It's Still "Gotta Be Genetic" as Autism Genetic Research Re-Invents Itself Yet Again

  

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences:  Gene-Environment Interaction: Nearly all diseases result from a complex interaction between an individual’s genetic make-up and the environmental agents that he or she is exposed to.

Genetic research has maintained a near monopoly over autism causation research dollars for many years and with that financial monopoly the belief that autism disorders are necessarily genetically caused or triggered. If holes appear in existing gene theories of autism causation the autism research world regroups and sends up a new model.  As always with autism research "its gotta be genetic" - Teresa Binstock, 1999, IGNAZ SEMMELWEISS and AUTISM: when prevailing paradigms resist change. The CBC reports on the latest model arising from the large Swedish study in Autism linked primarily to common gene variants:

"The latest research suggests genetics are the single greatest factor in whether someone develops the condition, accounting for about half of the cause.

Crucially, though, according to the study from Swedish and American scientists, most of the genes underlying autism disorders aren't beset by rare mutations, but are common variants found in the general population.  

"Although each exerts just a tiny effect individually, these common variations in the genetic code add up to substantial impact, taken together," study co-author Joseph Buxbaum, a professor of medicine at Mount Sinai medical school in New York City, said in a statement. 

That represents a change in thinking from early genetic studies of the condition, which focused on rare glitches in the DNA of people with autism disorders."

To this humble autism dad  if the genes underlying autism disorders are common variants then it suggests that something else ... dare we say it ... environmental factors might be involved.  Maybe our wizards of autism research could start actually meaning it when they talk about gene environment interaction.  Maybe they could also stop arrogantly dismissing the work done by the few autism researchers who have focused on environmental factors that might contribute to autism disorders ... people like Irva Hertz-Picciotto Ph.D., UC Davis M.I.N.D. Institute Researcher, and Dr. Joachim Hallmayer associate professor of psychiatry at Stanford University in California. Maybe they could listent to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and develop a research paradigm that reflects gene environment interaction.

Autism Research Awakening: Environment Plays A Role In Causing Autism

“We have to look also at environmental factors, and from my point of view, the interaction between the genetic factors and the environmental factors ... It looks like some shared environmental factors play a role in autism, and the study really points toward factors that are early in life that affect the development of the child"

Joachim Hallmayer, MD,  associate professor of psychiatry at Stanford University in California

WebMD reports on a new study published in the Archives of General Psychiatry which  found that autism was surprisingly common in fraternal twins, despite the fact that they don’t share as many of the same genes as identical twins, suggesting that some common environmental factors might be playing as big a role in causing their autism disorders as genetics.  Dr. Hallmayer was one of the study researchers who were surprised with the result.  Is this an awakening in the autism research professions?

For some it probably is.  For others not so much.  Even this humble autism father/blogger reported an autism paradigm shift 4 years ago and I have followed it since then blogging on developments in the area of environmental causes of autism. But there are die-hards who will not be convinced, who will not change their minds no matter what. Academic careers and reputations as expert witnesses have been built promoting the view that autism is 100% genetic and that accordingly autism disorders are not actually increasing.  Reported increases of autism diagnoses are routinely dismissed as due entirely to diagnostic definition change and increased awareness.  Of course manufacturers of products from vaccines to children's toys have a vested interest in encouraging the "it's gotta be genetic" autism causation paradigm described over a decade ago by Teresa Binstock.  Many will never admit that autism could ever be caused by the interaction of environmental and genetic factors.  

Will New Prohibition Against Exploring Possible Vaccine Autism Connections Stop ALL Environmental Autism Research?

The last few years have seen an all out offensive to shut down discussion of vaccines as possible triggers of autism disorders.  The withdrawal of the 1998 Lancet article, the banishment of Dr. Andrew Wakefield by British medical authorities, the conviction of Andrew Wakefield of fraud in The Court of Brian Deer and the mainstream media puppeting and promotion of the Deer conclusions have occupied much public space in discussion of autism disorders.  And of course no less a public figure than Bill Gates has accused those who question vaccine safety of killing children around the globe. Autism Speaks has declared that it "is time to change the conversation".  In other words "sssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhuuuuuttttttt up" or face the consequences.

In the era of the New Prohibition, the prohibition against discussion of  possible vaccine autism discussions, will research which MIGHT implicate vaccines as possible be prohibited? Environmental autism research focused on prenatal and early postnatal environmental impacts on the fetus and developmental disruption has been featured in reports to the US senate on the State of Research on Potential Environmental Health Factors with Autism and Related Neurodevelopment Disorders:

Paul Anastas Ph.D. Assistant Administrator for Research and Development and Science Advisor U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Because of its extraordinary complexity, prenatal and early postnatal brain and nervous system development can be disrupted by environmental exposures at much lower levels than would affect adults.5,6,7,8,9 We are learning that there are critical windows of susceptibility both prenatally and in early childhood, during which the effects of exposures to environmental contaminants, depending on dose and timing, can be significantly more severe and can lead to permanent and irreversible disability.10,11,12 For these and many other reasons, EPA is especially concerned about potential effects of environmental chemicals on children’s health and neurodevelopment.

Linda Birnbaum, Ph.D., D.A.B.T., A.T.S. Director, National Institute of Environmental and Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program National Institutes of Health, United States Department of Health and Human Services

Development of the nervous system begins in the womb and extends through childhood. During these periods of rapid development, the brain is vulnerable to some environmental exposures that may have the potential to disrupt the chemical signals that organize development. Even small changes in the timing of critical development events can potentially have major consequences for brain structure and function. Thus even brief exposures at these vulnerable stages can have lasting effects on adult brain function. We refer to "windows of susceptibility: to mean the life stage at which the brain is exposed, during which different agents can effect the brain in specific and deleterious ways. For example, the dose of lead that is neurotoxic to an infant is much less than the dose that would be neurotoxic for an adult, so infancy in this case is a "window of susceptibility" .... Learning disabilities are on the rise in the United States and we now have a significant body of information on how exposure to certain environmental agents can affect children's intelligence quotients (IQs). For example, scientific literature attests to the effect of lead exposure in early life on IQ. ... Mercury also has been shown in multiple studies to be a developmental neurotoxicant. .... A study published last year from Columbia University showed that a mother's exposure to urban air pollutants known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) can adversely affect a child's IQ.  PAHs are released into the air from the burning of coal, diesel, oil, gas and other organic substances such as tobacco.  In urban areas motor vehicles are a major source of PAHs. 

