Cause of autism: watching TV???
 

I just read this article and I couldn't believe my eyes:

http://www.slate.com/id/2149002/?GT1=8592

Does this make sense to any of you???:confused: I'm not trying to start
an argument here, I'm just trying to understand this.

Okay...It sounds ludicrous to me. I do know, though, that mindless marathon TV viewing has been blamed for the explosion of ADD/ADHD dxs, which I can believe, but autism?? I think not. :rolleyes:

I can rest assured that it has nothing to do with Drew's autism. He has actually watched very little TV all his life, and he was showing signs of something being seriously wrong as young as two months old, when he was screaming and arching as I tried to hold him. :( I am all but certain his Chiari ties into it, and I yearn for the day I see that in print (the study is being conducted!! :) ), but so far, there has been no definitive cause found, and just like the recent TIME article said, there appear to be many different types of autism--not just degrees--each with its own cause(s). I have believed that for 10 years, and this comment was made at the ASA conference, too.


LIZARD :)

I agree
 

The possibility of an ADD/ADHD connection makes sense to me, too, but
I couldn't understand how/why anyone could connect it to autism. Which
is why I was wondering if anyone else had heard or read anything about it.

Do you have a link about the study? I'm interested in that, too.:)

Vince didn't even start to watch tv till he was almost three.

I mean, I could buy investigating if the tv waves in the air as well as cell phone, radio, and all other kids of waves in the air that didn't used to be there. Stuff in outter space that beams back to earth...satellites or whatnot. Computer and microwaves, just any kind of unnatural waves all combined, like, I have wondered if it is somehow messing up our neurological 'frequencies'.

But, I really have no idea how waves in the air would or if it even could effect our neurology...just rambling thoughts back from the days when I first found out Vince had autism, and wondered if I caused it by standing too close to the microwave. Now, that surely is far fetched...but I do wonder about the stuff in our air, the 'waves' and if it can effect neurology.

But, just watching tv, nope. No way. I'm not believing that...doesn't explain Vince and loads of other kids.

What I really was annoyed with the article about, was how it seemed to say that mercury - a KNOWN neurological damager was just so totally dismissed. Not that I think that's what did it for Vince, but I respect and believe the mothers who know that was a culprit for their child.

Mili

That's another thing
 

If children are showing signs of autism shortly after birth, how could it
possibly be connected to watching TV? And, as far as dismissing other
possible causes, I noticed that, too. It was almost as if they were saying
that watching TV was the main (if not only) cause of autism in children,
which didn't make sense to me at all.JMO

Its stupid stuff like this that keep us from the real cause. Of course, the people who are causing autism are the ones with all the bucks and power... so its no surprise to see this stuff pop up.

Besides, autism existed before television was even invented! So, how
do these so-called "experts" (and I use that term loosely!) explain that??
What do they think the cause was before TV? Radio, maybe?:rolleyes: Give
me a break!:mad:

Did it? I thought that was one of the big issues: the sudden appearance and the rising increase in frequency?

I know there have been speculations that certain historical persons may or may not have been autistic...but even if it's true that say Albert Einstein was an Aspie, that's only like 2 generations ago...I haven't heard of any speculations beyond that...course that doesn't mean there aren't any...I'm just asking...lord knows I am NOT the expert here! But I'm really interested in understanding better!

And I agree, TV viewing...DER! Mili's idea sounds like something that should be explored...like it could be possible...but TV viewing? Ahhh doubt it!

KJ

If they can explain how the blood of a 4 month old baby can change, and other brain anomalies happen so quickly.... from watching tv... ridiculous.

yes autism has been around for a long time, long before tv. Guess whatever idiot who conjured up this idea didn't bother to do any research.... just looking for ways to blame parents.

fluff and hogwash!

and if they want an anecdotal contradiction then my severely autistic son who was about 6 yrs old before showing any interest in t.v. at all should serve. His autism was clear by age two and there were signs before 6 months of age.
but there's really no need to counter such unfounded and obviously off-kilter reasoning presented in that little article.

site your source?
 

I just re-read the article, trying to see if I missed something. He lists a
few possible causes and posts links to "prove" why the causes are false.
But, when it comes to proving his own theory, which even he admits is
speculation, he doesn't give any background as to how he developed it.
Where did he get this idea from? Who did he talk to? Did he read it
somewhere? There's nothing in the article to back up his claim that
TV is a cause of autism. When you post something like this on the
internet, shouldn't you have some proof to back it up with?

