The more worrying thing is that by 2050 there will be bits of autism lying around on the streets because there aren't enough children.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badly Ironed Shirt
The more worrying thing is that by 2050 there will be bits of autism lying around on the streets because there aren't enough children.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badly Ironed Shirt
I see adults all the time, who, if they were born now would be considered to have ASD. One of major reasons for a rise in diagnosis is simply that the medical profession are taking more notice of it now.
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...organic-foods/Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
For anyone interested in why there is a rise in autism here is someone else who says it's a statistical mirage.
Splott David - would you say that autism is a neurological disorder? If not, what is it? If it is a neurological disorder , what type of doctor would you seek advice from? A neurologist, possibly?
Brilliant!Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjk
If I was you I would not have cited a neurologist who plainly does not deal with the diagnoses of childhood autism. I would have picked one that had a track record for actually dealing with autism as part of his specialist skill sets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badly Ironed Shirt
I grew up in the 50's/60's and never ever saw one child with autism in my district.Quote:
Originally Posted by ian gibson
As far as I am aware a neurologist wouldn't deal with the diagnosis of autism.
A neurologist would know more about the diagnosis of autism and it's likely causes than an anti vaccine, anti GMO Computer Scientist - in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman
What does that prove, exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Splott David
You inserted yourself in a thread without reading the link embedded in the OP article, then you cite a 'neurosurgeon' who turns out to be a neurologist who spends more time as a celebrity guest on various TV shows, than actually practicing medicine, yet alone actually deal with autism in children. You make claims that any rise is a "statistical mirage" which I'm sure will be a great comfort to the severely over stretched staff who struggle to cope with the rising numbers of children being diagnosed with this ASD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badly Ironed Shirt
On balance don't you think this is one thread that you could have passed up on?
Yeah of course, wasn't directed at you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badly Ironed Shirt
You would probably expect certain ethnic groups who are known to be more prone to things like rickets to have a higher rate of autism if that were the case, which I think would have been picked up on by now.Quote:
Originally Posted by ian gibson
Also kids with autism have it from a very young age, possibly from birth, and certainly much too young to have been playing outside from dawn till dusk.
Quite clearly down to understanding the situation rather than people not having it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Splott David
Unfortunately clinical trials in this country do not necessarily correspond with that point of view on the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by TruBlue
"Prevalence of autism and related ASDs is substantially greater than previously recognised. Whether the increase is due to better ascertainment, broadening diagnostic criteria, or increased incidence is unclear. Services in health, education, and social care will need to recognise the needs of children with some form of ASD, who constitute 1% of the child population."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16844490
The footnotes in your third link are particularly interesting Ian, as is the reference to UK trials and studies in the main body of the article.Quote:
Originally Posted by ian gibson
As I stated earlier, I'm interested in whether or not there are greater incidents of autism allowing for the fact that the methodology of arriving at a diagnosis has now changed.
ONE percent of the child population.Quote:
Originally Posted by Splott David
I thought we were heading to 50%. :shrug:
Oh dear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Splott David
Firstly, I already explained the mistake about calling Dr Novella a neurosurgeon. Does that mean he is unqualified to speak? And what makes Dr Seneff more qualified, if you don't mind me asking?
Now you attack one of my linked sources "time spent practicing medicine". How much time does Dr Seneff spend diagnosing autism in children?
You started off this thread linking to a much debunked Dr Seneff report (I have read it previously, I read it again yesterday just after I posted a counter-link for the sake of balance and to benefit the critical analysis of other readers).
Let us start at the beginning.
Dr Seneff is called a "Senior Research Scientist at MIT". What is the MIT? The MIT stands for the Masachussetts Institute of Technology. So, where does Dr Seneff work in this technical organisation? Dr Seneff works in the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. Now, I don't know about you, but if I suspected my child had autism the last place I'd take them to is a Technical College that no schools of medicine.
http://web.mit.edu/facts/academic.html
Back to Dr Seneff. She is a clever lady, and she has three degrees. A Bachelor of Science in Biophysics. She followed that up with a Masters Degree in Electrical Engineering. She also has a doctor's degree in Computer Science.
She obtained all three degrees from the MIT, a very well respected place of learning in the US with an impressive alumni. She is still at the MIT, researching computational modelling and methods for improving communication between humans and computers.
So, let us be ABSOLUTELY clear. Dr Seneff has no qualifications or expertise in autism, epidemiology, or any other relevant scientific discipline. I doubt that she has the required skills to talk on the subject in anything other than layman's terms. Does that bar her from talking about the subject? In my opinion, no it does not. However, you are quite happy to discount the thoughts of a neurologist for flimsier reasons than the ones I could use to discount Dr Seneff.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20...yone-autistic/
An interesting article - and one that shows there is actually a similar correlation between the sales of organic food and autism. I appreciate you started this thread because you were interested in the rise in autism - but have discounted an alternate theory. In fact, you were able to produce solid (sic) evidence that you hadn't come across anyone with autism in the 60s. Do you know what? I have two kids - one now 18, and one 6, and they don't know anyone with autism either! We can't offer that as anything other than an observation. I could claim that the water in the Valleys is purer than the water in Splott and that is why you are seeing more cases of autism than my kids are. Of course, I am not making that claim - I am merely illustrating just how illogical it would be to draw any conclusions from the fact that you didn't know anyone with autism in the 60s, and my kids haven't come across anyone with autism in the 21st century. You do realise that autism is a hidden disability, though.
http://www.autism.org.uk/about/what-...cts-stats.aspx
Interestingly autism affects five times more males than females. I wonder why that is? If it was linked to Glyphosate, surely you would expect to see a similar number of boys and girls suffering?