Bruce P. Lanphear MD, MPH Senior Scientist, Child & Family Research Institute, Professor, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC, Adjunct Professor, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center

Children’s environmental health -- the study and prevention of disease and disabilities in children from exposures to social, physical, biologic, and chemical agents -- has emerged as a new field of research, policy, and clinical practice (Landrigan et al. 1998). The growth of this field has been fueled by the emergence of new morbidities in children, research showing that the fetus and child are particularly vulnerable to environmental influences, and mounting evidence implicating environmental exposures as major risk factors for prevalent diseases and disabilities in children (Lanphear, 2005).


One in six American children have a developmental problem, from a subtle learning disability to overt behavioral disorders, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or autism (Boyle et al. 1994; Hertz-Picciotto, 2009). These conditions can severely impair a child’s ability to succeed in school, elevate their risk for violent and criminal behaviors, and dramatically diminish their ability to contribute to society. The findings from some of the most thoroughly studied and widely dispersed environmental toxicants indicate that exposure to exceedingly low levels are risk factors for the “new morbidities” of childhood -- intellectual impairments, behavioral problems, asthma and preterm birth (Lanphear, 2005). Indeed, there is often no apparent threshold and, in some cases the effects appear to be greater at the lowest levels of exposure (England et al. 2001; Canfield et al. 2003; Lanphear et al. 2005; Yolton et al. 2005).

Exposures to established environmental toxicants -- such as lead, tobacco, PCBs and mercury -- have consistently been linked with higher rates of intellectual impairment or behavioral problems, such as conduct disorder and ADHD (Needleman et al. 1990; Schantz et al. 2003; Kahn et al. 2003; Wakschlag et al. 2002; Stewart et al. 2003; Needleman et al. 1979; Lanphear et al. 2005; Yolton et al. 2005). There is emerging evidence that a whole host of new environmental chemicals – such as Bisphenol A, PBDEs, pesticides, phthalates, and airborne pollutants – are associated with intellectual deficits or behavioral problems in children, but the evidence is not as conclusive (Rauh, 2006; Engel, 2010; Eskenazi, 2007; Braun, 2009; Perera 2009; Herbstman, 2010). Much of this research was done by the NIEHS/US EPA Children’s Environmental Health Research Centers working collaboratively with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.


Children’s developing brains are more vulnerable to certain toxicants and pollutants than adults. The central nervous systems of the fetus and young child, which are undergoing rapid changes, are particularly vulnerable to some toxicants. The fetus is a recipient of toxicants through placental transfer (Perera et al. 2003; Whyatt and Perera 1995; Bearer 2003). In some cases, such as mercury, the fetus is exposed to a larger dose than the mother (Ramirez et al. 2000). In other cases, such as organophosphate pesticides, the fetus may lack critical enzymes to metabolize environmental toxicants (Chen et al. 2003). Toddlers are often at greater risk for exposure to many environmental toxicants because they have a high degree of hand-to-mouth activity and they absorb some toxicants more efficiently (Bearer 1995).

As the above quotes illustrate environmental  research is examining many potential causes and triggers of autism disorders at the prenatal and early childhood stages.  Mercury is only one of the potential causes of autism being researched but it is one which is very sensitive to those who insist that discussion and research of possible vaccine autism issues must stop.   Teresa Binstock wrote about the "it's gotta be genetic" model of autism and the consequences for any professional who explored vaccine autism connections over a decade ago.   Much of what Binstock discussed is taking place now as Dr. Andrew Wakefield is well aware.  The current suppression of vaccine safety discussion and research will probably be accompanied by a complete return to the 100% genetic model of autism, a model which has already sucked the life out of environmental autism research funding for decades.  All serious efforts to find the environmental causes of the vaccine epidemic, to find out what is really happening to  our children are likely to come to an end.

Autism's Biggest Scandal

Is it possible for public health authorities to re-examine their rigid assumptions about autism disorders and if so how long does it take?  Autism research funding has been absolutely dominated for decades by the assumption that autism is 100% genetic. The "its gotta be genetic" model of autism research funding was exposed over a decade ago by Teresa Binstock. At the same time public health authorities knew, or should have known, that autism is not 100% genetic; that environmental factors are involved.

The twin studies in fact pointed to the genetic environmental model of interaction as the best model for examining autism disorders in the 1990's, as the  following 1998 published abstract illustrates,  and yet purely genetic research continues to be funded at approximately 19 or 20 to 1 over environmentally focused autism research. This imbalance is a scandal.

Early environmental factors in autism Patricia M. Rodier1,*, Susan L. Hyman2
Article first published online: 7 DEC 1998

DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2779(1998)4:2<121::AID-MRDD9>3.0.CO;2-S

Abstract

Genetic and environmental influences are not mutually exclusive as causes of birth defects. Rather, both contribute to the etiology of many congenital anomalies. Recent results from studies of autism in twins argue that this is the case for autism spectrum disorders. Thus, even after the genetic causes of autism are known, it will be necessary to identify environmental factors that contribute to the expression of the symptoms. The first half of this review describes what has been learned from research on exogenous influences in autism, discussing studies of infections, inoculations, general pre- and perinatal factors, family histories, and drug and chemical exposures. The second discusses gene-environment interactions in other birth defects and the methods by which teratogens have been discovered. The role of known genetic syndromes in the etiology of autism is discussed with attention to whether their associations with the disorder are genetic or teratologic in nature. MRDD Research Reviews 1998;4:121–128. © 1998 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

This autism research imbalance in the face of certain knowledge that autism is not 100% genetic is the biggest autism scandal of all and points, at best,  to incompetent, rigid thinking by those who determine what autism research projects get which funding and which do not. At worst, this research imbalance has been part of  a deliberate attempt to direct attention away from all potential environmental causes of autism disorders whether those causes are found in vaccines, paints, plastic products including toys and jewelry or power plant emissions, all lucrative profit generating products and activities.