Keggy what do you have that indicates how long it's been around...seriously, I've only read of it being a relatively new thing...mental retardation and things like psychosis have been around for a long time, but autism as a pervasive developmental disorder with all the stereotypical traights: head banging, lining things up, not speaking, eye contact....all that I assume we are seperting out here, right?

I'll see if I can find something...but would love to see what you've got too...

I was going to propose coming up with our own list of things that could also be plausible as they also 'came to be' at roughly the same time...

Like Mili points out microwaves, I bet preservatives are a good one too...I'm sure we could come up with a good list to toss at this guy along with a few reasons why his theory is absolute hooey!

Here's one...it does imply that the first available classification was 1940 (my Dad was born in 1940, maybe it's his fault...:p ) anyway, this article certainly leavees room for the idea that it was around prior to then, but perhaps wasn't profound enough to segregate from other disorders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism_epidemic

Autism itself has probably been around since the dawn of time, like so many other conditions. It was just improperly dx'ed and lumped together with what was believed to be general retardation, but it's only been in recent years that we have seen the alarming increase in the number of cases, likely in part because of better diagnostic tools and techniques, and of course, more knowledge. Leo Kanner (www.whonamedit.com) first coined the term autism back during WW II, and Hans Asperger (www.whonamedit.com) determined that there was also a certain type of milder autism, which we now know of as Asperger's Syndrome, so it goes back at least that far, and likely much further, as accounts of people's signs and behaviors in history have often hinted to me that they had it, too.


LIZARD :)

Here's another one:

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache...s&ct=clnk&cd=1

I need to go back up and read your links...but agreed! There is no way for us to conclude that prior to a specific classification that it didn't exist at all...that's logical...but if you play out (or play back the inverse of) the exponential increase that we've seen since it's classification (in what appeares to be the 30's - my mom was born in '39)...then you can get pretty close to zero in pretty recent years...probably during my grandparents generation.

Technically, or mathematically (where's Ronan) an exonential function will never reach zero, but it's impossible to have less than a person, and you WILL quickly reach a number less than 1, so mathematically it will converge to zero, and be considered accurately zero at a defined date....

So, on one hand it seems reasonable that the first case could have been in existence a long time ago, with the 'error' perhaps bouncing around in our gene pool waiting to reimmerge...at the same time there is good foundation to argue that this is a 'new' disorder too. Of course new in respect to our age as a speces that is....

I'll go back and read your links now to see how much I may have just stuck my foot in my mouth.....

KJ

Keggy your links didn't work.

Lara...interesting!!!! http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/b...ref=0631220887
this link has great info on the book: http://www.amazon.com/Autism-History.../dp/0631220887

Ok, so it existed, but to what extent...it sure would be an interesting read! But it would also be interesting to do the math, I wouldn't use data from the 30's or 40's...no, I'd use data from maybe the last 10-20-25 years, and project backwards...I still wonder how prevelant it was...I do think something here recently has triggered it's 'epidemic.'

Ahhh, I think you are touching on the whole Amish theory...but surely there must be other communities too...

lots to ponder!

KJ

Ok couldn't help myself: http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...s&ct=clnk&cd=2

dag nabit! of course my links didn't work i didn't post any!!! (did I?)

Well... heres my thinking.... The man who invented the television receiver was only 4 years old when the term austism came about.


Also, TVs weren't really found in the average families home till the sixties.

Well I think it's a no brainer about the TV autism association, what I was wondering though was what better choices (like Mili's) might be.

Certainly there weren't microwaves around in the 1700's, were there? And we know, or at least believe there are lot's of causes...so is it possible that one, maybe two or three causes have triggered the epidemic, and the ones from 1700's and earlier are the true genetic/biological ones?

I'd put money on those ones being the metabolic ones! Or even having to do more with epilepsy...but you know...I'm just basing that all that I saw before my eyes with just one little example...which I know is so NOT scientific! But it's just purely amazing to me!

Anyway...I'd love to shove a nasty e-mail up this guys but with some pretty undesputable facts...but only if you guys are game...

Because I agree...it's idiots like this that are detracting focus from the REAL potential sources...and I literally want to clock him!

KJ