Autsim and the Environment

Coming on the heels of the Cold Spring Harbor research that supposedly indicted “bad” genes as the cause of autism, are two new studies published in the July 4^th edition of the Archives of General Psychiatry that indicate environment plays the key role.  While a surprise to some scientists, it comes as no surprise to us.

In an article published in Newsday entitled “Environment May Be Especially Key to Autism: Study,” by Jenifer Goodwin, it is reported that:

[T]he . . .  environment -- and this could be in utero or in early life -- has to play a major role [in the incidence of autism].

 

According to [the researchers’] calculations, . . . genes account for 37 percent of the risk of "classic," or severe autism and 38 percent of the risk of milder autism spectrum disorders. By the same calculations, environmental factors would explain 55 percent of the risk of autism and 58 percent of the risk for an autism spectrum disorder, the Stanford team concluded.

And, what environmental factors could be at issue?  Well, the second study found a connection between the occurrence of autism and antidepressants taken by mothers during pregnancy:

            In another study also published in the online issue of the journal, researchers found a 

            two-fold risk of autism spectrum disorder among children whose mothers took 

            antidepressants known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) during

            pregnancy, and that the risk was more than three times higher if the mothers took

            the drugs during early pregnancy, compared to children without the disorder.

            SSRIs include widely used antidepressants such as Celexa, Paxil, Prozac and Zoloft.

http://www.newsday.com/news/health/environment-may-be-especially-key-to-autism-study-1.3003680 (July 4, 2011).

Don't you love being right?

My friend (and a Spark Development supporter), Donna, sent me an email with this title a couple of days ago.  She was referring to an article that appeared in Newsday entitled "The dark side of brightly colored food" (at A34, March 29, 2011) (it appears on the web as: "Opinion: Danger of artificial food dyes" (http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/opinion-danger-of-artificial-food-dyes-1.2787500).

Written by a Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University (David W. Schab) and The Executive Director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (Michael F. Jacobson), the article makes some excellent, and disturbing, points about (i) artificial dyes and their PROVEN connection to attention and behavior issues; and (ii) the FDA's previous reluctance to admit any such link even though that link had been addressed in Europe some SEVEN years ago!

Specifically, the article notes that "According to a growing number of scientific studies, [artificial dyes] are causing behavioral problems and disrupting children's attention. . . .  In a significant turn from the agency's previous denials that dyes have any influence on children's behavior, an FDA staff report released last week concluded that synthetic food colorings do affect some children."  Emphasis added.

The sad part is, that nutritionists, like the one who helped my son, Robert, recover from ADHD and PDD, knew about this DECADES ago!  And if that wasn't enough, studies about artificial dyes and their effects on behavior have been coming out of Europe for the past several years.

In fact, the article notes, that "In 2004, one of us, David Schab, co-wrote an analysis of the best studies of food dyes' effects on behavior. That analysis found striking evidence that hyperactive children who consumed dyes became significantly more hyperactive than children who got a placebo.

At the same time, the British government funded two studies, each involving almost 300 children. Their results were even more startling: Artificial food dyes, in combination with a common preservative, could make even children with no known behavioral problems hyperactive and inattentive. Health officials in the United Kingdom urged manufacturers to stop using the six dyes -- including Red 40, Yellow 5 and Yellow 6 -- involved in those studies. Next, the European Parliament required that foods containing those chemicals bear a label warning that the dyes 'may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children.'"

No such research or warnings ever came from the good, old FDA.

Anyone get the feeling the FDA isn't really on our side?

Another interesting little tidbit in this article, and one that should really get you mad, is the fact that "[a]rtificial colorings are meant to manipulate consumers' perceptions. Manufacturers tout research showing that redness enhances the impression of sweetness, and that in tests with beverages and sherbets, color did more to influence consumers' perception of the flavor than the flavor itself."  Emphasis added.

Anyone feeling a little controlled by marketers?