At least 2 decades of almost exclusive funding of genetic autism research has provided very very few tangible results. Environmental autism  research that might have uncovered causes and led to treatments and cures has not happened. It is time, it is long past time to listen to Teresa Binstock, researchers Patricia M. Rodier  and Susan L. Hyman  and others who cried out in the autism research wilderness and start seriously funding and exploring environment based autism research. It is time to listen to Dr. Irva Hertz-Picciotto of UC Davis M.I.N.D. who stated in 2009:

"Right now, about 10 to 20 times more research dollars are spent on studies of the genetic causes of autism than on environmental ones. We need to even out the funding."

It is time to even out the funding and start seriously researching environmental causes of autism disorders.

It is time to end autism's biggest scandal.

Happy Independence Day to My American Friends From a Canadian Autism Dad

I am, like most Canadians, a cultural "spy " of all things American. Spy might be overstating it but we are very knowledgeable about you. We have no choice.  Your television programs and news broadcasts are beamed into our living rooms every day and have been for many years. That is not a complaint. That is a fact. Most Canadians enjoy American TV and movies and what ever the internet brings today. This Canadian is very happy that we live beside such a fine neighbor with whom we share so many common values. On your Independence Day I  wish you "the very best".

As a father of an Autistic boy I am particularly appreciative of the efforts made by Americans in advancing our understanding of autism disorders and seeking treatments and cures. Two names in particular stand out for this Autism father:  the late Bernard Rimland and Ivar Lovaas.  

Lovaas  provided the evidential  kick start that helped make ABA available to parents seeking to help their autistic children.  His study results and methods  have been invaluable  tools used in  the progress that has been made to date in Canada .... by parent advocates ... seeking to actually help our autistic children. 

Bernard Rimland is given credit for ending the very harmful refrigerator mothers' theory of autism causation that did so much damage to autistic children and their families.  He also pointed out that autism is increasing , a simple fact which is to this day denied by so many with career or ideological interests in denying the facts in front of their faces. With autism diagnoses themselves expanding from 1 in 166 to 1 in 150 to 1 in 110 within a few short years, and long after the DSM changes in 1994, there are still  many head in the sand denialists who argue that increases in diagnoses does not mean increases in tactual cases of autism They rely on unproven assumptions to dig in their heals. Rimland knew better.

I also thank the US for the debates going on in places like the IACC, the Inter Agency Autism Coordinating Committee. While I share the frustration of many autism parents with the flimsy science used to assert the lack of any vaccine autism connection and the  IACC /pharmaceutical  conflicts the IACC has at least discussed and acknowledged that the dramatic increases in autism diagnoses can only be partially explained by the 1994 DSM changes and social ascertainment factors. That in itself is progress as small as it may seem. The IACC has expressly acknowledged that a paradigm shift in our understanding of autism is taking place from the 100% it's gotta be genetic model identified and criticized  by Teresa Binstock over a decade ago to the modern view that autism disorders probably result from the interaction of genetic and environmental factors.

Small steps? Maybe, but they are necessary steps.  Once acceptance of the environmental aspect of autism becomes more widespread real research aimed at understanding fully what causes autism disorders, and finding cures, can begin and the bizarre obsession with genetic autism research can be reduced to a more balanced level. 

Whatever paths unfold for those with autism disorders, and the families that care for them, real progress is unlikely to come from Canada dominated as it is by a small clique of autism researchers some of whom think that the very idea of curing autism is nonsense.  In the UK the Neurodiversity embrace and enjoy the beauty of autism mindset also has a firm grip  and no progress is likely on that side of the ocean. Future autism progress will likely occur in the US as it so often has.

To all our American friends this Canadian autism dad says thank you and have another very happy Independence Day.

Pesticides Suspected in Bee Brain Damage and Species Decline? Don' t They Know It's Gotta Be Genetic?

                                          pdphoto.org                          honey bee by autan

A UK Guardian article  Bee decline could be down to chemical cocktail interfering with brains

reports fears that pesticides are causing damage to the brains of bees causing cognitive and communication disorders which have seen sharp declines in the overall number of bee species which are vitally important to the pollination of the world's crops:

"According to the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, three of the 25 British species of bumblebees are already extinct and half of the remainder have shown serious declines, often up to 70%, since around the 1970s. In addition, around 75% of all butterfly species in the UK have been shown to be in decline. The new £10m Insect Pollinators Initiative (IPI), the largest programme to date of its kind, will look at the multiple reasons thought to be behind this devastation in insect population.

Chris Connolly of Dundee University's Centre for Neuroscience has been awarded £1.5m to lead the work on whether pesticides are having an affect on the brains of bees. Pesticides could be blocking the electrical and chemical signals between neurons, he said, and only subtle changes may be required to produce serious brain disorders. These problems might stop bees identifying the best sources of nectar, or it might affect their ability to navigate to nearby food source and back home again.


Brain disorders in bees might also interfere with their ability to communicate with nest-mates using the "waggle dance", where bees come back to their hive and spread information about the food sources they have found."

Those poor misguided Brits. Haven't they learned that when it comes to neurological disorders there are no environmental factors involved?

Haven't they heard of the flawed statistical surveys of human beings which demonstrate beyond any question, or demonstrate somewhat anyways, that neurological disorders like autism are 100% genetic?.

Haven't they heard that when it comes to neurological disorders like .. oh .. say .. autism ... "it's gotta be genetic"?

The Time is Now to Redress the Autism Research Imbalance

As with many complex disorders, causation is generally thought to involve some forms of genetic risk interacting with some forms of non-genetic environmental exposure. The balance of genetic risk and environmental exposure likely varies across the spectrum of ASD.  ..........  Researchers are working to better understand the interaction of genetic vulnerability with developmental experiences, such as a specific environmental exposure. While gene-environment interactions have been hypothesized to play a role in many medical disorders, these interactions have been difficult to prove or disprove beyond statistical tests showing that some genetic subgroups have a greater response to some environmental factor. ............ Progress in identifying environmental factors which increase autism risk has been made recently (Eskenazi et al., 2007; Palmer et al., 2006; Palmer, Blanchard, & Wood, 2009; Rauh et al., 2006; Roberts et al., 2007; Windham et al., 2006), although this area of research has received less scientific attention and far fewer research dollars than genetic risk factors. Environmental factors may be pertinent not only to brain development but also to chronic systemic features of at least some subgroups of ASD.

