1 in 68?

Discussions related to nutrition or medical research. Please remember that this is a discussion forum, not a medical advice dispensing forum.

1 in 68?

Postby vivian maxine on April 16th, 2015, 7:06 am 

Autism spectrum disorder affects 1 in 68 children. 1 in 68? Doesn't that seem like a very large number? That is the equivalent of one child out of every two classrooms - in some schools, almost one in every classroom. Can it really be so many?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... ce+News%29

And yesterday's Science Daily had an article linking it to gestational diabetes. Well, at least they are on track to finding causes. Next comes prevention, we hope.
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: 1 in 68?

Postby Marshall on April 16th, 2015, 11:01 am 

Vivian thanks for finding and sharing this!
"Autism spectrum disorder" could cover a wide range with varying intensity, I suppose. I don't know the terminology.
I want to quote parts of the article you found:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... ce+News%29
==excerpts==
In addition to being easier to sample than egg cells from women, sperm are more susceptible to environmental influences that could alter the epigenetic tags on their DNA. Feinberg, Fallin and their team assessed the epigenetic tags on DNA from sperm from 44 dads. The men were part of an ongoing study to assess the factors that influence a child early on, before he or she is diagnosed with autism. The study enrolls pregnant mothers who already have a child with autism and collects information and biological samples from these mothers, the new baby's father and the babies themselves after birth. Early in the pregnancy, a sperm sample was collected from fathers enrolled in the study. One year after the child was born, he or she was assessed for early signs of autism using the Autism Observation Scale for Infants (AOSI).
The researchers collected DNA from each sperm sample and looked for epigenetic tags at 450,000 different positions throughout the genome. They then compared the likelihood of a tag being in a particular site with the AOSI scores of each child. They found 193 different sites where the presence or absence of a tag was statistically related to the AOSI scores.
When they looked at which genes were near the identified sites, they found that many of them were close to genes involved in developmental processes, especially neural development. Of particular interest was that four of the 10 sites most strongly linked to the AOSI scores were located near genes linked to Prader-Willi syndrome, a genetic disorder that shares some behavioral symptoms with autism. Several of the altered epigenetic patterns were also found in the brains of individuals with autism, giving credence to the idea that they might be related to autism.
The team plans to confirm its results in a study of more families and to look at the occupations and environmental exposures of the dads involved. There is currently no genetic or epigenetic test available to assess autism risk.

Journal Reference:
Andrew P Feinberg et al. Paternal sperm DNA methylation associated with early signs of autism risk in an autism-enriched cohort. International Journal of Epidemiology, April 2015

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150415090030.htm
==endquote==
User avatar
Marshall
Honored Member
 
Posts: 7916
Joined: 17 Oct 2006


Re: 1 in 68?

Postby vivian maxine on April 16th, 2015, 11:20 am 

I was typing a response when I must have hit a wrong key and all went haywire. Shall try again and hope both don't turn up. Since such articles get in over my head, I start thinking in layman's terms. This makes me ask if they find this in more men because more men work in these hazardous jobs where they are exposed to unwanted chemicals? I had a friend whose daughter worked in such a department at Monsanto even though women were cautioned about the chance they were taking for future children. Unfortunately, her son is a victim of that "gamble".

Some day they'll find a preventative or cure. We just wait. I still think, though, that 1 in 68 seems like a terribly big number. But what do I know? Maybe that only means that many could have developed autism, not that they did. As I said, such articles get over my head.

P.S. Right. I took another look at your quote. It's how they use that word "tag" that is throwing me.
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: 1 in 68?

Postby neuro on April 30th, 2015, 12:53 pm 

vivian maxine » April 16th, 2015, 4:20 pm wrote:I still think, though, that 1 in 68 seems like a terribly big number.

Well, I must admit that my perception, in this matter, is exactly the opposite: how is it possible that ONLY 1 in 68 happens to undergo some problem in development?
One should consider how the perfectly concerted actions of thousands of proteins and genes and transcription factors is needed to guide the development of the nervous system (neuronal production, migration, development of dendrites and axons, synapse formation) with no errors.

In particular, long range neural connections seem to be defective in most cases of autism.
I mean, just think of a tiny neuron in some location of your right hemisphere which has been able to send its thin (1 micometer) and long (say, 20 cm) axon to a specific set of neurons on the other side of the brain...

