Autism Rising? Not According to Behavior Analyst Steve Taylor Who Proclaims That Autism Is 100% Genetic In Origin

Since my son was diagnosed with Autistic Disorder in 1998 the rates of diagnosed autism have risen dramatically from 1 in 500 to the current estimated rate of 1 in 88.  There is common acknowledgement that a substantial increase resulted from the DSM-IV changes which pushed acceptance of Aspergers as part of an autism spectrum.  Social factors such as increased awareness and availability of services under an autism label have also been cited.  Some purported autism experts  though have concluded that the dramatic autism increases are entirely attributable to diagnostic changes, increased awareness and the desirability for service reasons of an autism diagnosis. One such  autism expert is Behavior Analyst Steve Taylor who proclaims  in the Modesto Bee that "Autism isn't spreading, but the diagnosis is". 

The dramatic increases have also taken place during years when genetic autism research received an overwhelming share of the autism research dollar. Calls for increased funding for environmental autism research by respected researchers like Hertz-Picciotto, Pessah, Landrigan, Birnbaum and others have not  tilted the balance dramatically away from the "its gotta be genetic mindset".  No study proving that the overwhelming increase in autism disorders is caused entirely by diagnostic change and increased social awareness has been produced.  No study producing a genetic explanation for all or even a significant number of autism disorders has been produced.  Very few environmental autism studies have been funded compared to genetic studies and yet the Steve Taylors of the expert autism community claim that there is no real increase at all.  

As they did with the refrigerator mothers theory of autism a few decades ago many of the world's autism "experts" embrace as an article of faith that autism isn't increasing.  Once again too the finger is pointed, at least in part, at parents ..... this time it is parents seeking services for their children as stated by Taylor in the  Modesto Bee:

"I'm still working with the same kind of kids, but everyone today seems to have autism. I met an area family for the first time recently and the 3-year-old I was there to help looked me in the eye and told me, "Go home." He's got autism, now.

No one can diagnose a complex disorder from a single interaction, but I'm going to spend months and maybe years working with this family to change behaviors that this rude boy would likely grow out of and, despite my best efforts, maybe make it worse.

For pure and understandable motives, parents still lobby for the diagnosis. An autism diagnosis brings more services.

The Stanislaus County Office of Education lists three pre-formal diagnostic (too young to diagnose) intensive classes of six to eight students as well as five elementary autism classes, which come with two full-time autism specialists.

A student with the same delays but not diagnosed as autistic doesn't usually get that kind of specialized support."

The only way Steve Taylor and the autism epidemic deniers could possibly be sure that the increases in autism rates are not real AT ALL is if autism disorders are not caused or contributed to by any environmental factors; that autism is entirely genetic in origin. Taylor is a true believer that autism is not increasing; that autism is 100% genetic in origin.  For those of us who lack Taylor's brilliant insights into the causes of autism we will have to wait for studies that actually provide evidence in support of his belief that autism rates are not really increasing at all.

Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/2013/04/18/2676742/autism-isnt-spreading-but-the.html#storylink=cpy

Autism Now 1 in 50? Round Up the Usual Suspects AGAIN

From last years increase of autism prevalence rates from 1 in 110 to 1 in 88 a new report, based on parental reporting now indicates a rate of 1 in 50. Time once again to call out Inspector Renault (looking much like Insel, Grinker and other autism can not really be rising true believers) to round up the usual suspects of increased awareness, ascertainment and any other non environmental excuse they can manufacture to rationalize the failure to conduct the necessary environmental research into autism causation. Following is last years comment on the tired and pathetic posturing of the autism epidemic apologists:

"The usual suspects

The people habitually suspected or arrested in response to a crime. The phrase is usually used in regard to scapegoats rather than actual perpetrators of the crime in question.

This expression has a specific and unambiguous origin. It was spoken by Captain Louis Renault, the French prefect of police, played by Claude Rains in the 1942 U.S. film Casablanca. The context was a scene in which the Nazi, Major Strasser is shot by Humphrey Bogart's character, Rick Blaine. Renault was a witness to the shooting but saves Rick's life by telling the investigating police to "round up the usual suspects"."


-The Phrase Finder

CDC Director Dr. Thomas Frieden, playing the part of Captain Renault from the film classic Casablanca, rounds up the usual suspects as the CDC announces stunning new autism rates in the US of 1 in 88 children, 1 in 54 boys:

"DR. THOMAS FRIEDEN, director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 

There are a few things that we know for certain and there are some things that we don't know. And we always want to be up front about what we do and don't know.

We know for certain that doctors are getting better at diagnosing autism. We also know for certain that communities are getting better providing services to children with autism and that at CDC we've gotten better at tracking all of the children in a community who may have been diagnosed or identified with autism.

So we know that some of the increase is certainly because we're detecting more cases of autism. Whether that's all of the increase or not, we simply don't know. But we do know that there are many children with autism and that many of them need services and that diagnosis is often too late.

So whether this is a real increase or not is really secondary to saying that this is a big problem, lots of people are out there who need services and would benefit from services."

