OK I was directed to this thread from the JREF forum and will now give you my personal and professional opinion on this matter.

Personal opinion is from coming with a family with a lot of autism in it.
Professional from my last 5 years of working with it. I hold courses and lectures on the subject for a living.

OK, lets start with the etiology of autism. As it is known today.


In the recent years some of the myths regarding the etiology of autism have waned and been abandoned by the scientific community. Waned and been replaced with purely scientific causes.

Of course the research isn't complete yet, and there are probably more causes to be found in the future.

Genetics
In recent years the heritability of autism have become too apparant to discount, and with heritability comes the inescapable conclusion that autism must be genetic in cause, atleast in part.

Currently there are 7 known genes that stand out in people with autism. If a person have an error on one gene, or two genes, it won't cause autism. But if enough of the genes are damaged the person will have a form of autism, as defined by which genes are the damaged ones.

For instance, on chromosone 7 there are 5 candidate genes, namely FOXP2, WNT2, RELN, HOXA1, and HOXB1.[1]

Of these the RELN gene, specificly, would account for the different brain chemistry which can be seen during fetal development. While the FOXP2 gene is associated with speech, language, and facial expressions.

On a CAT scan of people with autism you can see that they use the brain area that normal people use to recognize objects(chairs and the like) instead of the Fusiform gyrus when looking at faces. A defect on the FOXP2 gene is a nice explanation for that .

There is also new evidence that chromosome 2 plays a role, the specifics of chromosone 2 (especially coupled with chromosone 7 and 9) are currently being researched.

It is even possible for the mother to have damage on two genes, and for the father on two other genes, so neither is autistic, but their child can become autistic if their child gets those four genes.

[I haven't been able to find a source on where the cutoff point is, i believe it is either damage on 3 or 5 of the genes, i'll update once i find confirmation.]

Autism is now widely accepted as a biological disorder which, by and large, starts before birth. It has been shown that serotonin (5-HT) is associated with several psychological processes and hyperserotoninemia is observed in some autistic patients.

[2]


Environmental
There have also been shown to be a correlation between autistic children and the mothers being ill.

This correlation have scientific support.

CONCLUSION: Children with developmental disorders and epilepsy have higher AAs(autoantibodies) to several neural antigens compared to controls. The presence of both BDNF AAs and elevated BDNF levels in some children with autism and CDD suggests a previously unrecognized interaction between the immune system and BDNF.

[3]

And animal testing seems to support this correlation.

A recent mouse model has shown that respiratory infection in the pregnant mother leads to marked behavioral and pharmacological abnormalities in the offspring, some of which are relevant for schizophrenia and autism.

[4]

Specificly influenza H1N1

We investigated the role of maternal exposure to human influenza virus (H1N1) in C57BL/6 mice ...
These data show for the first time that prenatal exposure of pregnant mice on Day 9 of pregnancy to a sublethal intranasal administration of influenza virus has both short-term and long-lasting deleterious effects on developing brain structure in the progeny as evident by altered pyramidal and nonpyramidal cell density values; atrophy of pyramidal cells despite normal cell proliferation rate and final enlargement of brain. Moreover, abnormal corticogenesis is associated with development of abnormal behavior in the exposed adult mice.

[5]

Links:

[1] Exploring Autism

[2] Serotonin transporter gene promoter polymorphism and autism: A family-based genetic association study in japanese population.

[3] Brain-derived neurotrophic factor and autoantibodies to neural antigens in sera of children with autistic spectrum disorders, Landau-Kleffner syndrome, and epilepsy.

[4] Maternal infection: window on neuroimmune interactions in fetal brain development and mental illness.

[5] Prenatal viral infection leads to pyramidal cell atrophy and macrocephaly in adulthood: implications for genesis of autism and schizophrenia.

From my page: http://www.autismmyths.com/index.php?na ... cle&sid=10

Then the specific Thimerosal/MMR/Mercury claims.

In recent years many parents have noticed a correlation between giving their children vaccinations, and the childrens being diagnosed with autism.

The vaccination in question have either been MMR or a Thimerosal based children vaccination.