Our diets really do impact the way we feel, the way we act, our attention, our behavior, and our ability to learn.  This simple FACT cannot be stressed enough.  Indeed, it's why nutrition counseling is a part of our program.

Remember, dietary issues usually fall into one of these categories:

--  Food Allergies or Sensitivities.  While some people may experience adverse physical reactions to foods such as itching, hives or swelling, other people may have adverse behavioral reactions to eating certain foods.  Thus, while there may be no physical manifestation of an issue, certain foods can, like the artificial dyes noted above, cause behavior problems including, but not limited to, hyperactivity and inattentiveness.  Other common culprits include artificial sweeteners, dairy products, and even wheat and corn.

--  Nutritional Deficiencies.  Given our love of processed and fast foods, is it any wonder that many children are deficient in nutrients essential to optimal development?  Probably at the top of the list are essential fatty acids.  Indeed, research has shown that the vast majority of children diagnosed with ADHD are deficient in essential fatty acids.

--  Injured/Impaired Gut.  I've written about this before.  Exposure to environmental insults, including the overuse of antibiotics, can impair a child's ability to properly digest food.  Thus, even if he or she is eating properly, his or her body simply cannot process the food correctly.  Or, in more severe cases, the child's gut may allow improperly digested substances to pass into their systems, or may even be producing toxins that affect behavior and development.

So, if your child is having these types of attention and behavior issues, take a good, hard look at what they are eating.  If you suspect an issue, I urge you to consult with a knowledgeable nutritionist immediately.

Genetics vs. Environment

“Study: Spacing babies close may raise autism risk,” by  CARLA K. JOHNSON (AP Medical Writer) (Jan. 10, 2011):  

“Close birth spacing may put a second-born child at higher risk for autism, suggests a preliminary study based on more than a half-million California children.  Children born less than two years after their siblings were considerably more likely to have an autism diagnosis compared to those born after at least three years. The sooner the second child was conceived the greater the likelihood of that child later being diagnosed with autism. The effect was found for parents of all ages, decreasing the chance that it was older parents and not the birth spacing behind the higher risk.

‘That was pretty shocking to us, to be honest,’ said senior author Peter Bearman of Columbia University in New York. The researchers took into account other risk factors for autism and still saw the effect of birth spacing.

‘No matter what we did, whether we were looking at autism severity, looking at age, or looking at all the various dimensions we could think of, we couldn't get rid of this finding,’ Bearman said. Still, he said more studies are needed to confirm the birth spacing link.”

So reads an article published in Newsday.  http://www.newsday.com/news/health/study-spacing-babies-close-may-raise-autism-risk-1.2601091

So, if birth spacing puts a child at “considerably more” risk of having ASD, and “no matter what [the researchers] did . . . [they] couldn’t get rid of this finding,” then how on earth can ASD be a purely genetic disorder that is inherited?  I mean, assuming the mother and the father of the second children in this study are the same, how can the genetics be any different?

Also, what about the “old days” before the ASD epidemic?  I know my Grandparents had six kids, and my wife’s grandparents had eleven (ow!), all pretty close together, and no ASD issues there . . .

Doesn’t this speak far more to our own frailty?  Do you think, maybe, we’ve weakened our bodies, weakened our immune systems, made ourselves more susceptible to injury from environmental factors through poor nutrition, over use of antibiotics, lack of exercise, etc., and now our children are paying the price?

Don’t write off Wakefield just yet . . .

Autism and Genetics

Did you see the article by Delthia Ricks, entitled “Scientists finding genes related to autism,” Newsday (12/5/10)?  It states that as a result of “combing the human genome,” “new gene discoveries . . . are helping to shape a narrative that autism spectrum disorders are largely genetic conditions.”  In fact, Dr. Eli Hatchwell, a geneticist and founder of a biotechnology firm claims that, "There may be a small number of individuals who are reacting badly to something in the environment, but I don't believe that to be the case for everyone. . .  Autism is 90 percent genetic in my opinion."  It should be noted that Hatchwell and his team are working on gene-based diagnostics for autism.