There is no dispute that diagnostic change, increased awareness and better detection probably explain some of the repeated and astonishing increases in autism diagnoses.  There is, however, no definitive study, or group of studies, which assigns 100% responsibility for the pre-2012 increases entirely to these factors.  There is absolutely no credible basis for anyone to state that the recent increase from 1 in 110 to 1 in 88 over a period of a few years is entirely attributable to diagnostic and social factors.  

Autism research funding has historically been directed overwhelmingly towards genetic autism research.  Only in recent years has any significant support been provided for environmental causes or triggers of autism, causes and triggers which might, and probably are, involved in these stunning increases in the numbers of children diagnosed with autism.  

The safe route to take in the face of such astonishing numbers is to invest more monies in treatment, education and residential care of those affected by autism disorders and to invest substantially more research dollars in exploring the environmental causes of autism disorders.  We must search for all the possible suspects as we try to determine what is causing the epidemic of autism disorders that increasingly affect more and more of our children.  

Autism Rising: LA Times Gets It Wrong

The LA Times has written an  ill informed, one sided, article on autism increases which misleads the public into believing that the evidence has clearly established that the entire increase in autism diagnoses over the past two decades is attributable to the 1994 DSM diagnostic manual changes, diagnostic substitution, and the hunt for government funded autism services. The article, Discovering Autism Unraveling an epidemic, can be summarized in the following paragraph from the article:


"Two decades into the boom, however, the balance of evidence suggests that it is more a surge in diagnosis than in disease."

The truth is the LA Times article publishes no reference to studies that confirm that conclusion about the alleged balance of evidence.  The LAT does refer dismissively to Dr. Irva Hertz-Piccioto who has conducted research on possible environmental causes of autism disorders.  It also offers selective quotes from a variety of other autism sources, in addition to Roy Richard Grinker, the anthropologist and father of a high functioning child with Aspergers, who has sought out all the allegedly autistic Korean children who function very well in Korean society.

What the article does not mention is the emerging consensus that autism arises not just from genetic factors, which would support the biased perspective the LAT offers, but from the interaction of genetic and environmental factors.  Nor, in dismissing Dr. Hertz-Picciotto's work, does it mention that genetic autism research has been overwhelmingly funded at the expense of environmental autism research.  Better to present positively the opinions of a biased anthropologist with an agenda then an actual autism researcher.

Dr. Bearman, a sociologist, is also quoted but not in any meaningful way. He was interviewed more fully, or quoted more fully, in an article on the National Institute of Mental Health website reporting a discussion Dr. Bearman had with Dr. Tom Insel of the IACC:

Dr. Insel: From what you know now when you add all of those together how much of the increase can you explain?


Dr. Bearman: Well that’s a complicated question, but I think we can pretty uniquely associate about a quarter of the increase from the birth cohorts from 1992 to 2001 which is a lot, to diagnostic change on the border between diagnosis and mental retardation in autism. I think we can associate about 16 percent of the increase on the other border between autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders on the spectrum: Asperger’s, PPDNOS etc. And those are largely non over-lapping components of increase, so that’s about 40 percent. I think the spacial clustering itself adds another few percent. I would say I am confident that 40 percent of the increase I think I know what caused that. That leaves a lot of increase left, 50 percent is a lot to look for still.


Dr. Insel: Any ideas about what’s driving that other 50 percent?


Dr. Bearman: Well, some is genetic. I think that the increased parental age accounts were 11 percent of the increase over this period and that’s a lot and the mechanism by which increased parental ages expressing itself I think likely largely genetic. I think the tricky part is going to recognize that it would be harder now to find that 50 percent. It would look like it should be some toxicological environment that’s shared because of the spacial clustering. Because there’s a very strong process of amplification of the understanding of autism that leads to increased diagnosis as parents learn how to recognize symptoms a very, very, small event that would transform the environment five years ago, ten years ago, even you could imagine, 40 years or 50 years ago, when the moms of children with autism now were in utero as eggs- a very small event could cascade into a larger epidemic now."

The LA Times could have checked out the web site of the IACC, the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee which states:

"As with many complex disorders, [autism] causation is generally thought to involve some forms of genetic risk interacting with some forms of non-genetic environmental exposure. ... In addition, a number of other environmental factors are being explored through research because they are known or suspected to influence early development of the brain and nervous system. Recent studies suggest factors such as parental age, exposure to infections, toxins, and other biological agents may confer environmental risk. ... 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" [Underlining added - HLD]


- United States IACC (Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee)

No one disputes the obvious fact that the 1994 DSM changes increased the number of autism diagnoses.  The LAT implies though that the "science" indicates that the increase in autism diagnoses is simply a matter of diagnostic change and substitution and that environment plays no significant role in causing autism disorders. That position amounts to a confession of ignorance and/or bias by the LAT ... and a lack of concern over whether the number of autism diagnoses could be decreased if the research dollars were distributed more evenly towards research of environmental causes and triggers of autism disorders. 