It's how they use that word "tag" that is throwing me.

They mean a modification at a specific site: either a methylation of a cytosine or a methylation/demethylation or acetylation/deacetylation of a specific amino-acid in a histone protein (i.e. a protein that helps DNA to appropriately coil into a chromosome or to unfold to be transcribed). These modifications do not alter the sequence of the gene (and the final product = protein, but they modulate the way the synthesis of the protein is regulated, so that a protein may not be present in a sufficient quantity or at the right moment or place in the cell.
User avatar
neuro
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2620
Joined: 25 Jun 2010
Location: italy
vivian maxine liked this post


Re: 1 in 68?

Postby vivian maxine on April 30th, 2015, 1:16 pm 

I see your point(s), Neuro. About the "1 in 68", I was taking a broader look: 1 child in 68. Do we really have that many cases of autism? Apparently that isn't what the article meant?

About "tag", you defined it quite clearly but now I have a whole new lists of words to check on. :-)

Thank you for the education. Always appreciated.
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: 1 in 68?

Postby BadgerJelly on April 30th, 2015, 1:22 pm 

I think it was mentioned above ... "autism spectra". There are varying degrees.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: 1 in 68?

Postby neuro on April 30th, 2015, 1:59 pm 

vivian, you are certainly right: it sounds like a lot of them, and that was the message!
Still, given the complexity of the organism, isn't it incredible that we are so healthy, in the average?

Badger, I believe vivien was astonished by the number of cases, not the "number of forms"...

The term spectrum (Autistic Spectrum Disorders) has been introduced (as it has been the case "Bipolar Disease Spectrum") to indicate a wide collection of often quite different forms rather than degrees, of the disorder: from forms with heavy mental retardation to high performance forms, from forms that clearly recognize a genetic cause to sporadic ones, from forms associated with epilepsy to simple impairment of social communication and empathic capability, with stereotyped behavior and underdeveloped "theory of mind".
User avatar
neuro
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2620
Joined: 25 Jun 2010
Location: italy
doogles liked this post


Re: 1 in 68?

Postby vivian maxine on April 30th, 2015, 2:06 pm 

neuro » April 30th, 2015, 12:59 pm wrote:vivian, you are certainly right: it sounds like a lot of them, and that was the message!
Still, given the complexity of the organism, isn't it incredible that we are so healthy, in the average?

Badger, I believe vivien was astonished by the number of cases, not the "number of forms"...

The term spectrum (Autistic Spectrum Disorders) has been introduced (as it has been the case "Bipolar Disease Spectrum") to indicate a wide collection of often quite different forms rather than degrees, of the disorder: from forms with heavy mental retardation to high performance forms, from forms that clearly recognize a genetic cause to sporadic ones, from forms associated with epilepsy to simple impairment of social communication and empathic capability, with stereotyped behavior and underdeveloped "theory of mind".


Right. Considering the imperfections in this wobbly planet, a lot of successes amaze us all. The construction of a bumblebee makes it impossible for him to fly.
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: 1 in 68?

Postby doogles on April 30th, 2015, 6:46 pm 

When neuro posted "vivian, you are certainly right: it sounds like a lot of them, and that was the message! Still, given the complexity of the organism, isn't it incredible that we are so healthy, in the average? Badger, I believe vivien was astonished by the number of cases, not the "number of forms"...", he echoed a sentiment I've often expressed to farmers when I've delivered malformed calves causing dystocia.

One particular type of monstrosity was called a 'schistosomus reflexus'.If you can imagine holding a dead rabbit and stretching it by extending the front legs with one hand and the back legs with another and then bending it backwards so that the back of the head is touching the back of the hind feet, then eviscerate it, you have a schistosomus reflexus. It was the cause of 1 in 77 difficult births in cattle in Victoria and something like 1 in 2500 births.

I remember an instance where I had to do a caesarian section on a cow to extract a cshistosome for a vey concerned farmer, but reassured him that they were rare, and his chances of getting another case were very remote. After perforing caesarians on his next two consecutive births, he began losing sleep and was ready to shoot himself, when normality returned. It was very easy to make a fool of oneself as a countryvet.

All other 'monstrosities' combined would equate roughly to the number of schistosomes.