- The 2010 Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee Strategic Plan for Autism Spectrum Disorder Research - January 19, 2010, Question 3: What Caused This To Happen and Can It Be Prevented?

The 2010 IACC Strategic Plan  statement  that environmentally focused autism research has been under funded and largely ignored could properly be characterized as a long overdue confession by the autism research establishment.  Autism research has been  focused overwhelmingly on genetic causes of autism to the near exclusion of environmentally focused research. for well over a decade with potentially serious consequences for our current understanding of possible autism causes and treatments.   Given that imbalance it is perfectly understandable that few potential environmental causes of autism have been identified or confirmed through research.  If we don't open our eyes and look, if we don't do the research, then we will not find environmental causes of autism.

The overwhelming imbalance in favor of genetically based autism research was identified over a decade ago by  researcher Teresa Binstock in her 1999 description of the  "It's gotta be genetic" autism research paradigm.  Binstock  pointed to the culprit -  the old guard network that insisted that autism research be genetically focused in order to have any hope of receiving public funded research dollars:

My own hunch is that the NIH and NIMH will not change from within; the senior practitioners of the "it's gotta be genetic" model have too much influence. Just as Semmelweiss and his data were suppressed, so too will the NIH/NIMH autism-research insiders continue to act against the the growing body of new data in autism; the NIH's pro-genetic old-timers will cling to their paradigm and its funding. As a result, change within the NIH and NIMH will have to be initiated from outside those tax-supported corporations.

-Teresa Binstock, 1999, IGNAZ SEMMELWEISS and AUTISM: when prevailing paradigms resist change

The imbalance in favor of genetic over environmental focused autism research has resulted in a call for more balance from many sources and hopefully that call will result in more than lip service.  There have been signs of an autism research paradigm shift over the past few years from the purely genetic model of autism to one which looks at autism as the result of a genetic and environmental interaction but the pace of change has been far slower than first hoped as pointed out by the 2010 IACC Strategic Plan above , by Dr. Irva Hertz-Picciotto and by Dr. Jon Poling.

Too much time has been wasted on the irrational insistence that autism research must be genetically focused.  We have lost the knowledge that years of more balanced autism research, with greater attention to potential environmental factors, might have given us. We must find that balance as we move  forward or more knowledge, and possibly treatments and cures, will continue to be lost.

Environmentally focused autism research must receive more attention and funding. Even the IACC has recognized the imbalance in favor of genetic over environmentally focused research. 

It is now time to redress the imbalance. 

autism

The Purely Genetic Model of Autism and My Westmorland Street Bridge Knock Out

Yesterday I suffered a concussion. While taking pictures I slipped and fell and was knocked out for a few minutes on the Westmorland Street Bridge in Fredericton . I had received a very good whack on the back of my head.  On coming to I immediately checked ... my camera was OK. After walking further to the Second Cup  for a coffee I called home and Heather recommended I get checked out at the DECH, the Doctor Everett Chalmers Hospital, which I did. The pictures above are of the WS Bridge and some of the pictures   I took immediately before my fall.

Today, with a slight headache,  I was thinking about the incident and while I was knocked out I don't think I suffered any great damage. Another person though, not blessed with such a thick skull, might have suffered more serious injuries.    My fall on the bridge makes me think again of the view that autism is purely genetic, the view that has dominated autism research funding models and neurodiversity  autism ideology over the past decade. It is a view which excludes any reference to external, environmental factors in causing or triggering autism.  Autism is inherited, end of story.

According to the "it's gotta be genetic" mindset  no external factors be they vaccine ingredients, power plant emissions, drinking water contaminants, plastics components, or the ingredients in the children's toys and jewelry that are all around us could possibly be involved in causing autism disorders. This grand assumption flies in the face of the fact that in some cases an identical twin will have an autism disorder while the other does not. It flies in the face of the fact that  people are genetically and biologically different in their ability to absorb external shocks.  One guy can take a punch, even a knockout,  and get back up and fight, or play hockey or football, another is out of the game. One guy can slip on ice and be rendered unconscious but get up and be none the worse for wear beyond a good headache the next day. Another might not recover so well.   One child has a preexisting mitochondrial disorder that renders her vulnerable to vaccine delivered shocks, another does not.

That "it's gotta be genetic view" of autism identified by Teresa Binstock 10 years ago is slowly giving way to the more likely and common sense based view that autism, like most conditions in life, good or bad,  results from the interaction of genetic and  environmental factors.  Even the IACC and Dr. Tom Insel are grudgingly beginning to acknowledge that likelihood and to acknowledge the need for increased funding of environmentally focused autism research.

We have reason to hope that the "it's gotta be genetic", frozen view of autism  will soon  be thrown off the research funding bridge ... or at least suffer a serious slip and fall. Hopefully 2010 will be the year that   environmentally focused autism research gets up on its feet and we begin to understand all the factors that cause or trigger autism disorders.

autism

Autism and Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals: Time to Put a Stake Through the Heart of the "It's Gotta Be Genetic" Model of Autism Research

"My own hunch is that the NIH and NIMH will not change from within; the senior practitioners of the "it's gotta be genetic" model have too much influence. Just as Semmelweiss and his data were suppressed, so too will the NIH/NIMH autism-research insiders continue to act against the the growing body of new data in autism; the NIH's pro-genetic old-timers will cling to their paradigm and its funding. As a result, change within the NIH and NIMH will have to be initiated from outside those tax-supported corporations."

 

Teresa Binstock, 1999,  IGNAZ SEMMELWEISS and AUTISM: when prevailing paradigms resist change

"Right now, about 10 to 20 times more research dollars are spent on studies of the genetic causes of autism than on environmental ones.

We need to even out the funding."

 

Dr. Irva Hertz-Picciotto, 2009, UC Davis M.I.N.D. Institute Researcher

The CDC has issued its Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals which is available for downloading along with an executive summary and a list of the 212 chemicals present in humans measured by the CDC:

The Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals is the most comprehensive assessment to date of the exposure of the U.S. population to chemicals in our environment. CDC has measured 212 chemicals in people's blood or urine—75 of which have never before been measured in the U.S. population. The new chemicals include acrylamide, arsenic, environmental phenols, including bisphenol A and triclosan, and perchlorate.

