Tuesday February 9, 2010
A group of autism researchers at the University of California Davis conducted a massive records-based study analyzing "all the singleton births in California during the 1990s for which information was available about the ages of both parents, a total of about 4.9 million births and 12,159 cases of autism."
The findings suggest that mothers giving birth over the age of 40 are significantly more likely to have a child with autism. Meanwhile, according to an article in the LA Times, "For men over 40, there was a 59% increased risk of autism if the mother was younger than 30, but virtually no increased risk if the mother was over 30."
These findings may appear to be a smoking gun - a straightforward explanation of the rise in autism spectrum diagnoses. But in fact they would explain the incidence of only about 5% of the rise in diagnoses over the past ten years:
The number of women over age 40 in California giving birth increased by 300% in the 1990s, while the diagnosis of autism increased by 600%. At first glance, it might seem that the rise in older pregnancies could be responsible for the rise in autism, which is now thought to affect as many as one child in every 100. But the authors, from UC Davis, calculate that older mothers account for less than 5% of the increase in autism diagnoses.
Here's a quick glance at the paper's abstract:
Based on the first examination of heterogeneity in parental age effects, it appears that women's risk for delivering a child who develops autism increases throughout their reproductive years whereas father's age confers increased risk for autism when mothers are <30, but has little effect when mothers are past age 30. We also calculated that the recent trend towards delayed childbearing contributed approximately a 4.6% increase in autism diagnoses in California over the decade.
While the facts discovered are intriguing, they don't seem to add a great deal to our understanding of the roots of autism. In fact, says one senior researcher, we have a long way to go in understanding the roots of autism. In fact, Dr. Hertz-Picciotto adds:
...older women may be followed more closely during pregnancy, which would mean more ultrasounds -- which a few researchers have suggested might play a role in autism. Older women are more likely to suffer gestational diabetes and to develop autoimmune disorders, both of which have been linked to an increased risk of autism.
Join the Autism at About.com community on Facebook!
Sunday February 7, 2010
Last week, the New York Times printed an editorial entitled A Welcome Retraction. The article lauds the Lancet for retracting the 1998 study by Dr. Andrew Wakefield which sparked public anxiety that the MMR vaccine might have a causal link to autism.
The editorial goes on to share this quaint hope:
What is indisputable is that vaccines protect children from dangerous diseases. We hope that The Lancet's belated retraction will finally lay this damaging myth about autism and vaccines to rest.
In fact, of course, far from laying anything to rest, the retraction served as a galvanizing call to action. Parents and other supporters of Dr. Wakefield have been active in defending the man and his work through press releases, blogs, media statements and more.
Most significantly, the potent team of Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey produced and delivered an impassioned statement which included this accusation:
Dr. Andrew Wakefield is being discredited to prevent an historic study from being published that for the first time looks at vaccinated versus unvaccinated primates and compares health outcomes, with potentially devastating consequences for vaccine makers and public health officials.
It is our most sincere belief that Dr. Wakefield and parents of children with autism around the world are being subjected to a remarkable media campaign engineered by vaccine manufacturers reporting on the retraction of a paper published in The Lancet in 1998 by Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues.
McCarthy and Carrey make it clear that they will be actively promoting their perspective in the weeks and months to come. In fact, the biomedically-oriented Autism One conference planned for May, where Jenny and Jim will be keynote speakers, will also feature Dr. Andrew Wakefield.
Look for much more information to come about this conference and its outcomes. Already, its promotional material is headlined "The World Changes in May." Promises are made of surprise announcements. And this rather ominous statement is included on the conference website's front page:
Together we will redefine autism as a biomedical condition that can be treated and prevented. The past has been unkind to autism. The future is ours. We'll see you in Chicago.
Sunday February 7, 2010
I am unutterably frustrated to say that we don't get HBO. As a result, though I've read and heard plenty about last night's HBO presentation of the biopic "Temple Grandin," starring Claire Danes, I was NOT able to see it.
I can tell you that, according to several interviews, Temple Grandin thought it was terrific. From the Star-Ledger, for example:
"I just couldn't believe how she played me," Grandin says. "It was like going back in a weird time machine.
Melissa Silverstein of Huffington Post raves:
Claire Danes is revelatory as Temple Grandin animal behaviorist, best-selling author, autistic and expert in autism. This is a fascinating movie and I learned so much about this woman and about autism. Temple did not speak until she was four and if not for her mother would have probably ended up spending her life in an institution. What a loss that would have been.
Because I wasn't able to watch Temple Grandin last night, I did finally manage to rent and view Adam, the Sundance-winning film about a young man with Asperger syndrome and his romantic involvement with a gorgeous, wealthy neighbor... I had heard great things about it, and while I did find the acting to be compelling, the story itself was a bit weak.
So how was the Temple Grandin film? Are these reviewers really correct? Is the movie as good as they say? And - what do you think about the media response to Temple Grandin as a sort of emissary from the world of autism?
Share your thoughts!
Join the Autism at About.com community on Facebook!
Wednesday February 3, 2010
If you're new to the autism/vaccine debate, you may wonder who Dr. Andrew Wakefield is. You may also be puzzled as to why so much is being made of the revocation of a 1998 study including just twelve autistic children. If so, you may want to take a look at these short, non-technical articles on the subject:
Join the Autism at About.com Community on Facebook!