Sadly, I’m reminded of the old joke where a guy is intently scouring the ground under a street lamp one night.  Another guy sees him and asks, “What are you doing?”  The searcher replies, “Looking for my car keys.”  “Where exactly did you lose them?” inquires the second guy, to which the first points off into the dark distance, and says, “over there by my car.”  Incredulous, the second guy asks “Why on earth are you looking over here then?” “Because the light’s better,” says the first.

Millions and millions of dollars and research are being thrown at finding the “genetic” basis of autism, but really, are we looking in the right place?

Yes, the “light’s better” – if autism is truly an inherited, genetic condition, then autism is no one’s fault.  There is no one to blame; it’s just an unfortunate accident.  There is no need to change or go without what our society has come to accept as safe and normal.  Even from an economic standpoint, a genetic cause of autism would pretty much benefit everyone.  A proven biologically based medical condition would surely be covered under insurance (and don’t worry about the insurance companies – when and if the time comes for them to belly up to the bar, they’ll work the cost into our insurance premiums – they’re pretty good at making money no matter what), the medical practitioners will have a guaranteed stream of diagnostic/treatment-related income, the drug manufacturers will surely come up with a slew of drugs to treat the “medical” condition, testing companies will have a field day screening all of our kids, and no messy lawsuits from “those people” who believe it was some environmental insult that perpetrated the harm.

Consider the alternative, looking in the dark.  If something in the environment is causing autism, then is it really a medical condition?  And, surely, someone created the environmental condition, so maybe autism really is someone’s fault.  Can you imagine the consequences?  The lawsuits, the liability.  And, we’d have to change.  Maybe we can’t use so many pesticides.  Well, wouldn’t that hurt the farmers with increased costs of production?  Wouldn’t that hurt the vegetable and fruit eating consumers who would be forced to pay more for produce?  Maybe we can’t use scientifically created hormones and antibiotics on our farm animals.  That also hurts the farmers and consumers, and of course, the people who make the hormones and antibiotics.  What if it’s over exposure to EMR, cell phones, television/computer?  What if it’s vaccines?  What if it’s jet fuel?  Can we ever do without these ubiquitous items (yes, our parents did, and their parents did, and isn’t it interesting to note that even as late as the mid-1980’s, autism was thought to affect only about 1 in 2,500, not 1 in 100 like today?).

And, if autism is caused by something in the environment, and we simply eliminate that cause, who would turn a profit?

But, even though the light is better, is it really the place to look? 

First, and foremost, even if there is a difference in the genes of autistic individuals, the question that really needs to be answered, but apparently is not, is whether the difference is innate or the result of some external catalyst.

In other words, are different genetics the cause or the result?

Moreover, in order for autism to be a genetic disorder, unrelated to environment, one must assume either that (i) autism always existed to the extent it does today, that is in 1 of 100 individuals, and we just didn't notice it all these years, or (ii) the human race has undergone a spontaneous genetic mutation of staggering proportions over the last twenty to thirty years.

Otherwise, by definition, some external – i.e., environmental – factor must be to blame.

Now, I like science, I like math, I like facts, and I really do want to believe that autism is nothing more than a genetic accident, that no one is to blame for what happened to those affected.  I want to keep my cell phone, and watch too much TV, and not worry about the cell phone antennae and high voltage wires in my neighborhood.  I want to eat fish, and meat, and not worry about hormones or genetically modified foods.

But, I need proof.

So, if you want me to really believe that autism is 90% genetics, prove to me that ASD always existed to the extent it does today.

Show me that 1 in 100 of all 80 year olds, 70 year olds, 60, 50, 40 and 30 year olds have autism.