The blood and urine samples were collected from participants in CDC's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which is an ongoing survey that samples the U.S. population every two years. Each two year sample consists of about 2,400 persons. The Fourth Report includes findings from national samples for 1999–2000, 2001–2002, and 2003–2004. The data are analyzed separately by age, sex and race/ethnicity groups.

I do not want to be accused of quackery or woo or some other such  insult used to  bully people into submission who disagree with the scientific and medical orthodoxy of the day.  Therefore  I am not saying that because the CDC has issued another report measuring the presence of hundreds of toxic  chemicals in human beings that it  means that autism, or any  other neurological or developmental disorder, is environmentally caused or triggered by these substances. The CDC site (FAQ section) makes it clear that:

The National Exposure Report does not provide health or toxicity information, state- or community-specific data, specific product or environmentally related information, or regulatory guidelines or recommendations.

I also fully acknowledge that I have only begun to read this report and that reading it and understanding the report will take this humble layperson some time. The report itself though is further confirmation of the presence of many toxic, dangerous substances in human bodies, including the bodies of young children and pregnant women.  My suspicions aside, I recognize that further research is necessary to indicate what role is played by these substances in causing or triggering autism and other disorders in our children.

There is no dispute that autism diagnoses have risen dramatically and that some of the increase is accounted for by diagnostic definition changes, increased awareness and other social factors.  But no one can credibly say that the toxic substances described in  the CDC's latest report on human exposure to environmental chemicals are NOT linked to the increases in neurological disorders in children, including autism.

Tomorrow, Friday, December 18, 2009 the CDC is expected to release a study confirming that 1 in 100 persons have autism spectrum disorders.   Given the increasing numbers of  persons with autism disorders and the presence of so many environmental chemicals, including mercury, lead and arsenic, in the bodies of our children, it is time to do the environmentally based research to determine what impact these chemicals are having on the development of our children.

Amongst other research on the effects of these chemicals, it is time to emphasize environmentally oriented autism research.

It is time to put a stake through the heart of the "it's gotta be genetic model"  of autism research.

autism

Autism Rising in Chicago: Tribune Investigation Determines Autism Increase is Real

For the most part the article Autism treatments: Risky alternative therapies have little basis in science goes over old ground in attacking alternative autism therapies. At times it appears that the article is actually going to send current autism knowledge back to 1999 when Teresa Binstock outed the medical establishment for insisting that only genetic based autism research receive scarce funding dollars and that , by implication, environmental factors played no role in causing autism.

All of a sudden, almost out of the blue, the Tribune investigative report answers in the affirmative a question many have been asking by declaring that the startling rates of increase in autism over the past decade are real:

Chelation's popularity as a treatment for autism is driven by the unproven idea that the disorder is tied to accumulation of heavy metals in the body. Mercury, once common in vaccines as part of a preservative called thimerosal, is often pegged as the culprit. Yet the federal Institute of Medicine reported in 2004 that a review of dozens of studies had failed to show a link between vaccines, thimerosal and autism. Subsequent studies also found no connection. After thimerosal was removed from childhood vaccines except for some flu shots, autism diagnoses continued to rise.

Congratulations to the Chicago Tribune for its investigation confirming that autism is indeed rising; that the increases in autism are indeed real. Since genetics can not explain these startling increases it should be clear, based on the Chicago Tribune's conclusion, that the autism increase is real, that environmental factors have to be involved in causing autism disorders. Maybe the Tribune can now do an investigative piece explaining why health authorities have discouraged environmentally based autism research over the past decade and more.

Maybe if health authorities pushed research of some of those potential environmental causes or triggers they could find cures and parents would not be left on their own trying to help their autistic children without the benefit of help from, and usually under attack by, scientific and health authorities.

Maybe.

autism

Autism Is Rising And We Still Don't Know Why

“What bothers us is that we really don’t know why it [autism] is increasing"

Dr. Alexis Reyes, November, 2009

The above quote by Dr. Alexis Reyes, President of the Philippine Society for Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, is taken from an article in the Manila Bulletin, Help sought as autism cases rise. Dr. Reyes discusses the rise in US autism statistics from 0.4 to 0.5 per 1,000 in population in the 1960's to 0.71 to 1.1 per 1,000 in 1990 to 1 in 150 a few years ago to current estimates of 1 in 91.

Dr. Reyes' honesty in admitting candidly that autism experts really can't explain the startling increases in autism is unusual and refreshing. Many experts point to the DSM and ICD diagnostic changes in the early 1990's to explain increased reports of autism and couple that with increased social awareness and diagnostic substitution. But the truth is that while it seems obvious that a substantial increase in reported cases of autism would result from such factors, particularly the diagnostic manual changes, it does not seem obvious that those factors explain all of the increase. In particular, no one can honestly say that autism figures are still being revised upwards every two years solely because of social factors and diagnostic changes made 15 years ago.

The truth is exactly as stated by Dr. Reyes, autism is increasing and we don't know why. What Dr. Reyes doesn't state is the reason we don't know why autism is increasing: funding authorities have refused to back research into non genetic causes of factors involved in autism over the past two decades.

Teresa Binstock reported in 1997 that the "it's gotta be genetic" official model of funding autism research precluded research involving environmental factors in autism. Dr. Irva Hertz-Picciotto, UC Davis M.I.N.D. Institute Researcher, stated in 2009 that even today "about 10 to 20 times more research dollars are spent on studies of the genetic causes of autism than on environmental ones".

Hopefully Dr. Thomas Insel of the IACC and other "experts" charged with recommending which autism research projects get funded and which do not will finally have an awakening, will come to their senses and start funding environmental autism research.

Maybe someday years from now, after the necessary research is finally done, we will begin to truly understand why autism is rising and what we can do to treat and cure the autism disorders that restrict the lives of so many. Maybe ... hopefully.

autism

Autism Research Funding: It's Still Gotta Be Genetic

Even the IACC has acknowledged in its public statements that the emerging view of autism causation is that autism likely results from the interaction of genetic, biological and environmental factors. Although there have been calls for more funding of environmental based autism research of late the "it's gotta be genetic" paradigm identified by Teresa Binstock in 1999 still appears to be holding sway over funding of autism research.

