U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting > Pregnancy
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-29-2017, 12:12 PM
 
Location: Middle America
35,817 posts, read 39,346,783 times
Reputation: 48613

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice View Post
To prove that vaccines are not a cause, every vaccine needs to to be studied by itself. Then it needs to be studied in conjunction with another vaccine. Then add in a third, fourth. Then study of all the vaccines together, because they are not just one vaccine, it is 40 to 60 shots, depending on the state the child lives in. Then look at the different schedules in each state and compare the schedules with the time of diagnosis of each autistic child. Compile data on how many vaccines a child has had and when autism was diagnosed. That type of CUMULATIVE study has never been done. Ever. And it won't ever be. Because it would scientific and thorough and show definitively if vaccines were a factor, as well as WHICH vaccines were more likely to be a cause.

And your statement regarding IEPs because parents "demand" them is ludicris. Autism is rising, continues to rise, and is PREDICTED to continue to rise.

This is not a thread about vaccines, it is a thread about ULTRASOUND. If you want to continue the vaccines are safe propaganda, start a new thread.
Too bad YOU are the poster who brought up vaccines (and propaganda, FWIW).

Your assertions are NOT scientifically sound, not anymore than the OP'S hypothesis that sound wave exposure in utero contributes to increased incidences of a genetically based neurological disorder. That's reality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-29-2017, 02:19 PM
 
704 posts, read 228,294 times
Reputation: 857
Since ultrasounds are more frivolous than not and since autism is rare in third world countries where they are not provided, it makes sense to protect a potential human from developing autism by declining ultrasounds. A fetus cannot swim away from sonar waves like whales in the ocean that end up beaching themselves from sonar activity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2017, 02:21 PM
 
15,287 posts, read 16,833,735 times
Reputation: 15019
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice View Post
Vaccines as a cause for autism is not settled: No study shows the CUMULATIVE effect of giving a child multiple vaccines in a short span of time. Not a one. Anyone who truly believes 100% that vaccines do not cause autism is brainwashed by the media, not someone who understands objective science.

And yes, thank you for pointing out that the environment is what triggers the genes.

So what ARE the ENVIRONMENTAL factors that have been cropping up more and more that "turn on" the autistic gene?

And if there was diagnosis "swapping" that increased the numbers -- meaning that the numbers of kids has not changed -- why are there so many more educational resources directed to dealing with these kids? If it were a matter of simple name change, rather than an increase in kids that have needs, schools would not be busting at the seams trying to meet IEP every day.
The environment is only a small portion of the story. We have a lot more pollution now than we did. We do not know exactly what factors trigger the genes, but we do know it is not vaccines. Autism involves many genes not just a single gene.

Here is one study:
Scientists discover how a gene mutation causes autism - Medical News Today

Quote:
In individuals with autism, duplication of the 15q chromosome region - referred to as Dup15q syndrome - is one of the most common genetic abnormalities. It was previously believed that too much UBE3A is the cause.
One of the most common does not mean it is the only one and that other genes cannot be a problem in other children. There are drug possibilities for this particular problem. There are many different kinds of autism though, not just this one.

The reason that resources have changed is the same reason the dx changed. We know more about autism and what resources need to be used now. We are much better at figuring out what each child needs. Kids with special needs were kept isolated, institutionalized, kept in special ed classrooms away from their NT peers. You did not see them because they were basically intended to be invisible. Schools did not have to serve these children until the IDEA forced them into it.

ABA used to use punishment and used to be focused on making autistic kids *look* normal. That is no longer the case fortunately at least in most places (There are exceptions like that awful Judge Rotenberg Center). We used to think that these children could never learn. We know better now. My son is 46 and never dxed, but we just went into a genetic study. He has a son and a daughter with autism. He himself is a chemical engineer and managed to do quite well despite the fact that now that his kids have been dxed, we can see some of the same traits in his childhood and even now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2017, 02:35 PM
 
15,287 posts, read 16,833,735 times
Reputation: 15019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Middletwin View Post
Since ultrasounds are more frivolous than not and since autism is rare in third world countries where they are not provided, it makes sense to protect a potential human from developing autism by declining ultrasounds. A fetus cannot swim away from sonar waves like whales in the ocean that end up beaching themselves from sonar activity.
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...organic-foods/

Quote:
Now researchers believe they know what’s responsible for the bulk of the rise: Nothing. Much of the rise in autism is likely a statistical mirage.

That’s probably not reassuring to parents with children who suffer from the disorder and it’s certainly not the answer you’d find if the Internet is your medical guide.
Autism is not necessarily rare in third world countries. It is not dxed partly because there is a large stigma to getting such a dx. In many countries, parents are ashamed of having a child with special needs and they hide that child away.

https://spectrumnews.org/news/resear...oss-the-globe/

For example in Korea:

Quote:
The stigma is so intense that many Korean clinicians intentionally misdiagnose these children with aechak changae, or reactive detachment disorder — social withdrawal that is caused by extreme parental abuse or neglect.

“The parents prefer this [diagnosis] because the mother can take the bullet and protect everybody else,” says Roy Richard Grinker, professor of anthropology at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., who has screened some 38,000 children in South Korea for the country’s first study of autism prevalence.
Quote:
Language and culture may also affect the way this research is carried out. For instance, the Korean language uses an extensive array of suffixes that denote the relationship between the speaker and the subject. South Korean children with autism have trouble using these social markers, but the Western-based standard tests of autism, such as the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS), don’t test for this.
I have a good friend who works with parents in Vietnam. The same problem happens in that country.