FOCUS: Autism Speaks Research Focuses on Brain Pathways and Possible Medicines

When I read the headline New Hope in Autism Fight, an article in the Wall Street Journal by reporter Melanie Grayce West, my first thought was Yeah Sure, Another Ill informed Feel Good Autism Puff Piece in the Mainstream Media.  My first response was wrong.  The article was brief and to the point and provided direct quotes from someone who knows what she is talking about when it comes to autism disorders, Dr. Geraldine Dawson. It set out succinctly  the very clear, and important, focus of Autism Speaks funded research ... research aimed at developing new methods of autism diagnosis and treatment. The comments  provide a rational and informed basis for the optimism expressed in the title. 

The article began by reporting another large contribution to Autism Speaks by Summer Redstone and outlined briefly some of his other generous contributions to medicine and health care. It included  a no nonsense realistic description by Dr. Dawson of autism disorders and the challenges they present to those who suffer from them.  Not a whiff of  feel good "autism is beautiful" stuff. It indicated  point blank that autism is increasing without any of the usual attempts to obscure the increase that often accompany reports of new increases in autism rates. What I found most interesting though was the concise and clear description of the focus of Autism Speaks research:

The core of the current research conducted by Autism Speaks focuses on translating the basic biology that researchers have learned about autism into new methods of diagnosis or treatment. The science suggests that even though autism has many different genetic and environmental causes, their effects may converge on a set of common pathways in the brain.

"For the first time we have the possibility of developing medicines that could help to restore the function of these pathways," says Dr. Dawson. Ultimately these medicines would help to reduce the core symptoms of autism.

In the next few years, the biggest challenge to researchers will be to develop medicines that would be useful for the broader, general population of people with autism.

"We are actually very hopeful at this point that we will be able to conduct clinical trials with people with autism in the upcoming few years," says Dr. Dawson. "That's never been done. We've never really been as hopeful as we are now."


I hope that Autism Speaks does not abandon any of its contributions to researching the causes of autism, particularly to the woefully underfunded environmental causes of autism, but I am very pleased with the efforts to find new treatments.  The goals of exploring the biological basis of autism disorders, the common pathways in the brain implicated in autism disorders, and Dr. Dawson's expression of optimism that medicines aimed at restoring the functions of those pathways will be developed in the upcoming years is clear, sensible and ... focused.  It is that focus which is so important and which I had begun to think was missing in Autism Speaks' activities.

Many parents hope for the development of treatments, of medicines, which will help their autistic loved ones but many of us grow skeptical, if not outright cynical, after seeing so many false starts and so much spin and hoopla over very little.  Dr. Dawson has stated that she and Autism Speaks are actually very hopeful for development of new medicines that will actually help the general population of persons with autism disorders and explained why they feel that way.  I believe she is speaking honestly and is in a position to know what she is talking about.

I am, once again, optimistic about Autism Speaks and the future of autism research.

Autism Speaks & CDC Autism Prevalence Increase Workshop Timely: Autism is Rising & Environmental Factors Likely Involved

"Based on the above mentioned research, approximately 53% percent of the increase in autism prevalence over time may be explained by changes in diagnosis (26%), greater awareness (16%), and an increase in parental age (11%). While this research is beginning to help us understand the increase in autism prevalence, half of the increase is still unexplained and not due to better diagnosis, greater awareness, and social factors alone. Environmental factors, and their interactions with genetic susceptibilities, are likely contributors to increase in prevalence and are the subject of numerous research projects currently supported by Autism Speaks.

The increase in autism prevalence is real and the public health crisis is growing. More families are affected by autism today then ever before."

Autism Speaks Official Blog, October 22, 2010

The above statement by Autism Speaks was based on several published sources and CDC information. including articles by authors Bearman and King, who have indicated that approximately 50% (47%) of autism prevalence increases are based on factors other than social factors. Now Autism Speaks and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are co-sponsoring a workshop  on February 1, 2011 to investigate the changes in autism prevalence over time in the United State:

"The purpose of this workshop is to identify promising directions, priorities, and needs for better understanding ASD prevalence trends. The workshop will include presentations on what has been done to understand reasons for ASD prevalence changes, examples of understanding prevalence change from other conditions, and panel breakout sessions to allow for further discussions.


This meeting is open to the public with pre-registration required by January 24, 2011 for US citizens and January 13 for non-US citizens."

Autism Speaks Official Blog, January 5, 2011

While Autism Speaks has been puzzling at times in its efforts to "speak" about autism disorders, promoting the careers of purported autism spokespersons who question the very existence of autism as a  medical  disorder,  the importance of the above initiative can not be overstated.  For far too long the "it's gotta be genetic" mindset has held sway and prevented substantial scientific exploration of possible environmental causes or triggers of autism. Hopefully the recent US Senate hearings, official statements by the IACC acknowledging the emergence of a gene environment interaction paradigm, the CHARGE study, work by Dr. Irva Hertz-Picciotto and UN Davis M.I.N.D. researchers,  and efforts like the Autism Speaks/CDC prevalence workshop will lead to further environmental autism research; research which should have been commenced  years ago.

