To just remind you that autism is genetic?

[robotgun]

Research tells us that 60 to 90% of the risk for autism comes from your genome. Maternal and paternal age are also a significant factor. Also genetic variants exist that cause autism-like behaviours and go undiagnosed because we don't routinely run genetic tests on our children. We also don't routinely institutionalise children that are different to their peers.

There's 'more' autism because people are having babies at older ages. And we are better at spotting autism.

It isn't heavy metals, microplastics, or the MMR.

Sorry, but it seems like every day I open this app and there's a new post saying 'What's going on with all this autism around, eh?' and a slew of replies blaming environmental factors that have no science behind them whatsoever. Or, worse, blaming mothers for reproducing too late in life or eating tuna in pregnancy or taking prescribed meds.

If you see enough of these threads every day you could well start to believe the nonsense that people write, much like people that read the Daily Mail every day start to believe that Meghan Markle is the devil.

Autism has always been here. It's not better or worse than it used to be.

The age thing I thought was more linked to father's age rather than mother?

There are still loads of people who subscribe to this nonsense. Andrew Wakefield have been living it up since he moved to the states.

An increase in children born very prematurely and an increase in Autism diagnosis isn’t necessarily linked.
Whilst both are true, further correlations are also true - there is a rise in global temperatures, fewer people are smokers, birth rates are falling in the UK, there are fewer particulates caused by burning coal in the UK. Would you also say these have led to a rise in Autism?
Part of the increase is down to adults seeking a formal diagnosis, rather than young children being diagnosed. Plus an increase in self diagnosis. That skews any self reported data.

Most of my family are on the autism spectrum.

Having had a child suffer side effects from a prescribed drug and seen first hand how the pharmaceutical companies close ranks and deny I’ve lost my faith in them and no longer trust them to be honest. I was going to be part of an exposè in a National newspaper, I talked to a journalist and a doctor about this, but they were later warned to not discuss it and the article was dropped.

Thousands of people a week join the support group for this drug so it’s still ongoing. The company conceded to add the side effects to the drug info several years ago, but refuse to support any research, so any medical findings are down to patient groups who have done the work.

My autistic son went from being fine and supportable to being very high needs, unable to go to school and needing an awful lot of support.

I suspect more children’s/people’s autism is more disabling to them and their families because of certain pharmaceutical and dietary factors but the might of these huge corporations keeps it well under wraps and parents who talk about this are dismissed as conspiracy theorists or stupid.

I think a lot will come out about certain pharmaceutical products in the next 10-20 years. There are already films about certain coverups (Dopesick, Painkiller, Dark Waters). There will be more to come.

Yes she does. Research tells us that 60 to 90% of the risk for autism comes from your genome
Now who’s being a ‘twins’?

In respect of parental age, she didn't use the word risk. I have no idea how anybody is reading mother-blaming into what she said.

I read a fascinating article about this a few years ago. I can't remember where but it was pointed out to me by an educational psychologist. It talked about the impact over generations of ND people being attracted to each other (because we tend to be attracted to those whose experiences we relate to) and therefore the genetic component potentially become stronger over time.

My dd is autistic. No one else in my family (or DH's) has been diagnosed (or has any noticeable traits). I had her when I was 24, DH was 28. Sometimes it's just not because of anything.

It's always asked, but OFC a proportion of any group of parents will report difficult births.

I'm pretty sure any link there will end up debunked.

We are still so early in the research of HF autism.

There's more autism because DSM 5 changed the definition of autism to include those that were once dismissed as 'odd, weird, eccentric, introverts, highly sensitive, loners, awkward' etc etc. I include myself amongst those.

Alongside the updated definition we're a better informed, more child-focused culture than we were a generation ago. Like many, I recognised traits in my children and only later acknowledged that I to was autistic and have had to come to terms with the effect this has had on my life and effectively begin again in middle age. This is the reason there is 'more' autism. Think back to your own childhood - the bullied kids - autism in plain sight, the poor kid just didn't have any way to understand why no-one wanted to be friends. We can't change other people's behaviour but we can at least help our children understand themselves and others.

Autism and ADHD is absolutely rampant in my family. We thought it was mostly the boys but as research has gone on we have come to raise that girls mask so much more and their behaviours often come out as/or are seen as rebellion and poor behaviour. My daughter was diagnosed with ADHD at 15 after 3 years of school refusal after being a great student. Her medication has been life changing. Literally got her through her GCSES and she's a different girl.

There's more autism because DSM 5 changed the definition of autism to include those that were once dismissed as 'odd, weird, eccentric, introverts, highly sensitive, loners, awkward' etc etc. I include myself amongst those.

In fairness, those people were previously being dxed as having Aspergers.

What DSM-V did was remove the diagnosis of Aspergers from play.

Aspergers was always a subtype of autism, though.