Thimerosal is a preservative which contains almost 50% mercury. And mercury poisoning does have a lot in common with ASD(Autism Spectrum Disorder).

This have lead to many outspoken groups and parents fighting against vaccination of their children.

Vaccination is not a cause of autism. The problem here is that people see a correlation, and think it is causation. But that is not how the world works.

Children are given their child vaccination usually a bit before the signs of autism can be seen.

That is, if the child is given an MMR vaccination 6 months before the child is diagnosed with autism, that doesn't mean the MMR caused it. The child would have had autism all the time, it just isn't noticeable till a certain age.

If the child had eaten a candy cone 6 months before the child is diagnosed with autism, is that good reason to claim that candy cones causes autism? Of course it isn't.

If you don't make a distinction between correlation and causation you will end up with arguments like that. Arguments that have nothing to do with science.

I'll just hyperbole to prove my point, bear with me.

Many people eat ice-cream during the summer.
More people have heat strokes during the summer.
Thus we can conclude that ice-cream causes heat strokes.

It doesn't work like that.

A correlation can, at most, give a good area to scientifically study, which have been done. And these studies have suggested that there is no link between mercury and autism.

Both in Japan and in Denmark Mercury have been removed from vaccinations, and in both Japan and Denmark the number of children with Autism INCREASED.

That said, the amount of Mercury in Thiomersal is not enough to make a difference.

And if you eat a fish, you will get more mercury from a single fish than what you get from all vaccinations you will get through your entire life.

Also, just a little note. There is not, now, nor have there ever been, mercury in the MMR vaccine.

Ethylmercury is present in some vaccines in a compound called thiomersal. It is used in some vaccines to keep the vaccine free of contamination. It has been used in vaccines for over 60 years and has played an important role in maintaining vaccine safety. There is no thiomersal in MMR.

[1]

Here we have a study where they couldn't find any correlation between mercury and autism.

Abstract: Although mercury has been proven to be a neurotoxicant, there is a lack of data to evaluate the causal relationship between mercury and autism. We aim to see if there is increased mercury exposure in children with autistic spectrum disorder. We performed a cross-sectional cohort study over a 5-month period in 2000 to compare the hair and blood mercury levels of children with autistic spectrum disorder (n = 82; mean age 7.2 years) and a control group of normal children (n = 55; mean age 7.8 years). There was no difference in the mean mercury levels. ... Thus, the results from our cohort study with similar environmental mercury exposure indicate that there is no causal relationship between mercury as an environmental neurotoxin and autism.

[2]

CONCLUSIONS: Studies do not demonstrate a link between thimerosal-containing vaccines and ASD, and the pharmacokinetics of ethylmercury make such an association less likely. Epidemiologic studies that support a link demonstrated significant design flaws that invalidate their conclusions. Evidence does not support a change in the standard of practice with regard to administration of thimerosal-containing vaccines in areas of the world where they are used.

[3]

CONCLUSIONS: With the possible exception of tics, there was no evidence that thimerosal exposure via DTP/DT vaccines causes neurodevelopmental disorders.

[4]

Autism, a neurodevelopmental disorder, may involve autoimmune pathogenesis. Since mercury is potentially a risk factor for autoimmunity, we conducted a study of mercury-induced antinuclear and antilaminin antibodies in autistic and normal children who had been pre-administered with thimerosal-containing vaccines. Laboratory analysis by different immunoassays showed that the serum level of these two autoimmune markers did not significantly differ between autistic and normal children. This finding suggests that the mercury as in thimerosal-containing vaccines is likely not related to autoimmune phenomenon in autism.

[5]

CONCLUSIONS: No consistent significant associations were found between TCVs and neurodevelopmental outcomes. Conflicting results were found at different HMOs for certain outcomes. For resolving the conflicting findings, studies with uniform neurodevelopmental assessments of children with a range of cumulative thimerosal exposures are needed.

[6]

CONCLUSIONS: The discontinuation of thimerosal-containing vaccines in Denmark in 1992 was followed by an increase in the incidence of autism. Our ecological data do not support a correlation between thimerosal-containing vaccines and the incidence of autism.