As reported in the LA Times yesterday $4.5 million from the US government stimulus funding will go toward one study by researchers at Harvard University and Children's Hospital Boston involving the sequencing of genomes of at least 85 people diagnosed with autism "in a bid to tease out the genetic basis for some cases of the neuropsychiatric disorder". As long as autism research funding is restricted to genetic focused research only the genetic bases of autism will be found. Possible environmental causes and triggers of autism will remain unknown or unconfirmed.

Information concerning the development of autism by children living in close proximity to power plants and steel mills, the role of toxic plastic materials and other potential environmental causes and triggers of autism will never be determined with any degree of certainty if funding continues to be directed towards genetic based autism research by as much as 20 to 1 compared to environmental based autism research. And of course, if funding for an observational study comparing autism rates in existing vaccinated and unvaccinated populations is not provided an informed understanding of the possible role of vaccines in causing or triggering autism will not emerge. The Offit extremists will continue to maintain that there is no evidence to support a vaccine-autism connection and the vaccine- autism war will continue.

Dr. Bernadine Healy, Dr. Jon Poling, Dr. Irva Hertz-Picciotto, and others who have called for more environmentally focused research of autism causes, do not appear to be heard by those who call the shots.

The more things change the more they remain the same.

autism

Environmental Autism Research Study Follow-Ups? Let's Even Out Genetic and Environmental Autism Research Funding

Right now, about 10 to 20 times more research dollars are spent on studies of the genetic causes of autism than on environmental ones.

We need to even out the funding.

Irva Hertz-Picciotto, UC Davis M.I.N.D. Institute Researcher

Recent years have seen the "it's gotta be genetic" stranglehold on autism research funding identified by Teresa Binstock in 1999 break slightly, albeit ever so slightly, with genetic research still overwhelmingly favored for funding purposes at the expense of environmental autism research as reflected in the above quote from Irva Hertz-Picciotto. The obvious danger is that if you look for genetic causes you will find genetic causes and nothing more. If you do not look for environmental causes of autism then those environmental causes will not be found. Possible preventive measures may never be discovered and undertaken and even cures may be missed.

Two studies of particular interest to me were published in the last two years with the authors of both studies qualifying their conclusions with the caution that more research was required, more follow up needed to be done before any firm conclusions could be reached.

The authors of Proximity to point sources of environmental mercury release as a predictor of autism prevalence, Raymond Palmer, Stephen Blanchard and Robert Wood, found that "environmentally released mercury from power plants in 1998 is significantly associated with autism rates in 2002. For every 1000 pounds of release there is a corresponding 3.7% increase in autism rates." The authors also found that "for every 10 miles away from the source, there is a significant 1% decrease in the autism Incident Risk. A 20-mile distance would yield a 2.2% decreased risk."

Palmer, Blanchard and Wood were careful to point out that their study should be viewed as "hypothesis generating" with further research required to examine the role of environmental mercury and childhood developmental disorders. The authors pointed out other existing research related to environmental mercury and autism disorders:

"a host of other plant, animal and human studies have demonstrated that distance to sources of environmental mercury exposure are related to increased body burdens of mercury(Ordonez et al., 2003; Fernandez et al., 2000; Hardaway etal., 2002; Navarro et al., 1993; Kalac et al., 1991; Moore and Sutherland, 1981). However, the effects of duration and dose amounts of environmental exposures are not currently known—and we do not know that body burden of mercury is in fact related to the potential exposure measures used in these analyses.

Mercury is a known immune modulator (Moszczynski,1997). These effects include the production of auto antibodies to myelin basic protein (El-Fawal et al., 1999) and effects on the ratio of Th1/Th2 immunity factors (Kroemer et al., 1996). This is consistent with the literature demonstrating similar types of altered immune function in autistic children (Singh et al., 1997; Singh and Rivas, 2004; Krause et al., 2002; Cohly and Panja, 2005; Vojdani et al., 2003).

I previously blogged about a study noted in the Toronto Star concerning the effects of pollution from two Hamilton, Ontario steel mills on mice living down wind from the mills. The study Germ-line mutations, DNA damage, and global hypermethylation in mice exposed to particulate air pollution in an urban/industrial location was published in PNAS :

"Mice breathing the air downwind from Hamilton's two big steel mills were found to have significantly higher mutation rates in their sperm, a new Health Canada-led study says.

While there's no evidence that residents of the area are experiencing the same genetic changes, the project's lead author says the findings do raise that question.

"We need to do that experiment and find out," said Carole Yauk, a research scientist with Health Canada.

A future study will look at "DNA damage in the sperm of people living in those areas."

...

Dr. Rod McInnes, director of genetics at Canadian Institutes of Health Research, said the mice could be "the canary in the coal mine" signalling the genetic risks to humans of breathing toxic air. ... While genetic changes in sperm would not affect a male directly, they'd get passed on to the offspring that receive his DNA.

Why did this particular story grab MY attention? We lived on Leominster Drive, in the westerly area of Burlington adjacent to Hamilton for 12 months prior to Conor's conception and a further 9 months until he was born at the Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital in Burlington. Two years later he was diagnosed with PDD-NOS, shortly thereafter changed to Autistic Disorder with profound developmental delays.

No, I have not jumped to any rash conclusions concerning the Hamilton steel mills study but I would certainly be interested in any follow up studies done or planned as suggested by lead author and Health Canada research scientist Carole Yauk Ph. D., who stated that an experiment needed to be done to find out whether residents living in the area would suffer the same consequences. I actually emailed Dr. Yauk and asked about the prospects for the follow up study she had indicated needed to be done. She said she was optimistic that funding would be obtained but that such experiments were very expensive and obtaining grants was very competitive. I don't know if Dr. Yauk was ultimately successful in obtaining funding for her experiments. Hopefully the funding was found.

How about it Autism Speaks? Can you chip in to provide funding for some badly needed environmental autism research?

In the opinion of this humble autism dad it is long past time to shift some of the research funding from the overwhelmingly genetic oriented autism research to environmental based research.