Explain the math that would prove that better diagnostics/different definitions could possibly account for the staggering increase in the incidence of autism.  Really, explain how you go from one in 2,500 in the mid-1980’s to one in 100 today.

Explain why there are classrooms dedicated to autistic children today that did not exist even ten years ago.  Explain why teachers are saying they see a fundamental change in our student population.

Or, terrify me, and explain how we can undergo such a dramatic, and damaging, genetic mutation -- without any external trigger -- in the span of a single generation.

MRIs, Autism & ADHD

I may be wrong, but I think we have another “duh” moment. According to “Brain MRI may lead to early autism detection,” reported by Nicole Ostrow of Bloomberg News, researchers studying 60 children, half diagnosed with mild autism and half without autism, were able to identify autism 94% of the time using magnetic resonance imaging. Specifically, the MRI looked at water diffusion along the brain’s nerve fibers.

The article talks of “the disorder’s biological base,” and objective markers, and early detection.

While there is no doubt that early diagnosis and more objectivity are worthy goals, I have to wonder, if autism is a neurological disorder, and even subjectively, differences in behavior, intellect and communication are readily apparent, isn’t it a given that brain processing will be different? Isn’t this just objective confirmation of what we already know? (and why only 94% success?)

Also, this test does nothing to shed light on the cause of autism. When the article discusses “the disorder’s biological base,” is it suggesting that the differences found in the autistic brain are innate, and thus, the cause of the disorder? Or, is it merely finding changes in the brain caused by some external, environmental insult (which, combined with a genetic disposition of susceptibility to such harm, is what we believe to be the true cause of the disorder)? If it’s the latter, are these differences in brain processing really a “biological base”?

And, another thought, this one regarding ADHD. We’ve always maintained that disorders like ADHD are part of the ASD spectrum (and there are researchers out there who apparently believe likewise). That is, that whatever is causing the ASD epidemic also is causing the ADHD epidemic. It’s just a different degree of effect and a different manifestation. I’ll bet if the same MRI studies were done on kids diagnosed with ADHD, the researchers would find that the ADHD brains also process information differently.

If that’s the case, then you have to wonder. We were always told by Robert’s doctors that ADHD was caused by a brain chemistry imbalance with respect to certain neurotransmitters, and that drugs were the only way to address his issues.

If the ADHD brain, like the autistic brain, processes information differently, is that really the result of a “neurotransmitter imbalance?” And, more to the point, how can messing with those neurotransmitters, as the ADHD meds are theorized to do, really fix the problem?

Just a thought.

The Warnings Keep Coming, But Is Anybody Listening?

Got a few things to talk about this week. The theme? We keep getting warned about potential issues with medications, the political underpinnings of health care, and dangers regarding products we use and consume, but the warnings are side-notes, buried in the back of the paper, confined to the pages on health books generally dismissed by the mainstream medical community, and on the web – if you know where to look. But, if you’re reading this, then you might want to know a couple of things. In no particular order:

When a new client joins our Center, we always ask if they ever (a) suffered from any form of chronic infection, such as ear infections, sinus infections, etc.; and (b) took antibiotics for extended periods of time. You’d be surprised to learn that the majority of our students answer these questions with a resounding “Yes!”

We ask for two main reasons. First, chronic infections often are a sign of a food allergy (or, if you prefer, a food “aversion”). Simply put, the student is eating something that is triggering an immune response and making them sick. But, food allergies are not the point of this blog -- that’s a whole ‘nother story.

It is the second reason that I’d like to address here. For years, we have known that antibiotics can wreak havoc on the digestive system. This can negatively impact the student’s immune system, since the vast majority (70% to 80%, depending on your reference source) resides in the digestive system. Your immune system, of course, has a direct impact on your overall health, but it also has a major impact on your mood and behavior.

