CA sets new record for autism case intake

I keep wondering where they are all coming from? I do remember some kids with autism when I was a child and young adult but not in the numbers I see as a speech pathologist.

I’ve read that the actual numbers of autistic kids are going up, not just the number dxed (though that might be hard to sort out). A few years ago, you had to pretty much fight to get that dx for your kid.

OTOH, one theory I have read is that autism is genetic. Since currently autistic traits or high functioning autism has value (computer skills specifically), autistic genes get passed along. Think of someone like Bill Gates who is the most frequently dxed by others high functioning autistic person on earth. Years ago who would never have gotten a wife, but now he is passing on his genes. Geekdom is cool now.

This presupposes that high and low functioning autism (ie Aspergers and
Classic Kanners type) are related genetically. I sure have heard of families with three or more sibs all of whom had some degree of autism.

—des

Assuming that autism is purely genetic…

Historically, 50% of autisic children (predominantly male) were institutionalised by the time puberty hit will full force, and 90% by the time they were adults. These people generally speaking did not get the opportunity to pass on their genetic stock…

Therefore, if strict genetics is to be held responsible, it must be assumed that a recessive gene(s) is at work, so that people who are carriers, but not affected themselves hook up and pass it along.

Also, understanding that people on the high end of the Spectrum tend to do better is certain select fields (engineering, computer programming) the growth f these fields would allow these people the opportunity to support themselves, etc. But that doesn’t explain how people with strong social deficits (one of the primary hallmarks of autism in general and one of the main diagnostic criteria for Asperger’s and PDD-NOS) manage to hook up with a spouse, and create a next generation. Many of the adults on SPectrum that I know are rather asocial when around people and do not feel really at ease around others except online.

Then again, our understanding of the growth in genetic conditions and traits calls for generations to pass for a particular gene to disseminate and prevalance to increase. The human generation is thought to be about 30 years, and the explosion in autism has taken place in far less than that (about the last 15 years or so.)

Another problem is the widespread appearance of autism, crossing all ethnic groups and social strata, and appearing in similar numbers in Europe, North America, Australia and Japan (there is NO credible data from most of Asia, Africa or South America). Other genetic disorders we are aware of tend to be most concentrated in a particular gene pool, such as sickle-cell in Africans, Celiac’s in Scandinavians, etc. Autism does not fit this model really at all.

If we instead assume the genetic component (which I am sure is indeed a factor) is not a predetermination, but a possibility requiring an external trigger, the genes necessarry could have been in the collective gene pool for thousands of years, and it wasn’t until the collective environment was flooded with the proper trigger that this gene(s) ere expressed. This fits the timeframe of the autism epidemic.

Another possibility is that there is really no autism gene, but instead it is damage to typical genes caused by a specific toxin. We are learning that more and more of our genes are subject to damage from toxins like viruses, radiation, metals, etc. Again, this fits our current timeframe for the autism epidemic.

As far as the concordance of autism in families…

The likliehood of having an autistic child for the first time is currently thought of to be about 7 in 1000 (full Spectrum) and 3-4 in 1000 for full-blown autism. If you already have an autistic child, this jumps to about 40 in 1000, or 4%, strongly suggecsting the genetic factor. However, the concordance of autism in identical twins is only 60%, meaning that in studies looking at genetically identical twins, only 6 out of ten pairs have both twins autistic, while 4 out of ten had only one autistic twin. I can think of no statistic which more strongly points to an outside factor triggering the autism, and almost certainly this must be happening outside the womb. (Recall identical twins share a placental sac, so all the intake of substances in the womb is common to both, and were autism the result of one twin harming the other, like cutting off air supply at a specific time, we would have a long history of autism in literature as being a disease of twins, yes? As it stands, autism was previously an unknown syndrome when Kanner described it in the late 30’s, having no historical reference at all.)