20 to 1 doesn't sound right. Equal parts, 1 to 1, genetic to environmental autism research sounds a whole lot better.

autism

Why Autism? An Excellent Question

"at this moment some one with autism is being born, the question is W H Y"

Kevin Fox, UK autism dad, posted on facebook

Hopefully, some day in the not too distant future, researchers and public health authorities will ask themselves the question Kevin Fox asked on facebook. WHY autism? Simply assuming that autism is 100% genetic is not science. It is long past time for the "it's gotta be genetic" mindset identified by Teresa Binstock in 1999 to be put aside and research conducted to understand all of the causes and triggers of autism - genetic, biological and environmental. If those causes or triggers include vaccines or vaccine ingredients then so be it. This parent, and most parents, want to know why their child has an autism disorder. With numbers of autism diagnoses rising society has an interest in knowing W H Y.

Why autism is a question which remains unanswered. Public health authorities and researchers who are afraid to explore all possible answers to that question for fear that the answer might point to vaccines, or to industrial products, should step aside and let real scientists and researchers, those with open minds and without conflicts of interest weighing them down, do the necessary research to answer it.

Why autism? Let's get busy and answer that excellent question.

autism

Offit and Insel Fear Real Vaccine Autism Research

I am a neutral in the vaccine autism war. I have NOT concluded that vaccines or their ingredients cause, or trigger, autism but I do believe that the claim that science has conclusively proved that there is no vaccine autism connection does not hold water. I am also increasingly puzzled by, and concerned by, the opposition of the IACC and persons like IACC head Dr. Tom Insel and vaccine inventor and consequent multimillionaire Dr. Paul Offit, to conducting an observational study comparing autism rates between vaccinated and existing non vaccinated population groups.

The criticisms of the studies cited in support of the position that a vaccine autism link has been conclusively disproved by science have been covered elsewhere in detail and are well known. The most obvious example is the Danish study, conducted after prodding by US health authorities, which examined autism rates from 1972 to 2000 with the diagnostic and social changes that took place over that time period, including the addition of different population groups to the Danish database during different years. The study authors themselves stated that the study did not prove a negative vaccine autism relationship.

The most serious flaw in the position that science has disproved any possible vaccine autism connection is that NO studies have compared autism rates between vaccinated and non vaccinated population groups. What is most surprising is that people like Dr. Paul Offit and Dr. Tom Insel, especially Dr. Insel, oppose such a study. Given their opposition to such a study, and the lack of a persuasive rationale for their opposition, it is difficult not to conclude that the good Doctors Offit and Insel are afraid of what such a study might show.

Dr. Bernadine Healy, former NIH head, has stated that the epidemiological studies relied upon by authorities to argue against a possible vaccine autism connection are not specific enough to address the effects of vaccines on vulnerable population subsets. She has also argued that an observational study comparing autism rates amongst vaccinated and existing non vaccinated groups COULD and SHOULD be done. Dr. Julie Gerberding, until recently the CDC head, also has stated that the observational comparative study could and should be done. Even Dr. Duane Alexander of the recalcitrant IACC has stated that the observational comparative study could be done.

Teresa Binstock noted in 1999 that funding was available for autism research only if the research proposal examined genetic bases of autism, the "its gotta be genetic " model. In 2004 the IOM expressly discouraged funding of vaccine autism research. Today parents and professionals, as predicted by Binstock, are vilified in the mainstream media (and by attention seeking bloggers like Orac) for even discussing the possibility of a vaccine autism connection. Dr. Paul Offit has been waging an increasingly emotional campaign for several years as a result of which parents are marginalized and dissident professionals are branded as dangerous. Dr. Insel's IACC engaged in agenda and procedural games to reverse its own decision to examine vaccine autism research and the good Dr. Insel testified somewhat bizarrely in front of Senator Harkin's committee that an observational comparative study could not be done.

Substantial sums of money have been poured into genetic based autism research over more than 10 years based on the "its gotta be genetic" funding mindset identified by Teresa Binstock, with no hope of finding cause or cure from such research. It seems very weak to suggest that some of that funding could not be diverted to funding an observational comparative study of vaccinated and non vaccinated groups.

The only reasonable conclusion left to be drawn is that Dr. Tom Insel, Dr. Paul Offit, and other public health authorities who refuse to consider funding of an observational comparative study, are afraid of what the results of such a study might show - that non vaccinated groups have significantly lower autism rates than vaccinated groups.

autism

Autism Prevalence - Why Wasn't the Research Done?

My son Conor was born in 1996 and received an autism diagnosis in 1998. Since 1996 the estimated prevalence of autism has increased dramatically from 1 in 500 to 1 in 150. A recent study suggests the figure may now be 1 in 100. The UK estimate is currently 1 in 100 with a recent study suggesting a figure of 1 in 58. In the 13 years from 1996 to 2009 though despite this incredible increase in numbers of children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders there are many who deny the increase is real.

From 1996 to 2009 those who deny the existence of a real increase in autism have used the same speculation to deny the existence of a real increase in autism. They often conclude their denial of a real autism increase with the refrain that more research needs to be done. So why wasn't the research done?

Have public health authorities and researchers not been taking autism disorders seriously? Do they not understand the realities facing children born with autism spectrum disorders, and their families? It is just academic curiosity or the availability of research grants that motivate the necessary research?

1996 BMJ Editorial

Thus there is no firm evidence for or against a general rise in the prevalence of "typical autism" or other autistic spectrum disorders. The impression that there is a rise could be due to a change in referral patterns, widening of diagnostic criteria for typical autism (which are difficult to apply with precision anyway), and increased awareness of the varied manifestations of disorders in the autistic spectrum (especially those associated with higher IQ). On the other hand, there might be real changes in prevalence, locally or nationally, due to temporary or permanent factors. Some recent research on typical autism suggests that complex genetic factors may have a major role in its aetiology.9However, in a minority of cases, mostly comprising people who are severely disabled, other physical causes may be implicated.3 4 It is possible that there are interactions between genetic susceptibility and other physical factors. There is also some evidence that mothers of children with typical autism are of higher than average maternal age.10 If this is a real association, changes towards later childbirth11 might affect the prevalence of typical autism and possibly other autistic spectrum disorders.2003 BMJ Article

2003 BMJ Article

The prevalence of autism, which was apparently rising from 1979 to 1992, reached a plateau from 1992 to 1996 at a rate of some 2.6 per 1000 live births. This levelling off, together with the reducing age at diagnosis, suggests that the earlier recorded rise in prevalence was not a real increase but was likely due to factors such as increased recognition, a greater willingness on the part of educationalists and families to accept the diagnostic label, and better recording systems. The proportion of parents attributing their child’s autism to MMR appears to have increased since August 1997.