[7]

CONCLUSIONS: The body of existing data, including the ecologic data presented herein, is not consistent with the hypothesis that increased exposure to Thimerosal-containing vaccines is responsible for the apparent increase in the rates of autism in young children being observed worldwide.

[8]

Vaccines have turned many childhood diseases into distant memories in industrialized countries. However, questions have been raised about the safety of some vaccines because of rare but serious adverse effects that have been attributed to them. Pain, swelling, and redness at the injection site are common local reactions to vaccines. Fever and irritability may occur after some immunizations. Currently, no substantial evidence links measles-mumps-rubella vaccine to autism, or hepatitis B vaccine to multiple sclerosis. Thimerosal is being eliminated from routine childhood vaccines because of concerns that multiple immunizations with vaccines containing this preservative could exceed recommended mercury exposures. Family physicians should be knowledgeable about vaccines so that they can inform their patients of the benefits of immunization and any proven risks. If immunization rates fall, the incidence of vaccine-preventable illnesses may rise.

[9]

Need i go on?

UPDATE: Apparantly i do, so here is a bit more on mercury, and how to "cure" autism with chelation therapy

Links:
[1] MMR the facts

[2] Mercury Exposure in Children With Autistic Spectrum Disorder: Case-Control Study

[3] Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines and Autistic Spectrum Disorder: A Critical Review of Published Original Data

[4] Thimerosal Exposure in Infants and Developmental Disorders: A Retrospective Cohort Study in the United Kingdom Does Not Support a Causal Association

[5] Detection of Antinuclear and Antilaminin Antibodies in Autistic Children Who Received Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines

[6] Safety of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines: A Two-Phased Study of Computerized Health Maintenance Organization Databases

[7] Thimerosal and the Occurrence of Autism: Negative Ecological Evidence From Danish Population-Based Data

[8] Autism and thimerosal-containing vaccines Lack of consistent evidence for an association.

[9] Vaccine Adverse Events: Separating Myth from Reality

From my page: http://www.autismmyths.com/index.php?na ... cle&sid=11

And lets take the suggested cure for the mercury poisoning as well. Called Chelation.

With the current false popular belief that autism is caused by mercury poisoning many parents are searching for solutions.
One of the solutions offered by quacks is a process called Chelation which is currently being pushed hard on the parents of autistic children.

These parents, who should know better than look for a cure, are now flocking around chelation as the cure, instead of finding real solutions.

Even though the subject of mercury and autism has already been covered, we will go over it once more, before descriping what chelation is, and why it doesn't work.

A study to see how much mercury the children will actually get from a thimerosal vaccination couldn't find any indication that it was too high.(as have been covered in a previous article).

A recent study sponsored by the NIAID and conducted at the University of Rochester assessed mercury levels in 40 infants who received vaccines containing thimerosal and 21 infants who received thimerosal-free vaccines. The scientists measured the level of mercury in the infants’ blood, urine and stool up to 28 days after vaccination. They found that infants who were given vaccines with thimerosal had levels of mercury well below the safe level of 29 nmol/L (this level is set ten times lower than the level at which mercury begins to cause neurological problems)

[1]

Even with information like "ten times lover than what causes neurological problems", a comparison is probably in order.

Some skeptics of mercury and chelation have stated that a bite of tuna sandwich will give you more mercury than all the vaccines you will get in your entire life combined. It is a very good argument. But before using it, one should make sure that it is accurate.

So, first, lets calculate how much mercury there actually is in a thimerosal vaccination.

A concentration of 1:10,000 is equivalent to a 0.01% concentration. Thimerosal is approximately 50% Hg by weight. A 1:10,000 concentration contains 25 micrograms of Hg per 0.5 mL.

[2]

The vaccines come in 5ml vials, which gives 250 micrograms of mercury per vial.
Depending on the weight of the person, the dose may be as much as 0.5ml, but children who get vaccinations will usually just get 0.25ml.
That gives us 25 micrograms of mercury for 0.5ml, and 12.5 micrograms for 0.25ml.
Since we are talking about children the 0.5ml isn't really relevant.


The recommended maximum level of mercury in food as set by EPA is 2.05 micrograms of mercury a day, and maximum 14.35 micrograms a week, for a 20 kg child.[3] Getting more than that is not a real problem, as long as you don't do it for extended periods of time.

