thoughts on latest ' cause of autism'

[borderslass]

here
Some 'interesting comments'

I have one child only. He has autism.

The reason these studies can be unhelpful is that (as can be seen by the posts on this thread) there are many women who had the risk factors they think may contribute and DON'T have ASD children and then there are loads, like me, that have an ASD child but had none of the risk factors they talk about. So I'm not sure how the study could be seen as any more reliable than shots in the dark. Or simply clutching at straws.

My son with ASD is the middle child, and not only was his the least stressful pregnancy and birth by far but the only baby of mine to have been born completely and utterly au naturel. Not a drug or intervention in sight. So is my case study irrelevant because it doesn't fit their hypothesis?

Phine I haven't read the details of the study but you're right that they can be unhelpful alone.

You are not right to suggest they are not helpful at all, or that your situation is irrelevant.

It is almost universally agreed that autism cannot be caused by one thing. It is also agreed that you can have a genetic disposition to it, although it is unknown how influential this is alone.

Different studies, however seemingly ridiculous they are contribute towards the overall picture, even if they are proven to be rubbish later, they proving them rubish is helpful for getting a better picture.

ASD, as you know is not quite as much of a 'thing' as it appears. It is a set of observable behaviours interpreted by different people with different levels of expertise and biases and using different criteria (although criteria is broadly the same). It would almost certainly be impossible therefore to establish a single cause or course of treatment or prevention however there is probably a considerable amount we can do to improve both any biological and environmental hot potatoes that are at least plausable triggers.

Did the study take into account socio economic factors? Close births are more associated with low socio economic conditions. The economically and educationally deprived mother is less likely to eat heathily, more inclined to drink and smoke. Not factors in themselves that will cause autism but can contribute to difficult births and underweight babies - factors cited previously in ASD.

That said I in no way am accusing anyone of doing the above bad things in pregnancy, just questioning how valid the study was. Very close pregnancies I suppose could deplete micro nutrients if the diet was poor to start with.

AlysWho, there's a long history of autistic traits in my family, but that doesn't mean that if any research brings to light any obvious means of ensuring that a future family member has only traits like I have and not full blown autism like my boys have, then I'll not be all over it.

DS2 is mostly happy, but reduced to a tearful wreck if I don't handle the curtains equally when opening or closing them. He's almost 5 with limited means of communication.

Life is constant drama and upset for DS1. He is highly intelligent and equally oppositional.

Love them both to bits, but I'd rather life wasn't nearly so challenging for them. Parents of autistic children are already grasping at straws trying anything to help their kids, so it's good to see some research being done on actual causes, because only then will we have half a clue about what can really help.

And just to add, in response to your more recent post, that wishing my kids could have had easier lives is not tantamount to wishing them away. I'd have loved them every bit as much had they been born NT and I'd have loved them every bit as much had their disabilities been more severe. I love them because they're my boys and that's that.

The problem with headlines on stress in pregnancy or small age gaps between babies, etc, is that they do not in any way report anything remotely accurate or helpful - they certainly don't helpfully summarise the real findings of the research in question. They merely report "increased risks" that are in reality tiny increases in risk within the general population as a result of what could actually be down to a whole host of sub-triggers within the potential trigger investigated as part of the research, therefore getting us no closer to any really helpful, concrete answers that can justifiably affect behaviour (or make an interesting journalistic article). For example, stress in pregnancy has an effect on the hormones circulating in the body, which may have a direct effect on foetal development and which genes get switched on or off, but also lowers the immune system, making you more vulnerable to viruses and bacteria that may have an effect on the developing foetus. Stress may also have an effect on your diet, exercise, light exposure, digestive system, etc, etc, all of which may affect the developing foetus... And people more prone to suffering symptoms of stress and anxiety may have genetic differences that make them more vulnerable to having children with autistic spectrum disorders regardless of how stressed they are whilst actually pregnant. Then, of course, there is the fact that stress in pregnancy is actually thought to increase the risk of physical disabilities, including spina bifida, and possibly mental illnesses like schizophrenia, and adult height, intelligence, learning disabilities, etc, etc. There doesn't appear to be an awful lot it hasn't been connected to, in the negative sense. And commonsense for centuries has informed us in any event that extreme stress and anxiety does us no good, so I don't really see how far forward any of this research has got us all. None of it is focused enough to be very helpful, it is just looking for confirmation of existing suspicions, which usually yields a result because that is what is wanted and expected at the start of the research.

Unless someone finds ways to refine the research and finds enough people to do the research on to make it valid, it really does feel like stabbing in the dark to me, or looking for proof of rather obvious assumptions. Even more so with respect to the age gap between someone's children... The crass reporting of all this research merely serves to increase a mother's stress load and feelings of self-blame, which we've already all agreed is not going to do her or her children much good...

(aargh. too much effect vs affect...).

What this type of research tends to do is inform the direction of future research. An observation is made, based on collated stats and a hypothesis made to explain it. This gives a solid foundation on which to base new studies. It's a laboriously slow process, but eventually gaps are filled in or avenues for exploration are either opened or discarded.

And yes, much scientific research is about collecting numbers to validate or refute hunches. And the journalists picking up on new findings often suck at reporting them impartially without being insensitive to those possibly affected.

Research is the way forward in terms of (possible) prevention and maybe even one day, realistic treatment but... The help for many of these kids is so limited. We have a diagnosis, a Statement and DLA for my son who's 10 (high functioning ASD, more Aspie, but now with co-morbid OCD/Tourettes) but the battle has been hard.

My point is, research for the future is vital but don't ignore those who need the help NOW! My son's life (and mine because I'm his mum) has been hard enough without being made to feel that you have justify every bit of help you get over and over again. We're going through the DLA thing again now and having had high rate for 5 years they've now decided to stop it so..... another battle commences.

I have twin boys, one ASD, one NT. They were born 1 month early by ELCS because of pre-eclampsia. They were both very low birthweight even for 36 weeks and DS2 who was the smaller twin was in SCBU for a while. However, he is the NT twin.

This all suggests to me that while prenatal environmental factors/stressors may play a part in determining who gets autism, genetics must play a very large part since my two were exposed to the same stresses in utero. There are perhaps some vague traits in DH's family but no more than that. Certainly no history of language delay/disorder that we know of. DS1 in features is very much like DH. DS2 looks very much like me.

Agree with wendihouse

Of course research into causes (and treatments or even cures for) of autism is vital, but most of the 'research' published in mainstream press is simply to make a news story. Until such research is thoroughly and uncontroversially verified, there is no point in making a news story out of it. All it achieves is make mothers like us feel even more to blame, and scare mothers-to-be. Completely irresponsible journalism.

True. And, as if we don't feel guilty enough about our kids having "it" we now get to feel that "am I in some way responsible for this? (and not just in a genetic sense). Was it the stress? Was it having my kids close together? etc.

My ex-husband (who is definitely on the spectrum and see it in himself) STILL blames me for my son's being as he is. Despite the professionals giving us a clear dx.

Can we mums PLEASE be let off the hook? When pregnant I did all the stuff I was meant to. I've never smoked....ate well.....continued to exercise...... tried not to get stressed at work....BUT, not a single day goes by without me wondering if I could have done something different. This kind of reporting on inconclusive research evidence just buys into that.