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.
analysis of in utero exposure in humans has failed to show harmful effects in neonates or children, particularly in school performance, attention disorders, and behavioral changes. There is no independently confirmed peer-reviewed published evidence that a cause-effect relationship exists between in utero exposure to clinical ultrasound and development of ASDs in childhood.
Source: Abstract of peer reviewed study, Ultrasound and autism: association, link, or coincidence?
Abramowicz JS1.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Rush Fetal and Neonatal Medicine Center, Rush University, Chicago, Illinois 60612, USA. jacques_abramowicz@rush.edu
U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health
I'm much older and ultrasounds were not heard of when I had a baby.
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.
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.
I say this coming from the perspective of someone who has worked for years with children and families affected by autism, with caseloads representing a not-insignificant sample size, and also as one who has studied, and continues to study, peer-reviewed and published research that represents much larger samples (some as many as 5 million children, across a variety of global cultures):
Every child with autism does not have a parent with autism. Individuals with autism have been shown in some replicated studies to have a higher incidence of bearing or fathering children with autism, which is not the same thing. There are also parents with autism, in fact, who have neurotypical offspring.
This doesn't mean there are no genetic components. In fact, most research so far does lead toward a likelihood of genetic components, just not ones as cut and dried as, "parents with autism have offspring with autism." More like, "deterioration of sperm with age has been suggested as a factor in heightened incidences of autism among children fathered by men 50+ in a global study involving 300,000 subjects," or similar.
It is also not as cut and dried as "look at your medical history before you procreate," in relation to autism, because there aren't firm genetic markers identified, at this point. You can have genetic counseling and testing done that can be vary in degrees of predictive and/or diagnostic value in regard to many established genetic disorders, but autism isn't among them. You can also dig back into family history (did this during both my experiences with genetic counseling), and it isn't necessarily going yield much reliable or useful data, re: autism, because of the lack of understanding and consistent diagnostics regarding autism, past the most recent few generations.
"I just feels," and "I firmly believes," are fine enough, and may be starting points for research (though hypotheses are typically better presented as "I think," than, "I firmly believe"). But on their own, they're not reliable. Research findings that offer significant support, moreso...and the more replication, the better.
Most current research tends to be leading toward the idea that autism is likely not isolated to a single cause, a la a replication of a particular specific chromosome, as in various other genetic disorders. Evidence currently suggests a complex combination of multiple genetic factors, combined with various environmental factors. Which goes a long way in explaining in why prediction is so unreliable, why autism can present so differently between individuals, and along such a wide and varied spectrum.
The research being reviewed and published is fascinating (and widely available).
I say this coming from the perspective of someone who has worked for years with children and families affected by autism, with caseloads representing a not-insignificant sample size, and also as one who has studied, and continues to study, peer-reviewed and published research that represents much larger samples (some as many as 5 million children, across a variety of global cultures):
Every child with autism does not have a parent with autism. Individuals with autism have been shown in some replicated studies to have a higher incidence of bearing or fathering children with autism, which is not the same thing. There are also parents with autism, in fact, who have neurotypical offspring.
This doesn't mean there are no genetic components. In fact, most research so far does lead toward a likelihood of genetic components, just not ones as cut and dried as, "parents with autism have offspring with autism." More like, "deterioration of sperm with age has been suggested as a factor in heightened incidences of autism among children fathered by men 50+ in a global study involving 300,000 subjects," or similar.
It is also not as cut and dried as "look at your medical history before you procreate," in relation to autism, because there aren't firm genetic markers identified, at this point. You can have genetic counseling and testing done that can be vary in degrees of predictive and/or diagnostic value in regard to many established genetic disorders, but autism isn't among them. You can also dig back into family history (did this during both my experiences with genetic counseling), and it isn't necessarily going yield much reliable or useful data, re: autism, because of the lack of understanding and consistent diagnostics regarding autism, past the most recent few generations.
"I just feels," and "I firmly believes," are fine enough, and may be starting points for research (though hypotheses are typically better presented as "I think," than, "I firmly believe"). But on their own, they're not reliable. Research findings that offer significant support, moreso...and the more replication, the better.
Most current research tends to be leading toward the idea that autism is likely not isolated to a single cause, a la a replication of a particular specific chromosome, as in various other genetic disorders. Evidence currently suggests a complex combination of multiple genetic factors, combined with various environmental factors. Which goes a long way in explaining in why prediction is so unreliable, why autism can present so differently between individuals, and along such a wide and varied spectrum.
The research being reviewed and published is fascinating (and widely available).
I know you just said not to say "I just feel" or "I firmly believe" but here I go....
I'm NOT an expert on autism, but have several friends whose children are on the spectrum and I volunteered with an autism social group for children. Like Lowonluck said, when I look at their parents, I almost always see at least one of them as quirky in some way. I could give examples, but that's not the point and I understand that is not science, but it is striking. When you're in a group of autistic children and their parents, it's difficult to not notice that the adults often show some signs of being on the spectrum as well.
I think (here I go again), like you said, that research will show a correlation between something environmental linked with this genetic disposition. My various theories include artificial sweeteners, prenatal vitamins with their high concentration of folic acid, genetically modified foods, pesticides, or BPA's in plastics that are used for water bottles and microwaved food. All of these things have come into greater use as the incidence of autism has risen.
I also wonder if the grandparents of autistic children were exposed to something which explains the quirkiness of their children (the parents of the autistic child) and that the quirkiness is then compounded somehow when the parents have children.
I am in no way arguing with you about the findings of real studies. But I have spent a lot of time puzzling over it.
Just as a few of you can say every child you know with autism seems to have a parent on the spectrum, I can tell you that every child I know with autism does not have a parent on the spectrum. One that quickly comes to mind: mother is a very successful educator, worked in the Peace Corp, outgoing, volunteers to help other families with special needs children, has multiple degrees and ran for our state Congress. Father, outgoing, professor. Neither are even close to being on the spectrum. Another--my cousin's child--I've known my cousin her entire life. Definitely no signs of autism. Father showed none either. neither I could continue, but I know quite a few families with autistic children.
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.
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.