Whatever the triggering toxin is, whether awakening a dormant recessive gene or damaging a child in such a manner that autism is the result, it must be so widespread that babies in California and New Zealand, Denmark and Japan, Idaho and Great Britain, British Columbia and Florida are all exposed to it in similar quantities to produce similar prevalance rates (we have never been able to demonstrate regional variance in the rate of autism in our country).

Whatever it is, it needs to be determined and removed to protect those who are yet to be born. I love my boy, and will not give him up for anything, but raising him is a great “challenge” and I expect I will be caring for him as though he were a toddler for then next 40 years or so (or until they chuck me in the clay). Autism is a huge problem for our public schools, which truly do not have the resources whether money, trained staff or classrooms to provide what they need, and an even greater burden for society on the whole, with an estimated cost (in this country) to the taxpayers of over $3M over the course of their lifetime (excluding the cost of schooling). To put this in perspective, the 3,000 new cases CA just took into the system means CA has just added a $9B unfunded debt to the state’s future budgets (it is the states, not the Feds who pay for lifetime residential care of the disabled population, through Medicaid and similar programs). Should CA add another 3,000 autistic cases next year, that is another $9B in future spending…

We need in this country to stop talking about the need for more reliable data and begin earnestly looking for the data. That means that Federal research spending needs to be increased. No possible toxin should be spared from cold, hard scrutiny, regardless of what the fallout will be should it turn out to be the “wrong” thing (i.e. vaccination). We have to know the truth, and act based upon what that truth turns out to be, not dance around and pretend it is not.

I don’t think that anyone considers autism to be genetic in the same way as say brown eyes or Tachs Sachs (to bring in two strange combinations). I think it’s safe to say that the gene (or genes) are triggered in some way.
For example there was a case a no. of years ago about a Foster Grant sunglasses co. around which were a very high no. of classic autism cases (I don’t know if they were looking for hfa kids at all). But the thing is that those kids got it, not everybody. There was no higher incidence of cancers or anything else. May just have been a coincidence but…
Or there is the vaccine thing. But the problem I have always had with that one is that the vaccine is given right when you are most likely to observe autism. Still I am not quite molified by the statement “it is safe”.

As for the idea that autistic people (on the high end) don’t reproduce, well I don’t think that is so true. Money and a good position (say as a Systems analysist or network guy) can be a fine aphrodiasic and I have known fairly NT women marrying certified card carrying AS men. (Who have then had pretty autistic kids). So I think that may be one part of your “increase”. These guys may be pretty hopeless socially and are. But these days they can do pretty well for themselves. And some AS guys as we know can have a certain charm to them, hopelessly unsocial or no. The marriage may end in divorce (prolly often does) but that doesn’t keep a few kids from being born. Add them together…

The other may be the dx factor. You know that in the past lots of autistic people were dxed other things. I worked at an adult center and many of even the more severe clients had gone dx shopping as the mr, brain injured, childhood schizophrenic dxes were inappropriate. I suppose that some poorer folks just stuck with that dx. If you work in an adult faciilty, the older adults will be primarily white from pretty affluent families while the younger ones represent a more balanced demographic. However, in an MR or DD facility there will be folks that you can be pretty sure are autistic, they just never got that dx.

As to well why are there autistic people in the first place if it is genetic. It’s not that kind of genetics is all. Say it is the genetics more of type, so you could get “some” of that characteristic but not all of it, you could get none of them, you could get many characteristics. I mean that as one possibility.
Since there are some desirable traits (penchant for organization, spatial skills, etc), having a tinge of autism wouldn’t be bad and would be desirable. It is when there are MANY characteristics that there are problems that are often very severe. The thing is that in our society more autistic traits are desirable.

Of course, I still agree that we should be lookign and some of the things that you suggest.

—des

Rant, rant, rant, here I go.

Bill Gates is very probably NOT autistic!!!!

