Here are some suggested organisations that offer expert advice on SN.
thoughts on latest ' cause of autism'(64 Posts)
DS is the middle one and there's 3 years between him and DD1 [but he's not got a proper diagnosis yet]
There is 14 years between Dd1 and 3 who are both suspected ASD and have Dd2 in the middle who is as NT as they come.
Load of rubbish, if only they could have spent the time helping people like us.
I fthis is true shouldn't there be lots more children affected in countries where there is no contrecption? Shouldn't we be seeing a reduction in cases with birth control giving women more control of the age spread of their children?
funnily enough I was talking to someone last week about how a lot of the children I know with ASDs are the eldest, I'm assuming it's coincidence because I do know some that are as well, but I can't think of any that are a year or less younger than the next oldest
My two with ASD are my first and second children. There's an age gap of just under 3 years.
I predict that the next study will show that autism is caused by women who wear knickers the size of small parachutes during pregnancy. It's the extra elastic and increased gusset that does it.
I haven't read the link but my view is that there a variety of paths to autism.
However, the biggest cause is a predisposition to be unable to cope with a medicated traumatic birth and interference in the early bonding hours through drugs, being passed around etc.
Oxytocin is a crucial drug at and after the birth for establishing social connection and bonding. Since the first birth is the hardest, it is much more likely that the interference will occur than in subsequent births.
The Cambridge Research Centre have managed to find a link between teenagers sniffing Oxytocin and improved social skills.
I believe that it is all related.
I also believe that hell will freeze over before they investigate it as the 'solution' is to deprive drug companies of their profits, to radically invest in maternity services and to empower women in our currently patriarchical society.
So, there you go. All my predjudices at once - LOL
What a load of poppycock!
There is 2.3 years between DS1 and DS2.
I can remember when Ds2 was first dxed and I read somewhere that one of the causes of ASD was the umbilical cord being cut straight after birth. Beat myself up for weeks over that one as he was born by ELCS and they cut his cord as soon as he was born.
I really do wish that they would give it a rest with these bullshit sensationalist headlines.
DS is my PFB. he is autistic.
he doesn't fit any of the criteria and yet he is still autistic.
these headlines aren't to try and help understanding, they are yet another reason for the mothers of autistic children to feel guilty.
Sorry, I want to be clear that I'm not suggesting women who accepted drugs have caused their children's autism, more that the environment and preparation for birth, as well as all the interuptions and prodding makes it impossible for many to manage without drugs.
my theory is that me and DP just passed on a bad combination of dodgy genetics
although living in Scotland I was amused by the study a few years ago that showed there was a correlation with rain, rofl
Oh well fit us either, 5 years between both mine with Asd
Ds only has a dx of 'autistic traits' although everyone who knows him 'knows' that he is definitely on the spectrum- 7 years is the gap !
I would put this tripe exactly where I put the 'study' about 5 or so years ago that suggested something like allowing your small child to watch too much telly may cause autism - oh how I laughed.
Leonie I know for a fact that a child with ASD is more likely to have been born via c/section than an NT child.
However, that does not mean that c/sections 'cause' ASD (sorry not meaning to be patronising, just making sure it is clear for any lurkers etc.)
There is a 'theory' that having an ASD means that you are less able to participate in the mother-baby diad in an optimal cooperative way meaning that you are more likely to need medical intervention. This is no a theory I particularly agree with though.
If a birth is left totally undisturbed, the mothers body will flood with oxytocin, which will be passed onto the baby. This will continue to flow after the birth and until the cord has stopped pulsating. This hormone triggers the babies reflex to be alert and breasfeed and the mothers hormone to make her happy and bond which can only properly occur if the baby is given to her instantly and remains with her for the 'golden hour' and beyond.
Seperating mother and baby, cutting the cord before then and almost certainly filling both with drugs will stop the hormone from being produced in those enourmous quanitities and rob both mother and baby.
Additionally, fear and anxiety in the mother during pregnancy, and certainly during birth also inhibits the production of oxytocin and instead adrenaline which is the drug that makes us want to fight, flight and almost certain get away from people.
Imagine if you and your baby, were void of oxytocin, but flooded with adrenaline during the final stages of the birth and the first few hours?
Now I am not saying for one second that what I have described is the defining factor in ASD or not ASD. I very much doubt it is that simple, but I do believe there is something in it.
However, it is, as yet, an untested theory as far as I am aware (and I have been interested in this for a while and have searched and not found anything).
I had three children in 3 and a half years. No history of autism in family. Youngest is on the spectrum. I have wondered before if my body was low on nutrients by third pregnancy. Think there might be some truth in this study.
Neither of my two with ASD were born by c/s. Both were fairly big too (9lbs+) so not in the small and underweight category either.
Well, ds1 has aspergers - totally normal, unstressful, you could almost say pleasant, birth, without drugs or unpleasant interventions. Ds2 conceived within the first year of having ds1, whilst still breastfeeding, and he is totally NT, despite extreme stress during pregnancy as a result of ds1's oddities (and probable reduction in availability of nutrients, given the breastfeeding). Anyway, the amount the risk is increased is actually so small in reality as to be A STUPID AND IRRELEVANT THING TO REPORT, DESIGNED MERELY TO INCREASE MATERNAL STRESS, which, of course, will only serve to increase the risk still further (apparently...) of your child having an autistic spectrum disorder. Now, if the risk were increased one hundredfold, it would be interesting.
Did the incidence of autism increase in babies born during the Second World War, given the amount of stress parents were under, then? Or is autism more common amongst the poor, who are statistically more likely to be stressed and have children close together in age (and bottle feed)? Or is the theory that this doesn't show until the 2nd or 3rd generation subsequent to that?... Or do you also have to be standing on your head when you conceive for the risk to count? Or get a specific virus in your 3rd week of pregnancy? Or be desperate to get something published, so allow stupid journalists to report something in an inane and inaccurate fashion?
Interesting. Seven years between NT DD and DS who is autistic.
His birth was absolutely fine in terms of drugs and intervention and not a soul came near us all night after DH went home. I sat up the whole time BF and gazing into his eyes <sigh>
However this has caused me to remember that he had the cord wrapped twice around his neck (only found out days afterwards) which must have been pretty traumatic for him!
DS was my easiest birth 2 1/2 hours from start to finish, he was my smallest at just over 7lb.
Join the discussion
Please login first.