Autism Rising: CDC Says Autism Increase is Real

One of the heated  debates, of the many, that arise in discussion of autism related matters is whether the rates of autism increase is real, in whole  or in part, or whether the rates are increasing solely because of 1994 diagnostic definition changes in the DSM and increased social awareness.  The  United States Center for Disease Control however, in arguing that thimerosal, the mercury contained in some vaccines, does not cause autism disorders, has taken the clear and unambiguous position that increasing numbers of autism diagnoses reflect a real increase in autism disorders:

"Does thimerosal cause autism?

Research does not show any link between thimerosal in vaccines and autism, a neurodevelopmental disorder. Although thimerosal was taken out of childhood vaccines in 2001, autism rates have gone up, which is the opposite of what would be expected if thimerosal caused autism."

Obviously if the increases in autism diagnoses did not reflect real increases in autism there would be no merit to the CDC position that increased autism rates confirm that thimerosal does not cause autism.   The increases in autism diagnoses are real, autism IS rising, the CDC says so.

Autism Rising? Dr. James Coplan Says It Ain't So But Is He Right?

Dr. James Coplan,  a developmental pediatrician with four decades of experience with special needs children,  argues in Psychology Today that there is no increase in incidence of autism.  Dr. Coplan distinguishes between autism prevalence which he describes as rates of autism diagnosis and rates of autism incidence which he describes as rates of autism occurrence .  The essence of the Coplan autism epidemic denial has been heard before and is obviously partially correct. The  changes in diagnostic definitions of autism from the DSM-III to the DSM-IV have expanded dramatically the numbers of persons described as autistic. I agree with that observation and I don't know of anyone who disagrees with it.  The problem is that those diagnostic definition changes do not necessarily explain the entire, startling increase. 

Dr. Coplan does not really provide any credible argument or evidence to show that the entire startling, increase in autism diagnoses  results from the 1994 diagnostic changes.  Since my son was diagnosed 12 years ago (and his diagnosis is Autistic Disorder, assessed with profound developmental delays) the reported rates of autism, the autism prevalence as described by Dr. Coplan,  have literally skyrocketed. From 1 in 500 to 1 in 110 with the most recent increase from 1in 150 to 1 in 110 occurring over a two year period, long after the DSM-IV changes.  Dr. Coplan simply provides no compelling argument or evidence to support his rigid thinking that the increase is explained entirely by the diagnostic changes, increased awareness or the internet as some are now using to spice up the denial argument.

Another problem for Dr. Coplan is that he is not criticizing parents of autism children , celebrities, or doctors who do not follow medical "consensus"  with his argument. It is easy to mock, ridicule and belittle   a celebrity actress autism mom when defending the safety of vaccines (even though it is an irrational strategy which simply creates more suspicion of health authorities).  It is much more difficult to ridicule the CDC which compiles the autism prevalence rates. It is much more difficult to mock the IACC which has published information indicating that only about 40-50% of the increase can be explained by the 1994 diagnostic change and social ascertainment factors.

Another huge problem for Dr. Coplan is that his argument ignores any possible environmental factors as causes or triggers of autism disorders.  If autism incidence, rather than diagnosis, has remained constant than that supports the decades  old thinking that autism was entirely genetic; that no environmental factors were involved. That paradigm was never much more than an assumption to begin with but it is  now giving way to a new paradigm; one that views autism disorders as resulting from the interaction of genetic and environmental factors.  

That autism paradigm shift is remarkable in its own right given the fact that autism research funding has been directed overwhelmingly toward genetic research at the expense of environmentally  focused research.  In other words if you look at the sky you will see the sky.  If you look at the ground you will see the ground.  If you do genetic research .... well you will find that in 3% of cases studies persons with autism had common genetic processes all of which were unique to the individuals involved.  YUP after decades of genetic research that's all we got.  With a shift toward more environmental autism research we are likely to find more environmental triggers of autism disorders ... and more information to explain the startling increases in autism incidence.

This humble autism dad in small town New Brunswick, Canada does not need a distinguished pediatrician like Dr. Coplan to convince me that the DSM-IV expanded the numbers of those diagnosed  with autism.  And I agree with him that the DSM-5 will continue that expansion. A great danger of that future expansion is that the obsession with genetics will once again be supported by the inability to distinguished autism prevalence and incidence because of a new DSM change.  The environmental aspect of autism disorders, the environmental triggers of autism disorders, which may essentially be synaptic disorders, will be neglected and the real increase in autism incidence denied and obscured again.

Dr. Coplan's decades of pediatric experience should be respected and valued but they should also be seen as potential obstacles to new thinking, new paradigms and new evidence from credible authorities, like the CDC and the IACC. Researchers like Dr. Irva Hertz-Picciotto,  who has said that we need more environmental focused research to help us understand what is happening, should be heeded and their opinions valued.  We have to move to a new paradigm and abandon the old assumptions that autism is entirely genetic, that autism is not actually increasing, if we are to understand what is causing these autism disorders that may be synaptic disorders.