Right now, there are low prevalence rates in France as well. Women in France get 3 ultrasounds typically scheduled at 12, 22, an 32 weeks of pregnancy. If the doctor or midwife thinks it is necessary, you may receive more than three ultrasounds. There is also a low calculated prevalence in Germany. In Germany, women often have up to 7 ultrasounds. The low rates are due to differing ways of dxing and counting, not truly to the prevalence of autism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2017, 02:41 PM
 
Location: Middle America
35,817 posts, read 39,346,783 times
Reputation: 48613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Middletwin View Post
Since ultrasounds are more frivolous than not and since autism is rare in third world countries where they are not provided...
Know what's also rare in countries too poor to deliver standard prenatal care? Reliable diagnoses of complex neurological conditions.

Don't confuse lower incidence of diagnosis and interventions with just plain lower incidence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2017, 03:06 PM
 
704 posts, read 228,294 times
Reputation: 857
Agree. Conversely, the definition for autism has evolved to include other neurological conditions, which may not be the same in other countries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2017, 04:28 PM
 
Location: Middle America
35,817 posts, read 39,346,783 times
Reputation: 48613
Also can depend if diagnostics are/were done with DSM or ICD designations. Or at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2017, 09:15 PM
 
1,304 posts, read 1,090,787 times
Reputation: 1471
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaminhealth View Post
I can't help "think" there is a connection. Just hearing a program on autism, it's said 1 in 68 babies born today are autistic.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...ism-connection

I'm much older and ultrasounds were not heard of when I had a baby.
It's linked to older aged fathers, which is why the rates are increasing as parents are having kids quite late.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2017, 03:51 PM
 
2,198 posts, read 1,228,287 times
Reputation: 2859
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaminhealth View Post
I can't help "think" there is a connection. Just hearing a program on autism, it's said 1 in 68 babies born today are autistic.
Your opinion, as others have said, are not born out by facts. I have three kids. I had a lot of u/s with the first child due to some concerns about his growth. I think by the time he was born, I'd had at least 10. My second child, who had one u/s, is the one with autism. My third, again with one u/s, is not even close to being on that spectrum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LowonLuck View Post
I firmly believe that Autism is genetic. Every child I know with Autism has a parent on the spectrum. The parents are usually higher functioning and it is very hidden. Maybe people should look at their medical history before deciding to procreate.
Another opinion, not born out the the data (although there is a higher prevalence rate for relatives of those with ASD to have ASD themselves). In my case, we have no family members on either side with ASD. My husband is slightly quirky, but he does not meet criteria for ASD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice View Post
If it was genetic, the incidence would not rise, it would stay constant. The percent of people born would remain the same throughout history.

Because incidence is rising, it points to an outside factor that was not present 40 years ago. And the scientists predict it WILL CONTINUE INCREASING. If it were genetic, and scientists know it's genetic than they are wrong in their predictions that it will increase. Because it could not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
No, autism incidence is not rising.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/aut...d-in-20-years/

"This latest study showing a stable autism prevalence between 1990 and 2010 is in line with a consilience of scientific evidence showing that autism is mostly genetic, has its onset prenatally, and that the apparent increase in prevalence is largely due to diagnostic substitution, increased surveillance, greater acceptance, and broadening of the diagnostic criteria."
Suzy addressed that one very clearly. But I agree it's not continuing to rise. Others have commented on reasons why we are diagnosing ASD more in the past 10 years than we did in the 10 previous. The educational data from school eligibility categories shows that the trend towards Autism as a classification has grown while things like intellectual disability have decreased. This data has already been shared by another poster.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LowonLuck View Post
I firmly believe that Autism is genetic. Every child I know with Autism has a parent on the spectrum. The parents are usually higher functioning and it is very hidden. Maybe people should look at their medical history before deciding to procreate.
Another opinion, not born out the the data (although there is a higher prevalence rate for relatives of those with ASD to have ASD themselves). In my case, we have no family members on either side with ASD. My husband is slightly quirky, but he does not meet criteria for ASD. But I wouldn't change my son with ASD for the world, and the world is a better place because my husband and I procreated and had him. Some people with ASD have changed the world in remarkable and helpful ways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice View Post
So they continue to say it's genetic and classify it in the DSM instead of clinical, testable diagnosis with cause so everyone can look the other way, nothing gets solved and our future generations are completely damaged.
There is actually a ton of research looking into whether we can diagnose ASD with medical models. No one is looking the other way. There is a lot of research money going into assessing the causes of ASD and ways to test for it without using the subjective behavioral signs that are currently used. Genetic research, brain research using scans, eye tracking research... there is a lot of research looking for some way to definitively identify ASD at the earliest stages. There have also been some great findings in these areas, but there is as yet no "magic bullet" or test that can give a definitive and accurate diagnoses using medical tests.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2017, 03:58 PM
 
Location: Middle America
35,817 posts, read 39,346,783 times
Reputation: 48613
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraceKrispy View Post
There is actually a ton of research looking into whether we can diagnose ASD with medical models. No one is looking the other way. There is a lot of research money going into assessing the causes of ASD and ways to test for it without using the subjective behavioral signs that are currently used. Genetic research, brain research using scans, eye tracking research... there is a lot of research looking for some way to definitively identify ASD at the earliest stages. There have also been some great findings in these areas, but there is as yet no "magic bullet" or test that can give a definitive and accurate diagnoses using medical tests.
Right? There is a MASSIVE amount of research ongoing in neurobiology to better understand biological bases of autism spectrum disorders. It's a complete fallacy to claim that either the medical community or the mental health community are "looking the other way," in regard to potential biological bases of autism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting > Pregnancy
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top