It's relevant, but it isn't the 'fault' of women who have babies later in life. I am one of them. I recognise the research but I don't agree with the blaming of women for having families at the right time for them.

Yes, I think this is also a factor, but it isn't that they drank out of plastic bottles or gave their kids the MMR.

I think there genuinely is more.

I think it's because there was more support for a while so people who years ago would have been institutionalised or locked up as insane had support and then reproduce. If people couldnt care for their kids they enter the workhouse and don't have more and so many of those kids died- that would never happen today as we care for children. How many autistic people 100 years ago would have managed with absolutely no welfare state? I know if I was alive 100 years ago I would have been in the asylum ir workhouse when I was a young adult- certainly couldn't have got someone to marry me and have kids. Now I had a messy teenager period and learnt I'm autistic, learnt enough about myself to be able to function, gained some maturity, work get a mortgage etc etc and then reproduce. 2 of my 3 kids are much higher needs than I ever was. If I never had support kids would never have existed. My high functioning child has it in her genes so if she has kids there is a good chance they will have support needs. I look back at my parents and reckon they were autistic too but 'milder' than I was and in the world they lived in it blended in more mother left school at 14 when many female autistics have a burnout and their needs become so obvious-didn't have to go out to work. father able to do shit at school but then work practical job and pay his way in life. These options are not there as much for my generation and less so again for my kids generation.

But what can we do? Human rights is a right to a family

I think ssri exposure in utero is being postulated also

There is definitely a genetic factor with my exH’s family. His dad was obviously an undiagnosed Aspie, his brother was socially awkward and of my 3 DSes, one is a bit geeky, first class maths degree from Warwick and a programmer, one was DXed with ASD at 3 and is very strongly autistic. Averagely intelligent, amazing at quizzes but hasn’t managed to get a job. The third is unDXed but I think probably dyspraxic. Poor social skills but should get along OK in life.

In retrospect, my mum was socially anxious too. Only my DS2 would have been noticed before the increase in awareness. I guess he’d have been institutionalised in previous decades.

How many autistic people 100 years ago would have managed with absolutely no welfare state?

Enough to become the great grandparents of today's people with autism.

Why wouldn't they?

Or are you just thinking of Kanner-type, or non-verbal autism with learning difficulties?

By whom?

I’m so pleased to see the reference to prematurity here. My DS1 was born extremely prematurely and is one of the earliest babies of his time to survive (born at 24 weeks nearly 19 years ago). He has multiple complex disabilities and autism is his primary diagnosis.

I have mentioned a few times on MN over the years that, in his case, his autism almost certainly results from his extreme prematurity. What I find baffling is that other posters always want to tell me I’m wrong. On one occasion a particularly charming poster told me I was “talking shit”. How any of the naysayers know more about my child and his circumstances and diagnoses than his entire medical team and his parents, I have no idea.

I would v much imagine that a hefty proportion of women who are depressed/anxious to the point of needing to continue SSRIs through pregnancy could have a certain underlying disorder causing their anxiety/depression... called autism...

I'd like to know this too - which genes exactly? Or do you mean heritable?

All three of my children were born on time/late. All between 8-9 pounds and perfectly typical pregnancies. One was an induction (gel pessary only needed), other two zero interventions. No medical needs as babies. Two diagnosed with autism and the third likely to be.

The reason it’s more ‘prevalent’ is for many reasons. Autism used to be the diagnosis for those presenting with high needs/learning disabilities. Those with only social/communication difficulties may have had an Asperger’s diagnosis which wasn’t considered the same as autism. Many went under the radar (girls in the huge majority), just being considered weird/quirky/awkward or in some cases ‘just so much more intelligent than their peers of course they don’t fit in’. Add in the clusterfuck of misunderstanding ADHD (which can mask ASD traits if you have both) and so many people have been undiagnosed and haven’t realised it until now.

A lot of past ASD in men has been missed due to sociological expectations of sexes as well. Due to women expecting to be the carers of men and children in the family, with the societal shift in (rightly) expecting men to be equal in family life, many of those who’s severely lack executive functioning in managing several routine expectations at once are finding it very difficult. A man decades ago who would stick the the same job with the same routine each day, come home and do the same basic household jobs, leave all life admin to a wife without issue. Women’s rights have been the undoing of a lot of men who’ve not been expected to mask functional dysfunction from childhood like girls are…

Yes enough to become grandparents but it would have been those with it in their genes and can manage without additional support. Now because people get support more autistic people are able to have children.

I'm autistic myself as are my children. So obviously I think the support is a good thing but I can't deny without the welfare state I never would have been able to get to a place in life I was able to have children

Mine were born at 40 weeks exactly and 39+6. One autistic, one not. My sister was 4 weeks early, she isn't autistic. I was a week late, I am and I also have ADHD. My brother was two weeks late, he is and also has ADHD.