Farmers naturally regarded such as serious mistakes of nature, but my sentiments echoed those of neuro - What surprises me is how many neonates are 'normal' when there are so many steps in the foetal development stage and so many steps that need to be in delicate sequences without error. It's the percentage of 'normals' I find surprising.
doogles
Member
 
Posts: 841
Joined: 11 Apr 2009


Re: 1 in 68?

Postby curiosity on April 30th, 2015, 8:09 pm 

Call me an old sceptic if you wish to, but since the Thiomersal (Thimerosal in the US) has been removed from vaccines the number of the most debilitating cases of autism seem to have decreased. The symtoms of autism are many and vary from one individual to another, Hence the term Autistic Spectrum Disorder.

I recall that one of the theories concerning the possible danger of injecting thiomersal into youg children, was that although most children could naturally excrete this organomercury compound, there were some who couldn't and the retention of the organomercury compound led to developmental disorders

I consider injecting mercury in any form a foolhardy thing to do. There is already way too much mercury in the food chain, (which is likely the cause of the less debilitating cases of autism that are still occuring.) Children afflicted with the more debilitating forms of the disorder cannot attend mainstream schools. So, the children being referred to must be those with less severe symptoms.

The explaination for the removal of thiomersal from the vaccines, was that it was a purely precautionary measure.
In other words, the powers that be are so certain that its safe, they are going to remove it just in case they are wrong???

The fact that government bodies who sanctioned the use of thiomersal could be sued and some multi-national drug companies might be bankrupted due to huge compensation claims, is the likely reason that there is no definitive answer to the questions... "What causes autism? and more importantly.... Were those vacines safe?"
Not that Im suggesting that politicians might lie. (or be paid to say something, by a drug company.) "Politicians never lie to us, do they!"
curiosity
Member
 
Posts: 352
Joined: 19 Jul 2012


Re: 1 in 68?

Postby vivian maxine on May 1st, 2015, 7:23 am 

As long as we are talking inoculations, there is - in my mind at least - a question of how many are we giving in one big dose. I first observed the results of this with my cat. Veterinary medicine had come up with a "three-in-one" shot. After Katie had such, she was "out like a light". For forty eight hours I was putting water on her tongue to keep her hydrated. Finally she began to stir and slowly returned to normal. Before that, with one shot now and one another time, she never had any problems with shots.

I later saw something along the same lines when a child received five doses in one shot. I have no idea what was in that shot - whatever she needed to get into school - but her little arm swelled and turned red and hot to the touch. Tender to the touch also.

I wonder if it is wise to give several medicines all in one big dose like that. Perhaps something for the medical community to think about? Or, am I "off base"?
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: 1 in 68?

Postby doogles on May 1st, 2015, 4:53 pm 

Regarding the number (per se) of antigens injected into young mammals at any one time, vivian, once again I can contribute some anecdotal evidence from work with bovines. Until Bovine Brucellosis was eradicated from Australia, we vaccinated hundreds of thousands of calves with a live attenuated form of Brucella abortus that was dangerous if injected into the vaccinator. But while we were on the job, we simultaneously injected the calves with a 5 in 1 'dead' vaccine (aluminium precipitated, formalinised), so that the calves received 6 antigens at once.

Over a period of 20 years of such vaccinations, I only ever witnessed after effects in one batch of calves that developed high temperatures, and looked as if they could die for a few days before recovering. It was an idiosynchratic reaction. These were not uncommon in any species. There have been cases wherein a single intramuscular injection of procaine penicillin or evn streptomycin has resulted in the death of a dog or steer within 10 minutes.

I just threw that in as evidence that the number of antigens in a single shot just may not be a problem per se.

I
doogles
Member
 
Posts: 841
Joined: 11 Apr 2009


Re: 1 in 68?

Postby vivian maxine on May 1st, 2015, 5:23 pm 

doogles » May 1st, 2015, 3:53 pm wrote:Regarding the number (per se) of antigens injected into young mammals at any one time, vivian, once again I can contribute some anecdotal evidence from work with bovines. Until Bovine Brucellosis was eradicated from Australia, we vaccinated hundreds of thousands of calves with a live attenuated form of Brucella abortus that was dangerous if injected into the vaccinator. But while we were on the job, we simultaneously injected the calves with a 5 in 1 'dead' vaccine (aluminium precipitated, formalinised), so that the calves received 6 antigens at once.