We cannot diagnose autism based only on social skills differences. Yes, historically many computer people are geeky, so are lots of research scientists. The fact that a person enjoys certain kinds of intellectual pursuits and has a very high intellect places this person in a temperment category that is not as commonly seen. But, to call these people autistic!! Please spare me. I know, if we have an autistic child ourselves, we like to think that the world’s richest man is autistic.

There are other factors that also eed to be present to have autism. And, we need to differentiate between socially inept because can’t and socially “not particularly intersted in the ridiculous day to day topics of conversation engage in by most NORMAL people.”

Of course I was merely having an interesting discussion with “Dad” among other people and dont’ want this going into the flame arena… but..

>Rant, rant, rant, here I go.
Bill Gates is very probably NOT autistic!!!!

Well true he has never been dxed as far as we know. And the whole thing is really discussed but hypothetical for that reason. But I don’t know why that idea makes you so upset.

>We cannot diagnose autism based only on social skills differences. Yes, historically many computer people are geeky, so are lots of research scientists.

True they are not severely autistic, but some of them certainly are/have been even dxed as Aspergers or PDD. I know several gifted engineer type/mathematicians that are dxed as autistic.

>he fact that a person enjoys certain kinds of intellectual pursuits and has a very high intellect places this person in a temperment category that is not as commonly seen. But, to call these people autistic!! Please spare me. I know, if we have an autistic child ourselves, we like to think that the world’s richest man is autistic.

As a Mac user, I’m not sure I like the idea. I initially didn’t like it because he has been so cut- throat. I didn’t think that autistic people were generally cut-throat, but I have since met a few that were.

Some parents of low functioning kids do not like the idea of there being a spectrum because for so long people did not believe there was one.
OTOH, some parents welcome the viewpoint of someone who can discuss what might be going on in a lower functioning kids head.

If autism is not on a spectrum that somewhat coincides with normal behavior or function then it is unique in terms of all other problems or disorders, including but not limited to, visual disabilities (20/60 to partially sighted to blind), hearing impaired (mild hearing loss to profound deafness), CP (barely detectable to so severe they can’t hold up their head), etc. So when is the person really impaired?? Obviously if you are the richest person in the world, not too much! But there is at this point in time a niche for people who really deal better behind a computer screen. In times past, this might have been more of a problem. The reason some people think autism is increasing.

There are other reasons that it has been suggested that Bill G is autistic from the lack of eye contact (less so recently— perhaps coached), rocking (again less so recently), to the reported trampoline room in the house (autistic folks often crave certain types of vestibular stim), etc.

>There are other factors that also eed to be present to have autism. And, we need to differentiate between socially inept because can’t and socially “not particularly intersted in the ridiculous day to day topics of conversation engage in by most NORMAL people.”

Yes, there are several others that have been rather well documented. In fact there are several reasons for social ineptitude like social avoidance, shyness, depression, very high IQ (over 180), etc. The lack of interest in typical day to day topics may have other causes, some of which could be “disabilities” depending and some not. I suppose it depends on whether you can and chose not to or you can’t and make an excuse for it. Autistic people are just as good at making excuses for their behavior as anyone else.

So I concede that we will never know for sure on this one unless Bill were to go to a neuropsyche. :-) But there ARE computer geek types who really are. And those that may get married if not for long, and have kids. They may not be really warm partners but I do know several cases myself. Whether the cases I know are just little blurps on the wide map of thing or some sort of real pattern I don’t know.

The idea of whether Bill G is or isn’t to me isn’t that important in the whole discussion.

—des

I also recoiled a bit, though, at the subtle forwarding of that habit of diagnosing famous people with disorders so we can feel inspired, even though that’s not what was happening.
I just can’t quite buy the idea that autistic tendencies are significantly more marketable and that that’s affected the gene pool to the degree we’re talking about — and there really are so many other reasons for social ineptness (and an awful lot of terminally inept folks end up hitched).
I do believe some serious data gathering should be done with those lovely computer programs to try & find patterns…e xcept that in all seriousness, I don’t think the people who’d have the funding to make it happen want to know the results (or, to have the results known).