For instance, if you get 7 micrograms in one day, but don't get anything for the rest of the week, there won't be a problem. The same goes for vaccines. It is over what the EPA states for a day average, but it is still below the week average, and 12.5 micrograms isn't going to be enough to hurt the child.

And a tuna can of 170gram contains 52.7 micrograms of mercury.

That means that 40 grams of tuna is more than what you get from a thimerosal vaccination.

And a can of tuna is about 4 times more than what you get from a thimerosal vaccination.

So while the argument of a bite of tune should be more isn't totally accurate, it does prove a point.
One thing though, tuna is only 0.31 PPM mercury, and other fish ( especially sharks) have a much higher concentration. Some as much as 1.1+ PPM mercury. Which means that from some fish 10 grams is the same as a thimerosal vaccination.

So instead of blaming the vaccine, maybe a better target would be the food.

Now, chelation is supposed to bind to this small amount of mercury, and flush it out of the body.

If this is something that should be done after a child vaccination, then it should also be done after each and every meal with fish in it. And that is obviously ludicrous.


But, even with all this, new thimerosal free and thimerosal reduced vaccines have been implemented.
The thimerosal reduced vaccines contain only 0.5 micrograms of mercury, and if a child has been vaccinated within the last few years, it will have been either a thimerosal reduced or thimerosal free vaccination.

Since an increase of children with autism have been seen in both Japan and Denmark(as have been mentioned before) after removing the mercury from the vaccines, and with these newer vaccines, the case for chelation has even less of a bearing than it did before these measures were taken.

[hr]

Though chelation is a real process used by real doctors in cases of severe heavy metal poisoning, it's use as a cure against autism has no foundation in science or the medical profession.

Chelation as used against anything other than a severe heavy metal poisoning is a waste of time and resources, and it is potentially dangerous.

When it comes to "curing autism", the chelation agent used is often EDTA which works by binding itself to the mercury in the body

But studies performed to test this have not been able to prove that it actually works.

In a desire to treat the patient complaining of symptoms similar to some that can be caused by mercury, a growing number of physicians, particularly those in alternative medicine fields, result to chelation to "rid" the body of the mercury, believed to be the cause of the ailments. And although the use of chelation is increasing, controlled studies showing that this procedure actually improves outcome are lacking.

[4]

The subject of chelation is rather big, and has already been covered extensively by quackwatch. Here are a few excerpts from that article.

History

Mercury, lead, and cadmium cannot be metabolized by the body and, if accumulated, can cause toxic effects by interfering with various physiological functions. These substances are called "heavy metals," a term applied to metallic elements whose specific gravity is about 5.0 or greater, especially those that are poisonous. Except for aluminum, the other elements listed in the previous paragraph are essential nutrients that are needed for normal metabolic activity.

[5]

In 1960, Meltzer et al., who had studied ten patients with angina pectoris, reported that there was no objective evidence of improvement in any of them that could be ascribed to the course of EDTA chelation treatment. However, during the next two months, most of the patients began reporting unusual improvement in their symptoms. Prompted by these results, Kitchell et al. studied the effects of chelation on 28 additional patients and reappraised the course of the ten patients used in the original trial [2]. They found that although 25 of the 38 patients had exhibited improved anginal patterns and half had shown improvement in electrocardiographic patterns several months after the treatment had begun, these effects were not lasting. At the time of the report, 12 of the 38 had died and only 15 reported feeling better. (This "improvement" was not significant, however, because it was no better than would be expected with proven methods and because there was no control group for comparison.) Kitchell et al. concluded that EDTA chelation, as used in this study, was "not a useful clinical tool in the treatment of coronary disease."

[5]

Efficacy

Between 1963 and 1985, independent physicians published at least fifteen separate reports documenting the case histories of more than seventy patients who had received chelation treatments. They found no evidence of change in the atherosclerotic disease process, no decrease in the size of atherosclerotic plaques, and no evidence that narrowed arteries opened wider.