Over a period of 20 years of such vaccinations, I only ever witnessed after effects in one batch of calves that developed high temperatures, and looked as if they could die for a few days before recovering. It was an idiosynchratic reaction. These were not uncommon in any species. There have been cases wherein a single intramuscular injection of procaine penicillin or evn streptomycin has resulted in the death of a dog or steer within 10 minutes.

I just threw that in as evidence that the number of antigens in a single shot just may not be a problem per se.

I



Very true but I'm one that is "once burned; twice shy". It scared me to see Katie like that. I don't think the veterinarian was too comfortable with it either as he said 'let's not vaccinate her any more. She never goes outside anyway" and we didn't.

It's like flu vaccines. 5 people get the shot and come down with flu. Meanwhile hundreds of others get the shot with no problem. Those who came down with the flu will probably never get another flu shot.

There we are.
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: 1 in 68?

Postby doogles on May 2nd, 2015, 6:56 am 

Yes vivian maxine, I’ve heard all of the anecdotal reports from acquaintances here in Australia about being afflicted by influenza-like symptoms following injections to prevent the condition – enough so that I’m circumspect about having the shots myself – I’ve personally declined to have any.

But getting back to your OP on the prevalence of ASD now, of 1 in 68, I had a look at the available literature on the subject and could not find any other previous figures on prevalence. Obviously, such figures would be useful in determining whether the prevalence was static, increasing or decreasing.

So I can feel free in a way to speak anecdotally again about the subject. I have formed the opinion that if any differences in official figures exist over time, then the differences are due entirely to diagnostic criteria.
I have old school photographs. I cherish them in a way, because the first extant photo of myself was in an organised school photograph of Grade 1 of Burnley State School. We could not afford a camera during my childhood. There were 51 of us in that photograph in 1937. I possess a similar one from Grade 3 in 1939 when we had 55 students.

Even though I was only eight years old, I remember that 75 years ago, we sat in desks that each contained two students. The problem students sat in the front rows and the apparently competent students were seated in the back rows. We were graded early in life.

I still remember that the students in the front rows were constantly harassed by teachers for being left-handed, or being unable to understand the teaching that was being dispensed. The left-handed ones were hounded if they did not keep attempting to write with their right hands. Those who appeared not to understand the simplest of instructions were smacked with a hand or a quarter of an inch cane in the belief that they were malingering or not trying, every time they could not answer a question orally or in writing.

I did not hear the word ‘dyslexia’ till the 1970s or the word ‘autism’ till the 1990s. One of the students, at the age of 8 in 1939, went totally berserk one day, throwing chairs around and attempting to tip over a table in what I now realise was an expression of utter frustration. We never saw him again after that event. My guess now is that he was taken off to a psychiatric establishment.

The assumption made about children in Australia in the 1930s, from the point of view of the Education Department was that all ‘normal’ children should be right-handed, have perfect eye to hand coordination, and be capable of understanding the most simple of concepts. It was not so.

I BELIEVE THAT THE CHILDREN I GREW UP WITH IN THE 1930S HAD EVERY NOW-KNOWN CONDITION LISTED IN THE AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER.

Forget all this myth about MMR vaccines causing the problem. In my opinion it was around long before these vaccines were produced.

The first ‘modern era’ paper on autism was published by Dr Leo Kanner in 1943. He published a paper about a group of children he had observed in his clinic. These children were unlike most others - withdrawn, non-verbal, with bizarre ritualistic behaviours. He described them in detail and applied the term Early Infantile Autism. (https://sfari.org/news-and-opinion/clas ... -fischbach )

It is my opinion that there were children in my era at my primary school who represented the entire range of now-identified learning and behavioural disorders, including ASD. Unfortunately, they were not identified in those days, out of pure ignorance (in the strict meaning of the term), and we therefore have no data on prevalence in the 1930s. It could have been 1 in 68 for thousands of years.

In the absence of earlier data, there is no reason yet to regard 1 in 68 as an increasing problem for concern. It should simply regarded as our first piece of base data for future reference.
doogles
Member
 
Posts: 841
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Braininvat liked this post


Re: 1 in 68?

Postby vivian maxine on May 2nd, 2015, 7:14 am 

Sounds like schools all over the planet. It took a long while to see the problems for what they were.
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014



Return to Health and Nutrition

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests