In Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity, published in the Lancet, Dr Philippe Grandjean MD and Philip J Landrigan MD, propose a global prevention strategy to address the impact of developmental neurotoxicants and the increasing numbers of children with developmental disabilities including autism, ADHD and intellectual disabilities. As the article abstract points out the authors had conducted an earlier systematic review and identified five industrial chemicals as developmental neurotoxicants with six additional developmental intoxicants identified since then:
Neurodevelopmental disabilities, including autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia, and other cognitive impairments, affect millions of children worldwide, and some diagnoses seem to be increasing in frequency. Industrial chemicals that injure the developing brain are among the known causes for this rise in prevalence. In 2006, we did a systematic review and identified five industrial chemicals as developmental neurotoxicants: lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic, and toluene. Since 2006, epidemiological studies have documented six additional developmental neurotoxicants—manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and the polybrominated diphenyl ethers. We postulate that even more neurotoxicants remain undiscovered. To control the pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity, we propose a global prevention strategy. Untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development, and chemicals in existing use and all new chemicals must therefore be tested for developmental neurotoxicity. To coordinate these efforts and to accelerate translation of science into prevention, we propose the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse.
In 2013 Landrigan, Lambertini and Birnbaum had proposed A Research Strategy to Discover the Environmental Causes of Autism and Neurodevelopmental Disabilities. Autism researchers in particular, and the agencies and institutions that fund them, do not seem to have taken seriously the obvious, yes I said obvious, need to explore environmental causes and triggers of autism and neurodevelopmental disabilities and instead appear to be continuing their obsessive need to find genetic elements that "might" be "associated with" some subsets of autism disorders. The rigid adherence to a non evidence based belief that autism has to be caused by genetic influences, the "it's gotta be genetic" (Teresa Binstock, 1999) paradigm is almost cult like in its persistence in the face of its repeated failure, despite overwhelming funding of genetic based autism research, to find any specific genetic causes of most autism disorders.
We must act now as Grandjean, Landrigan, Lambertini and Birnbaum have proposed and take seriously the harmful effects of neurotoxicants. We must begin to develop a rational, serious global strategy to deal with their harmful impact on generations of children to come.
9 comments:
Excellent. And yes...it would seem obvious to look at neurotoxins. I teach young children Harold and I swear it gets worse every year. Kids are not healthy in some indefinable way. Wouldn't it be nice if this report changed things? It is, however, difficult to remain optimistic.
It is difficult to remain optimistic Claire. I think though that we have to continue rattling the neurodevelopmental researchers' self constructed cages and hope they will waken from their deep slumber.
Good post Harold, great observation Roger.
The surgeon General has stated that genetics related to autism is a high priority in terms of current and future studies.
Is the surgeon general wrong?
Anonymous 6:38 Genetics in relation to the autisms has been a priority for decades. Genetics receives overwhelming share of autism research dollars without much to show for it.
Harorld,
studies on identical twins have shown that genetics plays a part in autism. There are multiple genes involved which makes the study complex. Studies of environmental and other toxins are needed.
Siblings of those with autism need know the facts when they choose to have children of their own. Current research shows that they will have a small but increased chance of having a child with autism based on genetics alone versus the general population.
Anonymous 10:54 I don't doubt that genetics "plays a role". The problem that I have commented on for years is the assumption that genetics acts, isolated from environment, to cause or trigger autism disorders in all cases. Funding for autism causation research has been dedicated overwhelmingly to the genetic side of the equation with few dollars dedicated to environmental autism research. Focusing totally on genetics to the exclusion of environment in autism research has produced few tangible result and, IMHO, has not been a sound, wise strategy. I applaud Grandjean, Landrigan and others who advocate a serious strategy for investigation of environmental factors involved in causing autism disorders.
Harold I admire your courage and commitment to your autistic son and applaud you in all you do to bring balance to the issues associated with severe autism! Well done. I agree that while genetics may play a part in autism, we can't overlook the obvious implications that multiple environmental triggers can exacerbate behaviors and developmental challenges to those who are most vulnerable on the spectrum.
Harold, thank you for your continual dedication and commitment in discussing issues that concern the most vulnerable on the autism spectrum. I agree, that while genetics may play a part in autism, we can't ignore multiple environmental etiologies that trigger and exacerbate complex behavior and developmental issues that plague persons who suffer from severe autism. For example, conventional medications used to treat severe autism often have paradoxical effects on the autistic brain. The question autism researchers aren't asking is WHY. WHAT is it about severe autism that hasn't yet been studied? How can we better understand severe autism? When will researchers begin looking in areas that have not been explored?
Post a Comment