week I went GFCF. I wasn't eating because those foods were making me sick and I didn't realize it. They are in EVERYTHING. SO, this begs the question for me....if in my experience I have found that the DAN docs are right about GFCF then I must conclude that the theories on which they base it upon is true? None of these questions matter to those with an agenda that all Autism must be genes only, or to those who hold being on The Spectrum as some badge of identity that must be protected.

I am so sick of the way "genetics" is misused these days. As a veterinarian, I can tell you the easiest way to calm down someone who can't understand why a certain illness happened, is to just tell them "it's genetic." They really have no understanding of what that means, but the average person will just interpret that to mean "it's beyond our control; it just happens." Hogwash. And don't think for a second that "genetics" isn't used exactly for that reason... to calm people down.

When did "genetics" come to mean that your DNA just places that disease in your body? It is rarely that simple! If it were that simple, then those genetic diseases should be present at birth. What about the probability that THERE IS SOMETHING ELSE CONTRIBUTING? If we know that some autistic kids have a genetic deficiency of detoxification (and we do), I'm sorry but that does NOT let vaccines or other toxins off the hook!

Here is a well-accepted example from veterinary medicine. Collies are well-known for being genetically unable to metabolize the drug Ivermectin. They can have neurological signs including seizures and death when given a dose exceeding their ability to metabolize. Now, if every dog in the U.S. received that drug at a certain dose (say as a part of a wellness program, like vaccinations), then we might be led to believe that Collies have this weird genetic seizure disorder. Bad luck; the DNA caused your seizures, right? Wrong. In a world without the drug, they would be fine, just as these kids with these "autism genes" have been fine for eons up until we started bombarding everyone with vaccines, antibiotics, pesticides, food additives, plastics, and mold toxins, just to name a few.

It's well past time we started educating one another on what is really meant by "genetic causes." Even having taken higher-level genetics courses does not make me feel like I have anything more than a superficial grasp on the subject. As with much of life, when you make assumptions about something as complex as biological systems, you're so often going to be wrong. Another topic that is widely overlooked is epigenetics... the way in which non-genetic (internal or external) factors can determine how/if certain genes are expressed. But the studies don't have to address that, because the public will never call "shenanigans" on them.

In the latest issue of JAMA (the Journal of the American Medical Association), Thomas Insel accused the medical community of "having become a 'culture of influence,' in which drug industry marketing goals have pervaded the practice of psychiatry."
http://carlatpsychiatry.blogspot.com/2010/03/dr-tom-insel-nimh-chief-scolds.html

I wonder if that also applies to what's happening with autism research.

Anne Dachel
Media

It would be sooo much cheaper to fund a study involving a provocation challenge and a urinalasis, then chelation and HBOT, but that would mean admitting these children can't properly excrete metals on their own. Even stem cells are showing promise, what has this world come to?

God, genetics... I have a photo of Mia's chromosomes from 1998. Since then, our insurance companies have paid for tens of thousands of dollars in additional genetics tests for all three of my girls. Not one has come up "abnormal" or yielded a scintilla of usable information. One bill from The Clevelend Clinic alone was $30,000. Imagine what I could have done for the girls if Aetna (our company that year) had paid a $30K bill for therapy or biomed? Genetics makes people who have given up or never had any hope to begin with an excuse to roll merrily along.

I like getting up early in the morning and reading excellent pieces like this one-upsetting, yes, but great reporting, Thanks, Anne. Being stupid years ago when Joshua was first diagnosed, we were involved in a genetic study with the medical school in Columbia, SC.... I can only imagine what a waste of time and money that was--we never even heard back results from them-all those arm jabs for nothing. Maurine