[5]

Safey

Proponents also claim that chelation has been demonstrated to be safe. In Bypassing Bypass, Cranton declares that six million chelation treatments have been given safely over the last forty years. In his textbook, however, he warns of the seriousness of the possible side effects and advises that prospective patients be given a complete physical examination and be tested to rule out hypocalcemia, kidney impairment, allergic conditions (sensitivity to components of the EDTA infusion fluids), hypoglycemia, blood-clotting problems, congestive heart failure, liver impairment, and tuberculosis.

[5]

An important theoretical consideration should also be considered. The trace metal most dramatically lost as a result of EDTA chelation is zinc. French researchers have found that 24 hours after an infusion of EDTA, the urine of human subjects contained 15 times the normal amount of zinc [5]. Without replacement, the loss of this much zinc over the months during which 30 to 40 treatments are delivered will increase the potential for severe impairment of immune function, precancerous cellular mutations, loss in selective permeability of cell membranes and altered solubility of pancreatic insulin. Although proponent literature advises that supplemental zinc be administered to guard against zinc depletion, studies showing that this supplementation actually prevents depletion have not been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

[5]

I really suggest you read the entire article on chelation from quackwatch.

[hr]

Lastly, it is important to show just how dangerous this really is.

In 2005 Marwa Nadama , a UK resident, traveled to USA with her son Abubakar Tariq Nadama, who had recieved an MMR vaccination in Great Britain.

After the vaccination Abubakar Tariq Nadama it was discovered that he suffered from autism. Marwa Nadama went looking for answers. But looking for answers can be a dangerous thing.

On her quest for answers she came upon a growing group of anti-vaxers. Groups who campaign against vaccinations with false claims of the efficacy of vaccination, and conspiracy theories about the medical industry.

These groups convinced Marwa Nadama that her sons autism was caused by the mercury in the MMR vaccination, and told her about chelation therapy.

So in 2005 Marwa Nadam and her son Abubakar Tariq Nadama traveled to USA to find a well known chelation "doctor" that various anti-vaxer groups had recommended.

Tuesday the 23rd of August 2005 5 year old Abubakar Tariq Nadama died from his chelation therapy. A senseless death(like all others) that could easily have been prevented, and should never have happened.. Wouldn't have happened if it weren't for the false and mistaken claims made by anti-vaxers who cling to the mercury theory of autism.

They use the mercury as a poster child for their cause. "Think of children".

Because of this, Marwa Nadam lost her child. And Akubbakar Tariq Nadam lost his life.

Not because of Autism, Not because of mercury. But because Marwa Nadam was missinformed about the cause of autism, and was given a solution... a cure..

As a desperate mother she took it, and it is hard to blame her.

No, the blame on this should lie, not on the mother, but on the groups that lied to her. The groups that told her the mercury in the MMR vaccination caused her sons autism. The groups that told her the bold faced lie that there is mercury in the MMR vaccination, when there is not now, nor have there ever been, mercury in the MMR vaccination.

It doesn't matter if Akubbakar Tariq Nadam died because of the EDTA, or because of a mixup by the "doctor", what matters is that he underwent a needless procedure, for no reason what so ever, and he died.

You don't put people under the knife unless you are sure it will help, because there is always a risk that something can go wrong. And this time it did.

For more read here:
Boy dies during autism treatment

In memory of Akubbakar Tariq Nadam .

Links:
[1] NIP: Vacsafe/Concerns/Thimerosal/FAQs on Vaccines

[2] Institute for Vaccine Safety

[3] NOW. Science & Health. Mercury in Fish | PBS

[4] Mercury exposure: evaluation and intervention the inappropriate use of chelating agents in the diagnosis and treatment of putative mercury poisoning.

[5] Chelation Therapy: Unproven Claims and Unsound Theories

From my page: http://www.autismmyths.com/index.php?na ... cle&sid=19

If you have any specific questions please ask.

I am not trying to spam my site, hence why i pasted the entire article here as well. I just gave the source so people wouldn't think i was stealing it.

Hehe, and i just noticed that i'm marked as a troll. Is that because i just registered? or is it because of something with the way i just posted this?

Oh well, doesn't matter.