In another swipe at my arguments (and I apologise for their brevity, I was busy with a number of things yesterday and I intended only to post a counter view to balance the thread). In another swipe at my arguments, you pour scorn on a link that says that the rise is due to different methods of measuring autism (despite the fact that you claim it is a factor) and, in a wonderful and chivalrous way, you stand up for the overstretched staff struggling to cope with the rise in autism.
However, I can be chivalrous too. These claims are dangerous. Shall I tell you why? An old work colleague of mine beats himself very often because his son has autism. He blames himself because he allowed his child to have the MMR vaccine. Can you remember when parents stopped vaccinating their kids for MMR because of the spurious claims made by Andrew Wakefield? This had two direct effects. Firstly, there was an increase in Measles cases. Secondly, parents who had already vaccinated their children (subsequently autism sufferers) blamed themselves for their child's illness.
http://www.webmd.com/children/vaccin...tbreak-study#1
It continues to this day, despite the claims now being widely accepted as being nothing more than a correlation and not a causation. Just as we can show there is a correlation between organic food sales and autism - why isn't Dr Seneff investigating that one, do you think?
Have you heard about golden rice? Golden rice is a GMO food that could help to save some of the 670,000 children that die from Vitamin A deficiency every year. If you have heard of the Golden Rice project, maybe you could explain why it has been held back?
What you have done here, in my opinion and I apologise if I am wrong, but you have provided the conclusion of your argument as the premise of the argument. You are assuming the conclusion.
Despite your claims, I have read your articles and articles like them over the years. I have read the counter arguments too - and it is on that basis that I have formed the stance that I am taking now. The claims being made by Dr Seneff are the sorts of claims that psuedo-scientists use to hold back progress on issues such as the Golden Rice project. The claims made by Dr Wakefield in 1998 led (in part) to measles changing from being an eradicated disease in the year 2000 to there being 667 cases in 2014.
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-persp...sles-pertussis
Also, the claims made by Dr Wakefield have led to a generation of parents blaming themselves for allowing their children to get the MMR vaccine.
Now, Dr Seneff's (she who specialises in AI and not in medicine, and certainly doesn't deal with autism in children) claims are likely to have some parents blaming themselves for the food they gave their children. And all because the media (both mainstream and alternate) are unable to distinguish between correlations and causation. I appreciate you are "interested in why there is a rise" - many people are. However, I suspect you started this thread with your mind already made up.
Oh, one final thing - Dr Novella has just one degree. It is a medical degree. He specialises in neurology. He is currently an assistant professor at Yale University. Unlike MIT, Yale has a school of medicine, and that is where Dr Novella resides. He is also a clinical neurologist at the same institute. I don't know whether or not he has diagnosed autism in anyone, you seem very certain he hasn't and, in the absence of any links, I will take your word for it.
Dr Seneff seemed so sure that the link to autism was through vaccination a while back, she now thinks it's caused by the GMO food process. She is entitled to change her mind but, on balance, I think this is one subject she should have passed up on.
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...ientists-view/
Bloody scientists.
Just a footnote - I am not saying that there is a link between organic food and autism. I'm just highlighting that other correlations exist and mean sod all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badly Ironed Shirt
Let's do this simply.Quote:
Originally Posted by Badly Ironed Shirt
I have not claimed or justified Seneff's article and have said so more than once.
The heading was in quotes for the purpose of stimulating debate on autism. It obviously worked.
I make no claims and offer no support to arguments as to causation and again have made that perfectly clear.
The link in the body of the Seneff article was factual and thus of value to the debate in and of itself.
I questioned your link to a neurologist, as much of the article on him discussed and recounted his career in entertainment. I believe that was a valid query as there is nothing in it relating to his expertise in the field of autism.
My interest concerns the growing rise in autism, even allowing for the fact that diagnosis parameters have been upgraded significantly since the 80's/90's.
I've no interest in correlation = causation arguments, I was dealing with that 30 years ago and am fully aware of that potential minefield.
What remains is the fact that there is a cause, or causes for autism, they could be environmental or genetic, or even a combination of both. In that respect all articles on the subject are of interest, if only to dismiss them later when countervailing information becomes available.
Badly Ironed Shirt wrote.
"Interestingly autism affects five times more males than females. I wonder why that is? If it was linked to Glyphosate, surely you would expect to see a similar number of boys and girls suffering?".
Taken from the life extention article
"The fact that vitamin D metabolism differs markedly under the effects of the sex hormones may go a long way towards explaining yet another puzzling fact about autism, namely its strong predilection for boys over girls. For example, researchers in Sweden and in Utah have now shown that estrogen has effects on developing brain tissue that serve to make it more responsive to the neurohormonal growth-stimulating effects of calcitriol—results which suggest that estrogen can enhance any beneficial effects of vitamin D on the brain. It has been found that estrogen increases the activity of an important vitamin-D-related calcium binding protein in neurons that plays several important roles during central nervous system development.
Though complex, these studies do support the notion that the developing brain of a female fetus, with its predominance of estrogen relative to testosterone, could make more efficient use of available vitamin D than would the brain of a male fetus. In a situation where there was plenty of vitamin D present, such differences would go unnoticed—but introduce the all-too-prevalent maternal vitamin D deficiency state, and the stage is set for possible impairment in boys more commonly than in girls, which is of course precisely the situation we see with autism’s gender discrimination.
There are similar comparisons with anxiety and depression as men tend to suffer far more with depression, while women suffer far less with depression but much more with anxiety.Quote:
Originally Posted by ian gibson
" https://www.geneticliteracyproject.o...organic-foods/ "Quote:
Originally Posted by Splott David
I've added quotes around it so I can distance myself from it later on should it prove to be incorrect.
":hehe:"Quote:
Originally Posted by TruBlue