Autism Rising. Time to Face the Truth

The prevalence of ASD is rising in this country without a definitive understanding of why this is occurring. According to a December 2009 report of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 1 in 110 children are diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), including 1 in 70 boys. That rate represents a 57 percent increase from the CDC’s report in 2007, which last reported that 1 in 150 children with a diagnosis of ASD.4 The CDC has not been able to attribute this increase to better, earlier and broader diagnosis of the disorder, concluding that it cannot “rule out” a true increase in the prevalence of ASD.

The economic implications of ASD on society are significant. According to a 2006 study by the Harvard School of Public Health, the direct and indirect costs of taking care of an individual with autism over a lifetime can be $3.2 million. Lost productivity and adult care contribute heavily to this estimate. The cost to society to care for all individuals with autism is estimated to be $35 billion each year.5

Division of Health Care Finance and Policy (DHCFP)Review and Evaluation of Proposed Legislation Entitled: An Act Relative to Insurance Coverage for Autism House Bill 3809 Provided for The Joint Committee on Financial Services March 2010       

I will leave it to those who glorify autism disorders to KWibble with the information provided by  both the DHCFP of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the CDC.  The conclusions reached concerning rising autism rates have been voiced many times by concerned parents and autism professionals but have been dismissed   Autism is a disorder, it is a serious disorder that impacts everyone in our society. It is time to ignore the autism is beautiful nonsense once and for all and push hard for real autism research, treatment, cure and services. Let's not let another decade go by without a serious effort to address the very real autism crisis that has been staring us in the face for so long.


It ain't just genetic. Time to face the truth, autism is rising and the crisis is real.

Autism Rising, Environmental Causes of Autism Disorders, and the Top Autism Interview of the 2000-2009 Decade

The autism interview of the decade, from the perspective of this father of a severely autistic 14 year old boy seeking real answers and future directions concerning my sons Autistic Disorder,  is the David Kirby interview with Dr. Tom Insel in December 2009. There are many contentious debates in discussions of autism disorders including the debate over whether the startling increases in rates of autism diagnoses over the past decade from 1 in 1000 to 1 in 500 to 1 in 110 reflects a real increase in autism or whether they are attributable entirely to the diagnostic  manual changes in the early 1990's combined with increased awareness and the alleged existence of autism services motivating parents to seek autism diagnoses.  Tied directly to this issue is the question of whether autism is caused entirely by genetic factors or whether environmental factors are also involved.

David Kirby's recent interview with Dr. Tom Insel, head of the IACC, and not known to be a celebrity actress, an anti-vaxxer or an hysterical, rage filled parent of a child with an autism disorder,  sheds much light on these issues. I encourage everyone, including reporters and journalists with Mainstream Media outlets and anti autism cure Neurodiversity ideologues like Obama disability nominee Ari Ne'eman, to read the transcript of the Kirby interview with Dr. Insel in its entirety.  Some important points made by Dr. Insel in that interview:

"So how much of the doubling or - in this case tenfold increase over a decade - how much of it is related to change in diagnosis, how much to ascertainment? It looks like about 24 percent of the California increase can be attributed to something like a change in diagnosis criteria. They are beginning to use multiple diagnoses. So that children before, who were listed simply as mentally retarded rather than autism - but they had both - are now logged in with both. But that really caps out at around 24 percent. There’s probably another piece of this, which globally could be attributed to ascertainment. But that caps out at around 16 percent, or something like that. And when you put all of that together, you are still well below explaining 50 percent of the increase.

So what does that mean? It means that, as far as I can tell, the burden of proof is upon anybody who feels that there is NOT a real increase here in the number of kids affected." 

...

This tells you that, you really have to take this very seriously. From everything they are looking at, this is not something that can be explained away by methodology, by diagnosis. Some piece of it can, but the whole thing can’t.

...

 Yes. I don’t think anybody is arguing that it is 100-percent genetic. I mean, I think that there are just a lot of questions that this raises. And I don’t think in those terms, exactly, that it’s either genetic or it’s environmental. From my perspective, it’s almost always going to be both. And the only question is: How do you nail down this interaction, how do you go after it?

...

There is no question that there has got to be an environmental component here. The problem for us has been trying to find the right way to get our hands around it, and to identify what that is most likely related to." 

The acknowledgements by Dr. Insel, head of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee, (1) that autism is really increasing and (2) that there is an environmental component to that increase are huge developments in our attempts to understand autism disorders and what is causing them. The assumption for over a decade has been that autism is 100% genetic and that none of the autism increase is real.  Funding of autism research has reflected those twin assumptions.  Now is the time to face autism reality, to start researching and understanding the interaction of genetic and environmental factors that cause and contribute to autism disorders. With the knowledge gained from understanding what causes autism disorders we will be much better able to identify treatments and cures to help those afflicted by these serious disorders.

David Kirby's December 2009 interview with IACC Director Tom Insel easily ranks as the top autism interview of the 2000-2009 decade ... in the opinion of this humble father of a son severely affected by Autistic Disorder. 