I hope this is some value to someone

Oh, i forgot, i can also tell you why there is this increase in autism lately. though it is from another piece i did on whether or not watching TV causes autism. I will post it here anyways because it will tell you WHY we have this increase.

Bare with me.

Today, Cornell University researchers are reporting what appears to be a statistically significant relationship between autism rates and television watching by children under the age of 3. The researchers studied autism incidence in California, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington state. They found that as cable television became common in California and Pennsylvania beginning around 1980, childhood autism rose more in the counties that had cable than in the counties that did not.

[1]

While i have already covered the Etiology of autism, the new claim that watching television can cause autism has been made.

While the etiology of autism is by no means complete or perfect, watching television is just not a proper cause for autism.

From a recent article in Slate the following is stated

Last month, I speculated in Slate that the mounting incidence of childhood autism may be related to increased television viewing among the very young. The autism rise began around 1980, about the same time cable television and VCRs became common, allowing children to watch television aimed at them any time. Since the brain is organizing during the first years of life and since human beings evolved responding to three-dimensional stimuli, I wondered if exposing toddlers to lots of colorful two-dimensional stimulation could be harmful to brain development. This was sheer speculation, since I knew of no researchers pursuing the question.

While sheer speculation in and off itself might be a virtue, especially if it is followed up, having speculations and reporting on it, without properly investigating the material, is always a bad idea.

This article has quite many errors and mistakes in it.

One error, that i see many places, is that there is a either just a rise in autism, or an epidemic. This argument is a mistake which has a few sources.

The first cause of this mistake is that in the 1980s the definition of autism was changed. This means that a lot of people that were previously living without a diagnosis now got diagnosed with autism. Which naturally resulted in an increase in people diagnosed with autism.

Another, similar, argument is that it is caused by "something or other" which is the reason we haven't seen it untill the 20th century. In history there are very few cases of autism from before the 20th century, and this has caused many people to assume it is something new. And since it is new it must have a cause coming from changes in our society or environment.

This is partly true. Autism has always been with us. But except for the extreme cases(Rainman et al.) it has gone mostly unnoticed. This is because it has been easier to live with psychological problems like autism before. Our society has changed, and the change makes it a lot harder for a high functioning person with autism.

Living 200 years ago with Aspergers would probably not have been noticed, because society didn't have so many demands. Earlier in our history it was common to have a clear road of what to do. A very fixed school environment, with strict rules that had to be followed, you often took your fathers job(or else your father would send you off as an apprentice). Even getting a wife of children have for most of our history been something decided upon by the parents.

This means that the person with autism wouldn't have to make all these decisions, which means it is easier to live.

But now, from very early on there is choices. Choices about everything. There are no fixed guidelines. There is no one to decide for you. And there is a much rougher social world to interact with.

This means that living with autism is no longer as easy to hide as it was before. The problems are much more apparant in todays world.

The link with with VCRs in the 1980s is just an artifact. It is correlation(by coincidence), not causation.

The article goes on to state that researchers have found

a statistically significant relationship between autism rates and television watching by children under the age of 3

[1]

This is correlation, nothing more. A person with autism would be more prone to lock themselfes out of the stressing and confusion social world that we live in. So hidding in a computer game, or in front of the television is a lot easier, and a lot more comfortable. That is not to say everyone who does that suffers from autism. But there is a tendency for people with autism to do it more then people without autism.

Also from the article

"Several years ago I began wondering if it was a coincidence that the rise in autism rates and the explosion of television viewing began about the same time," Waldman said. "I asked around and found that medical researchers were not working on this, so accepted that I should research it myself."

[1]

This makes it appear that he has a preconcieved opinion on the matter, and thus he would quite easily produce a report that supported his position. That is not to say he is a liar, a cheater, or a deciever. But it is normal for the human mind to try to work towards your belief. Because he has a preconcieved opinion on the matter that doesn't mean he can't do a proper study, he just has to be extra carefull and make sure to double blind everything.

The study(at 67 pages) starts off by ignoring the changes in society that has made autism more apparant(but not more numerous) in the last years. But it does include a token "some believe the changes in diagnosis criteria has made this change). But it is instantly abandoned because it offers no "trigger".