>I also recoiled a bit, though, at the subtle forwarding of that habit of diagnosing famous people with disorders so we can feel inspired, even though that’s not what was happening.

The thing is in Bill G’s case, I have never thought the purpose was for inspiration sake. But we know that some people with autism can and do produce in some area. For example, Temple Grandin is autistic, but if you are in the field of cattle management everyone knows that she is *the* expert in that area. (I believe that Dr. Grandin’s case is MUCh more inspiring if you want inspiration.)

My main problem with dxing famous people is that it usually goes without the usual conditions of dx. You look at the traits fo the person sometimes after death. Van Gogh is a great example, and if you look at enough groups he was either schizophrenic, epileptic, or …
It might have been lead poisoning, who knows. In Bill’s case, I guess one could still talk to his parents, his teachers, etc. and find out how he really was early on.

But I’m pretty sure we’ll never know.
He is a real popular subject on autism boards but I always thought the reasons were a not so much inspiration as humor or something. Kind of a it’s fun to think about the richest guy in the world being autistic. Kind of a match/mismatch thing or something. I’ve never heard it explained as “we think he is autistic, that means our kids can be the rich.”

> I just can’t quite buy the idea that autistic tendencies are significantly more marketable and that that’s affected the gene pool to the degree we’re talking about — and there really are so many other reasons for social ineptness (and an awful lot of terminally inept folks end up hitched).

Well it’s one idea. Let’s say there are significantly more autistic kids in Silicon valley. That would be worth a study. OTOH, you would have to be careful to match it with another area of high income and similar lifestyles, etc. As well as motivation and intelligence.

> I do believe some serious data gathering should be done with those lovely computer programs to try & find patterns…e xcept that in all seriousness, I don’t think the people who’d have the funding to make it
happen want to know the results (or, to have the results known).

LOL!

—des

LOL!

> I do believe some serious data gathering should be done with those lovely computer programs to try & find patterns…e xcept that in all seriousness, I don’t think the people who’d have the funding to make it
happen want to know the results (or, to have the results known).

That is the biggest problem I have accepting at face value to position of the “experts”. They do not really seem to be interested i finding the source of the incredible increaase in autism. And when you couple that with sometimes evasive behavior, sometimes downriht suspicious behavior it makes it easy to see why so many people start looking for the conspiracy.

Take the latest blurb concerning the FDA for instance. They are going to start increasing inspections for medication shipped in from Canada. The reasoning is unbeleivable claims that Canadian pharmacies somehow get dangerous drugs from their foreign suppliers (that somehow only ship good drugs to the US).. They also calimed that the Canadians aren’t as strict aswe are (although it is untrue, Canada does indeed have as high of standards as well and enforce them with the same effort that we do.) When it is suggested that the FDA is just protecting the higher profits the pharmas get in the American market suddenly they don’t want to talk about it anymore. And the pharmas are lobbying Congress to ban Canadian mail-order, even as cities and states move to setting up suppliers for their health coverage to save the state and local taxpayers from paying over twice as much.

When those who are supposed to be watching out for the public’s interest start sub-contracting to corporations I think there is a problem…

Dad, I don’t know if the various vaccines cause autism, but I am not at all molified by the government claiming they are safe. I also think it sounds like conspiracy theory stuff too, but I not to exactly compare it but I just saw a documentary on 3 Mile Island. While the various nuclear regulatory bodies were claiming it was safe, they were just that close to melt down. I think they take a similar stance to everything else. They say “It’s safe” until somewhere down the line we find out it isn’t. Of course vaccine is a tricky subject anyway. It protects so many but a certain percentage will get ill. It’s a numbers game. But if the percentage involved a much higher no. of autistic children the risks would be much greater than the benefits.
Meanwhile I doubt they are doing serious research on the subject, assuring everyone it is safe. I pretty much don’t think it is, but it seems like a very worthwhile avenue of research as no one does really know.

—des