2007 BMJ Article

Despite three recent studies showing that the number of diagnoses of autism spectrum disorders has almost doubled in the last seven years to around 1% of children, researchers say that it is still impossible to say whether the rise is due to a genuine increase in the number of new cases or to other factors.

2009 BMJ Group Information Published in the Guardian

How Common is Autism? Doctors once thought autism was rare. But newer studies show it seems to be getting more common. It's hard to say why. This may be just because the newer studies have been better at finding children with autism. Or it may be because the way doctors define autism has got wider. We need more research before we can say for sure what's causing the increase in autism.

2009 University of California Davis Study

The 2009 University of California Davis study The Rise in Autism and the Role of Age at Diagnosis is one of the first major studies to suggest that the rise in autism diagnoses may reflect a real increase in autism diagnoses. The authors of that study, Irva Hertz-Picciottoa and Lora Delwiche, also indicate that more research needs to be done:

"In summary, the incidence of autism rose 7- to 8-fold in California from the early 1990s through the present. Quantitative analysis of the changes in diagnostic criteria, the inclusion of milder cases, and an earlier age at diagnosis during this period suggests that these factors probably contribute2.2-, 1.56-, and 1.24-fold increases in autism, respectively,and hence cannot fully explain the magnitude of the rise in autism. Differential migration also likely played a minor role, if any. Wider awareness, greater motivation of parents to seek services as a result of expanding treatment options, and increased funding may each have contributed,but documentation or quantification of these effects is lacking. With no evidence of a leveling off, the possibility of a true increase in incidence deserves serious consideration. One approach to this question would be a rigorous investigation to determine incidence or prevalence in 20- to 30-year olds. If there has been no true increase and no individuals who were cured or outgrew their diagnosis, then the application to adults of criteria equivalent to those being used today in children should find, for each previously identified autism case, 4 to 8 undiagnosed cases. Whatever the final determination with regard to overlooked cases of autism in the past,the current occurrence of autism, a seriously disabling disorder in young children, at rates of greater than 30 per 10,000individuals — and still rising in California—is a major public health and educational concern.

In 1999 Teresa Binstock, a Researcher in Developmental and Behavioral Neuroanatomy, pointed out that funding was generally available for genetic based autism research but not for autism research focused on environmental factors. Ms Binstock described the "it's gotta be genetic" paradigm in autism research in her article IGNAZ SEMMELWEISS and AUTISM: when prevailing paradigms resist change. In that article Ms Binstock recounted the historical example of Ignaz Semmelweiss who was vilified by the medical establishment of the day for his observations about hand washing, childbirth and puerperal fever which challenged the medical orthodoxy of the day. His observations could have saved many more lives if they had been accepted by the medical establishment instead he was vilified and ostracized.

In her 1999 article Ms Binstock compared the medical establishment's response to Semmelweiss to the modern medical establishment's response to autism:

"In other words, there was a very real cost -- prolonged human suffering, even numerous deaths -- because despite the data collected and shared by Dr. Semmelweiss, medical-research officials of his day were defiantly resistant to change. Similarly, keeping Dr. Semmelweiss's fate in mind, we wonder in regard to autism, how many years will new data be ignored? In how many U.S. medical school research facilities will promising research be steered away from or squelched? What will be required to cause the NIH and NIMH to quit acting like the officials who suppressed Semmelweiss and instead to begin acting like sincere scientists who appreciate new data, even as paradigms must adapt or be replaced.

My own hunch is that the NIH and NIMH will not change from within; the senior practitioners of the "it's gotta be genetic" model have too much influence. Just as Semmelweiss and his data were suppressed, so too will the NIH/NIMH autism-research insiders continue to act against the the growing body of new data in autism; the NIH's pro-genetic old-timers will cling to their paradigm and its funding. As a result, change within the NIH and NIMH will have to be initiated from outside those tax-supported corporations.

As a goal for 1999 and beyond, I offer that parents and their organizations and foundations increase the pressure brought to bear upon the NIH and the NIMH in regard to how autism-research funds are allocated. The "it's gotta be genetic" model is no longer the only paradigm worthy of funding; and not to fund other models and other data in autism is no longer scientifically valid. The NIH and the NIHM are re- enacting the Ignaz Semmelweiss scenario wherein new data are ignored on behalf of an old-guard and its outmoded paradigm; autism children and their parents deserve far more. The paradigm-shift in autism must occur more rapidly, even within the NIH."

The most likely explanation for the failure to conduct autism prevalence research to confirm whether the dramatic increases in autism is real is probably the one offered by Teresa Binstock. The medical establishment is loath to accept change, to consider alternatives which challenge the status quo. An establishment belief that autism disorders are 100% genetic in origin will not result in research to determine whether an increases in autism reflects a real increase or not. The established belief is that autism is genetic and therefore any increase cannot be real since genetics do not change that dramatically that quickly.

The failure to fund environmental research is still occurring with genetic autism research receiving at least 10 times as much funding as environmental research. This imbalance permits medical authorities to continue claiming that it is not clear whether there really are more autistic children today then 20 years ago. But much more than confirmation of a real autism increase has been lost. Greater understanding of autism causes, treatments and even possible cures might have been lost.

The IACC has begun reluctantly to acknowledge that autism disorders probably involve an interaction of environmental and genetic factors but the performance of Dr. Thomas Insel discussing autism and possible vaccine connections before Senator Harkin's Senate committee was not encouraging. Dr. Insel clearly has a closed mind on these issues. He even stated that studies of unvaccinated populations and vaccinated groups could not be done for ethical reasons even though respected health figures like Dr. Bernadine Healy and Dr. Julie Gerberding have said they could be done using observational comparative studies of existing unvaccinated and vaccinated populations.

Valuable time has been lost by the failure to conduct environmentally focused autism research.

It is long past time to get serious about autism disorders, to focus on finding all causes of autism disorders, genetic and environmental, and to find treatments and cures.

autism