CDC Advisor Says Autism Increasing in Denmark, Sweden and the United States

Autism epidemic deniers will never acknowledge that autism is really increasing.  Another expert however  has stated that autism is increasing in Denmark, Sweden and the United States.  Adopting the logic of experts like Dr. Eric Fombonne and Dr. Judy Minshew  Pediatric Infectious Disease Specialist  Patsy Stinchfield,  a member of the CDC Advisory Committee that recommended that children in the US get annual flu shots,  dismissed  concerns that thimerosal in vaccines contributes to autism:

"Autism is a devastating condition but efforts to prevent autism by removing mercury from vaccines have been ineffective, even when mercury banned in the 1990s in a couple of European countries. 

"Denmark and Sweden, right. So no change. So they said 'Well if we think its Thimerosal or mercury, we'll take it out.' And they took it out and same in the United States," said Stinchfield. "And autism has done nothing but continue to increase.""

- Expert: H1N1 Vaccines Do Not Contain Mercury

Fombonne, Minshew and CDC advisor Stinchfield all argue that thimerosal has been disproven as a causal factor for autism disorders.  For their arguments to have merit the autism increases they are referencing as disproving any thimerosal autism connection would have to be real and not reflections of diagnostic definition expansion or ascertainment factors.

So what is causing the increasing rates of autism in Europe and the US? Most of the experts who weight in on the issue do so for the purpose of supporting vaccine safety.  The learned scholars  have demonstrated no real interest in studying and finding out  what is causing the startling autism increases that parents,  ill informed, hysterical, incompetent parents have been pointing out for years. 

Autism Rising in the New York Times

The New York Times has joined those who assert that rising autism rates reflect a real increase in autism and are not explained solely by changes in autism diagnosis definitions and increased awareness:

"In the United States, anti-vaccine groups have advanced other theories since then to explain why they think vaccines cause autism. For years, they blamed thimerosal, a vaccine preservative containing mercury. Because of concerns over the preservative, vaccine makers in 2001 largely eliminated thimerosal from routinely administered childhood vaccines.

But this change has had no apparent impact on childhood autism rates. "

The New York Times argument ,previously advanced by Dr. Eric Fombonne and Dr. Nancy Minshew, only makes sense if it is based on real increases in autism rates. Increases in autism rates after removal of thimerosal from vaccines solely because of diagnostic definition changes and ascertainment factors would not indicate whether thimerosal did or did not play a role in causing autism. 

autism

Dr. Eric Fombonne and Dr. Nancy J. Minshew Both Said Autism Increases are Real

"   Nancy J. Minshew is finally ready to take off the gloves.After years of sitting back and hoping the science would speak for itself, the director of the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Excellence in Autism Research has decided it's time for her to take a personal stand.  Autism is not caused by vaccinations, she says, and those who continue to push that theory are endangering the lives of children and misdirecting the nation's scarce resources for autism research."   The weight of the evidence is so great that I don't think there is any room for dispute. I think the issue is done," said Dr. Minshew, who runs one of nine top autism research centers funded by the National Institutes of Health.

One of the main pieces of evidence against the vaccine theory, Minshew said, is that thimerosal has been banned from most childhood vaccines in America since 2001, and yet reported autism rates have continued to increase.

Dr. Eric Fombonne, an autism researcher at McGill University in Montreal, has an even more telling example of that. In Quebec, children who got vaccines from 1987 to 1991 had about half as much mercury exposure as those in the United States; from 1992 to 1995, they had the same amount; and from 1996 on they had no exposure at all because mercury preservatives were removed. Yet the autism rates in Quebec increased steadily through that entire period, and actually went up faster after the mercury was eliminated."

Mark Roth, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, ScrippsNews, January 31, 2008

Followers of Dr. Eric Fombonne  (eg. Luna the Cat) insist that the good Doctor does not maintain that autism is rising.  They claim that he has published articles and made comments to the contrary. They assert  that his view is that the dramatic increases in autism disorders do not reflect real increases in autism; that they are due entirely to diagnostic definition changes, increased autism awareness etc. 

I agree that Dr. Fombonne has elsewhere argued that increases in autism are not real.  That is exactly why I pointed out that in the Mark Roth, ScrippsNews article above Dr. Fombonne said exactly the opposite.  The article is still available on line and, two years after it  appeared, there is no indication that Dr. Fombonne has sought to clarify his statements to Mr. Roth or to have his position as set out therein retracted or clarified.

Mr. Roth claims that Fombonne used rising autism rates in Quebec after the alleged removal of thimerosal from vaccines in that province to demonstrate that thimerosal did not cause autism.  That argument would have no merit if the rising autism rates referenced by Dr. Fombonne did not reflect REAL increases in autism. 

Nor did I take Dr. Fombonne's views as set out by Mr. Roth out of context.  His position that autism rates rose in Quebec after removal of thimerosal is identical to that of Dr. Nancy J. Minshew's statement as quoted by Mr. Roth. 