Surprise, surprise. While everyone knows that antibiotic use can upset your stomach, a new study reveals that “repeatedly taking [antibiotics] can trigger long-lasting changes in all those good germs that live in your gut, raising questions about lingering ill effects.” Newsday, 9/14/10 at A33. The article noted that three healthy adults who had not used antibiotics in at least the past year where given low, five-day courses of the antibiotic Cipro, six months apart. The researchers found that the “bacterial diversity” of those three individuals “plummeted as a third to half of the volunteers’ original germ species were nearly wiped out, though other species moved in.”

How could this not affect your immune system?

Did you hear? The Food Pyramid may be “so politically influenced that it is ineffective.” (check out Newsday, 10/4/10 at A23). “This year, the meat lobby has opposed strict warnings on sodium that could cast a negative light on lunch meats. The milk lobby has contested warnings to cut back on added sugars, lest chocolate- and strawberry-flavored milk fall from favor.” Really? You don’t say. And, here I thought the Food Pyramid was a totally objective, science-based guide to eating healthy . . .

So who says Frankenfood is bad for you? Well, a lot of people, actually. According to “This Supermarket ‘Health Food’ Killed These Baby Rats in Three Weeks,” written By Jeffrey Smith and Posted By Dr. Mercola on October 4, 2010, Biologist Arpad Pusztai; Irina Ermakova, a senior scientist at the Russian National Academy of Sciences; Embryologist Andrés Carrasco; Epidemiologist Judy Carman; prominent virologist Terje Traavik; and Ohio State University plant ecologist Allison Snow. In one way or another, these researchers and scientists proved that genetically modified foods can be quite harmful. But, each and every one of these individuals was put through a trial by fire. Some were fired from their positions, others had research funding withdrawn, some had their research blocked, and some were even subject to baseless rumors attacking their credibility. See http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/10/04/watch-out-there-are-more-problems-with-genetically-modified-foods-than-youre-allowed-to-know.aspx.

Really, if we can’t trust the companies that are genetically mutilating our food, who can we trust?

More "Good" News About Cell Phones . . .

I'm pretty sure I've mentioned the problems with electromagnetic radiation (like that generated by high voltage towers, cell phones and microwave ovens) at some point in these blogs. Seems that there is research that demonstrates that electromagnetic radiation ("EMR") makes the blood brain barrier more permeable than it was meant to be. While none of these studies talked about autism, one must remember the theory that toxins that enter the brain may have some relationship to autism spectrum disorder. It's not too much of a stretch to think that if the blood brain barrier has been compromised, potential substances and/or toxins that might never have reached the brain are now getting in and causing damage.

Recently, there was a study out of Europe that found that constant exposure to cell phones adversely affects bone density.

Now, the state of Maine is considering requiring that cell phones carry warnings that they might cause brain cancer. In an article entitled Maine to consider cell phone cancer warning, Glenn Adams reports that

"A Maine legislator wants to make the state the first to require cell phones to carry warnings that they can cause brain cancer. . . .

The now-ubiquitous devices carry such warnings in some countries, though no U.S. states require them, according to the National Conference of State Legislators. A similar effort is afoot in San Francisco. . . .

Maine Rep. Andrea Boland, D-Sanford, said numerous studies point to the cancer risk, and she has persuaded legislative leaders to allow her proposal to come up for discussion during the 2010 session that begins in January, a session usually reserved for emergency and governors' bills. . . .

While there's been no long-term studies on cell phones and cancer, some scientists suggest erring on the side of caution.

Last year, Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, director emeritus of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, sent a memo to about 3,000 faculty and staff members warning of risks based on early, unpublished data [what did this research say, and why is it unpublished??]. He said that children should use the phones only for emergencies because their brains were still developing and that adults should keep the phone away from the head and use a speakerphone or a wireless headset.

Herberman, who says scientific conclusions often take too long, is one of numerous doctors and researchers who have endorsed an August report by retired electronics engineer L. Lloyd Morgan. The report highlights a study that found significantly increased risk of brain tumors from 10 or more years of cell phone or cordless phone use.