Dr. Fombonne and Dr. Minshew both argued that autism rose after removal of thimerosal from vaccines and that therefore thimerosal does not cause autism.   Dr. Minshew even called it one of the main pieces of evidence against the vaccine (thimerosal) causes autism theory.   She said that the weight of that evidence was so great that their was no longer room for doubt.   But that argument can only be right IF Dr. Minshew and Dr. Fombonne  were asserting that rising autism rates reflect a REAL  increase in autism.

Autism is rising, it is actually and really rising.  Take it from Dr. Minshew .... and Dr. Fombonne.

autism

Autism Rising? Dr. Eric Fombonne Says Yes It Is

Despite the recent figures from the CDC revising autism prevalence rates upward from 1 in 150 to 1 in 110 die hard deniers of the existence of an autism epidemic refuse to acknowledge the obvious.  One of the most stubborn deniers is Kev Leitch at LBRB a Neurodiversity driven "autism" blog. 

In a recent lbrb post  denying the reality of the increasing rates of autism disorders Kev clings to the 1994 diagnostic changes and to social and ascertainment factors.  He does so even though Dr. Tom Insel, head of the IACC, has recently stated that studies can only attribute slightly less than 50% of the startling rates of increases to such diagnostic and ascertainment factors. The onus, according to Dr. Insel, is on those who would deny that autism is actually increasing to make their case.

Kev's diagnostic and ascertainment factors accounting for less than 50% of the autism increases what is left? Well Kev drops a few names without much explanation.  One of the names he drops, somewhat curiously is Dr. Eric Fombonne.   What makes Kev's reference to Dr. Fombonne so curious is that the good Doctor has previously indicated that autism actually is rising and quite dramatically.  He did so in the context of "debunking" claims that the mercury based preservative thimerosal used in vaccines (including recently in the H1N1 vaccines) does not cause autism disorders (as reported by Scripp news) :

"One of the main pieces of evidence against the vaccine theory, Minshew said, is that thimerosal has been banned from most childhood vaccines in America since 2001, and yet reported autism rates have continued to increase.Dr. Eric Fombonne, an autism researcher at McGill University in Montreal, has an even more telling example of that. In Quebec, children who got vaccines from 1987 to 1991 had about half as much mercury exposure as those in the United States; from 1992 to 1995, they had the same amount; and from 1996 on they had no exposure at all because mercury preservatives were removed. Yet the autism rates in Quebec increased steadily through that entire period, and actually went up faster after the mercury was eliminated."

I do not know if Dr. Fombonne is correct in stating that mercury was removed from all Quebec vaccines or not.  What is relevant for Kev's argument  who cites Dr. Fombonne as an authority for the view that autism is not really rising is the fact that well ... Dr. Fombonne has argued exactly the opposite in trying to prove that mercury based thimerosal in children's vaccines has been exonerated as a cause of autism disorders.   If the increase in autism diagnoses relied on by Dr. Fombonne in defending thimerosal was not a real increase, if it was due entirely to diagnostic and social factors, then Dr. Fombonne's thimerosal defence would be destroyed.

The factors cited by Kev Leitch and other autism epidemic deniers do not account for more than 50% of the autism epidemic. Name dropping of experts like Dr. Fombonne  does not change that fact. Especially when they themselves have publicly relied on real autism increases in arguing against thimerosal as a factor causing autism disorders.

Autism is rising and it is long past time that we started doing the research to find out why.

autism

Autism and the CDC - Who is the CDC Working For? You Can't Make This Stuff Up

"In other CDC news- former CDC director Dr. Julie Gerberding (2002-2009) was just appointed by Merck to head up their 5 billion dollar a year global vaccine division. ..... How delightfully ironic the person who headed up the CDC- who sat back and watched autism become an epidemic in this country and couldn’t tell us anything except “it’s not the vaccines” will now be working for a major vaccine manufacturer. Heck, maybe they had her on the payroll all along? You can’t even make this stuff up."

Andrea Keller, Letter to the Editor, Vindy.com

The press release of Dr. Julie Gerberding's move to Merck's global vaccine division after recently serving as head of the CDC was dumped  at  a time when it would be drowned out by the hectic Christmas season.  Andrea Keller was paying attention though and hopefully autism bloggers and concerned parents will keep this news alive.  The cozy ties between public health authorities like the CDC and pharma giants like Merck raise important public health issues, in this case autism issues, that should not be obscured by skillful news cycle manipulation.

autism

Questionable Autism Epidemic Commentary by Dr.Maria Gieron-Korthals

"Maria, your article is irresponsible. How dare you state an opinion as fact? Your arguments on the reason for increased rates of autism are speculative at best. "

The above comment was posted in response to Dr. Maria Gieron-Korthals article in the Tampa Bay Tribune "Despite rising numbers, autism is not an epidemic"

The comment author, "pithetake", is correct. Dr. Maria Gieron-Korthals does present as fact her opinion that there is no real increase in rates of autism:

"A startling jump in the number of reported cases of autism – recent government-funded studies state that the disorder may affect one out of every 100 children– might lead you to the think there's an autism epidemic. Well, the good news is there is no epidemic. So why are we seeing such high numbers?

There are two main reasons. First, the definition of autism has broadened, which would include more children and, therefore, increase the total number. Second, there is a greater awareness of autism, so more parents are going to the doctor sooner, and doctors and other professionals are making the diagnoses earlier"

To my knowledge no one disputes that a substantial increase in autism diagnosis occurred because of the broadening of the definition of autism in the early 1990's (1993-4). But no amount of creative, wishful, thinking can credibly explain how that definition change at that time accounts for continual and rapid expansion in the numbers of autism diagnosis 15 years later. From 1 in 500 to 1 in 250, 166, 150 and now 1 in 100. In just the last two years estimates are being raised from 1 in 150 to 1 in 100 and the good Doctor explains such an increase primarily on a diagnostic definition change 15 years ago? Baloney.

It seems reasonable to assume that, like most aspects of life in the Internet era, there is greater awareness and there is undoubtedly greater advocacy driving increased autism awareness, but there is no irrefutable and precise measure of the impact of such general factors on increased autism diagnoses. Given the startling increases as measured by the CDC more than superficial assumption is required to credibly explain why there are so many autistic children today. Saying that, in essence, we just didn't notice them, or think of them that way as recently as a couple of years ago just doesn't cut it.

In expressing her opinion Dr. Maria Gieron-Korthals ignores the study by Irva Hertz-Picciotto, Ph.D., of the UC David MIND Institute which concluded that environmental factors may be partly behind the increases in autism diagnoses. Dr. Hertz-Picciotto was featured on WebMD where she acknowledged the role of diagnostic definition changes and increased awareness in increasing autism diagnoses but also referenced the possible contributions of environmental factors:

"When you put it all together, this doesn't come close to explaining the increases in the last 10 years. The more you whittle away at this increase, the more you have to say that what is left over is real. ... Given that autism cases keep going up, and can't be fully explained by artifacts, environmental factors deserve serious consideration.

The awareness thing is very hard to quantify. But at some point, as more and more parents became aware of autism, the increase should have leveled off. Instead we see a continued increase in autism.

Time is passing and science has a lot to do to find the real causes of autism. A lot has changed in the environment over the last 10 to 15 years. And I paint with a broad brush when I say environment: These changes include things like medications people take and assisted reproduction technology as well as what is in soaps and pet shampoos and toothpaste and so forth."

Even the very cautious and conservative IACC, Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee, recognizes in in its 2009 Strategic Plan for Autism Disorder Research that environmental factors likely play a role in causing or triggering autism:

"It is imperative that resources be devoted to research commensurate with the public health need. Specifically, we need research that deepens our understanding of ASD, including the complex genetic and environmental factors that play a role in its causation; development of improved ASD diagnostic approaches and treatments ... Having sound research on the risk factors and the environmental triggers for ASD ultimately may allow us to achieve the goal of prevention: preventing the development of the disorder in some people at risk or reducing the degree of severity in those affected... 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."

Dr.Maria Gieron-Korthals's statements dismissing any real increase in autism are opinions not facts. Her opinions do not appear to be consistent with current study or informed opinions about the role of environmental factors in causing real increases in autism.

autism

Autism Rising or Not? Mercury Disproved as Autism Cause or Not?

In an exchange at About.com: Autism AutismNewsBeat, the host of a blog which claims to serve as an evidence based autism resource for journalists, (it is really more of an ideologically driven Neurodiversity blog), has taken the position that there has been no real increase in autism over the past two decades. Yet ANB fails to understand that in taking that position he is disavowing the assertion by many that a thimerosal (mercury preservative in vaccines) causal connection to autism was disproved by the increase in autism rates after the removal of thimerosal from vaccines in 2002:

"(10) AutismNewsBeat says:

“Will the media herd ever note that the same authorities who say that they can’t be sure that autism is really increasing today because of the 93-94 diagnostic definition changes state that that thimerosal was disproven as an autism trigger because autism increased after the alleged removal of thimerosal from vaccines in Denmark in 2002?”

Harold knows that there is a difference between an increase in “autism”, and an increase in “autism diagnoses”. There are no data to show one way or another that autism prevalence has increased much over the last two decades. But it is indisputable that autism diagnoses have grown considerably.

ANB simply fails to grasp, or more likely acknowledge , that by claiming there is no real increase in autism diagnoses he is trashing the claim that autism continued to increase after removal of thimerosal from vaccines. By doing so he is arguing against the claim that any thimerosal (mercury in vaccines) autism connection has been disproved. (Except for flu vaccines but no one gets flu vaccines right?).

Perhaps AutismNewsBeat should tell Dr. Paul Offit to change the title to Chapter 6 of his novel "Autism's False Prophets" from "Mercury Falling" to "Mercury Falling, Autism Who Knows".

One point on which everyone, except perhaps AutismNewsBeat, should be able to agree is that if autism was rising after the removal of thimerosal there is no reason to assume that autism is not rising today. Conversely, if autism is not rising to day there is no reason to conclude that a causal connection between thimerosal and autism has been disproved.

Which is it folks? Autism Rising or Not?. Thimerosal (Mercury) as Autism Cause Disproved or Not?

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 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