Also, the BioInitiative Working Group, an international group of scientists, notes that many countries have issued warnings and that the European Parliament has passed a resolution calling for governmental action to address concerns over health risks from mobile phone use.

But the National Cancer Institute said studies thus far have turned up mixed and inconsistent results [which obviously means that some studies do show that cell phones cause harm], noting that cell phones did not come into widespread use in the United States until the 1990s.

'Although research has not consistently demonstrated a link between cellular telephone use and cancer [again, by definition, that means that some research HAS shown a link between cellular telephone use and cancer], scientists still caution that further surveillance is needed before conclusions can be drawn,' according to the Cancer Institute's Web site."

This is pretty scary stuff. There is obviously research that shows a link between cell phones/cordless phones and cancer -- by the way, why haven't we heard about any of this? -- and even the scientist and researchers are worried.

And, we wonder why so many children are diagnosed with ASD today. It's not just the diagnostic criteria. We, as a society, have created this problem over the past three decades. It's the way we eat, what we eat, the chemicals, pesticides and toxins to which we expose ourselves. It's the way we live and raise our children.

Isn't it obvious? We really need to put our children's development, safety, and happiness before convenience, efficacy and economics.

ADHD, Lead Exposure & Smoking -- "Shocking New Findings?"

My sister directed this AOL article to me: "Smoking, Lead Exposure Increase ADHD Risk," by Stephanie Booth.

In it, is the not surprising conclusion that children, exposed in utero, to tobacco smoke and/or lead, had a statistically higher risk of being diagnosed with ADHD. Specifically, "children exposed prenatally to tobacco smoke had a 2.4-fold increased likelihood of ADHD diagnosis. Those whose blood showed what researchers categorized as high lead levels were 2.3 times more likely to have ADHD. Exposure to both lead and prenatal tobacco triggered what head researcher Tanya Froehlich, M.D., a developmental and behavioral pediatric specialist and assistant professor of pediatrics at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center,called an alarming 'synergistic effect.' Children in this category had eight times the risk of being diagnosed with ADHD."

I say these "findings" are "not surprising" because, as I've been saying for many years, everything from a ADD (and even speech and language delays that eventually lead to further diagnoses) to full blown autism are probably caused by the same thing ? a genetic predisposition to harm and an exposure to one or more environmental insults. The only thing that varies is the severity and manifestation of harm.

Throw in societal "insults," e.g., over exposure to television, video games, computers (both in terms of content, format & presentation, and the devices themselves), and poor eating and nutrition, and you have a perfect recipe for brain and nervous system development problems.

I think it interesting that science can find links to ADHD and ASD etc., but they can't find "the cause." Why? Well, if you want my humble opinion, no one will ever find "the cause" because there probably is no single cause. The combination of factors ? exposure to environmental insults, the timing of that exposure, the extent of that exposure, the nutrition/eating habits of the mother and child (before, during and after pregnancy (if breast feeding), breast feeding habits, vaccination issues (timing, content, number), exposure to smoking, lead, mercury, airplane fuel, electromagnetic radiation, etc., childrearing practices, and media exposure. The list goes on and on.

Who could possibly device a test for all these things and the infinite combinations possible? And, note, the combinations are worse than the sum of the parts.

Worse, and I hate to say it, who really wants the truth? I mean, what happens if someone definitively proves that vaccines really do cause harm? Or overprescription of antibiotics? Or exposure to cell phones, microwaves, Wi-Fi? Or too many video games? Or that fast food, convenience foods, genetically engineered foods, baby formula, is actually harmful?

Can we, as a society, deal with the economic impact of such findings? Are you ready to give up your cell phone?

So, instead of pouring resources into the Sisyphean Task of finding "the cause," why not focus on prevention and treatment. Admit that there is potential danger out there. Take steps to minimize the risks these children face. And, figure out a way to reverse the damage.