There is no good reason why the argument "The apparant rise in people diagnosed with autism has risen, amongst other reasons, because of a change in diagnosis critera" should be totally abandoned and thrown away simply because it doesn't give any etiology for autism. The argument still stands because etiology is above and beyond what that argument states.

Contrary to what the report states there IS a consensus that this is (atleast part) of the reason for the increase in the 1980s.

For checking when children watch television they went with "American Time Use Survay" that have established that "young childhoood television watching is positively correlated with precipitation".

So they have checked to see which years, and in which areas, it rained the most, and try to see if there is any correlation between that effect and the number of people diagnosed with autism.

And yes, they do find a correlation. But since the sample is only measuring the precipitation and autism rates in Washington, Oregon and California, i am not sure what that means, if anything.

NOTE: I am not good at math, and most of the graphs in the paper makes no sence to me. But the data being checked for here, only precipitation and autism rates, makes me dubious of this entire study.

The study is also working form the flawed assumption that there are more males with autism, than females. And it says that "the condition is thought to develop at hte latest by three years of age", which again is a common mistake.

While autism does indeed need to develop before the age of three, there is little to no evidence that anything happening after birth is an influence in autism. Just because autism isn't apparant and visible before the age of three it doesn't mean that the cause have to happen between birth and the age of three.

The study then disposes of the "refrigerator mother" theory, while not stating in which way their theory is different.

In fact, some authors claim that scientific findings clearly show that family environment plays no role (see, for example, Powers (2000)). In our reading of the literature, however, we have found no evidence that would support a broad claim that the family environment plays no role whatsoever in the onset of autism.

[2]
While it is probably not prudent to say that "family environment plays no role whatsoever", i don't see any problem with saying "there is, thus far, no evidence of any family environmental component in the etiology of autism". And going on and saying "we have found no evidnece that would support a broad claim that the family environment plays no role whatsoever in the onset of autism" is not an argument in favour of anything, not even television, being a factor.

We need some evidence that the family environment plays a role before we can work on that assumption, something which the study neglects.

The study has four reasons to suspect television.

1) The California Data
2) TV and ADHD
3) "High Risk" Infants
4) The Amish

The California Data
The California Data shows autism rates since 1969, in contrast to national data. And it shows the increase that the study earlier talked about. The study then jumps directly into saying that

The timing of this growth matches quite closely with what was likely happening with early childhood television viewing.

[2]

Matching "quite closely" with what is "likely happening" is working from conjecture, and nothing more.

The increase seen in The California Data can be explained with the reasons given here already. No further reasons are needed.

TV and ADHD
A study has shown correlation between watching television and getting ADHD. From the study we are talking about here they say

Note that the study, although quite suggestive, is not definitive concerning the effect that early childhood television watching has on the onset of ADHD because of the nature of the methodology employed. In particular, the study does not employ a controlled experiment or a natural experiment to look at the issue. Rather, the authors used evidence from government-sponsered national health surveys to show a correlation between early childhood television watching and behaviour at age seven consistent with a diagnosis of ADHD. The problem is that cause and effect may potentially be reverse of how the authors interpret their results.

[2]

This is quite correct. One wonders why they still use this study as evidence in their favour. And why they haven't made sure to evade that trap themselfes.
Instead this study does exactly the same thing as the study they quote.

"High Risk" infants

Our hypothesis that early childhood television watching is a trigger for autism is more plausible if infants who are at "high risk" of becoming autistic exhibit behaviour consistent with vulnerability to television viewing. For example, such a behaviour might be that high risk children have more difficulty disengaging from watching television once they begin watching.

[2]
The first problem with this hypothesis is that they state what they think high risk behaviour might be. They don't say what it is, because they haven't investigated it.

Secondly they have cause and effect reversed. The children have trouble disengaging from watching television because they have autism. This is quite common with people with autism, and not only in the 3-6 age group.

Many parents to children with autism will try the scenario that they tell their children that "you have to come eat now, there is food now", and the child(or teenager) replies "no".

This doesn't mean "no, i don't want to eat", this means "no, i am in the middle of something, i can't come now, give me 10 minutes and i will be ready". This is because people with autism aren't as flexible as people without autism. And it takes a little while to get used to a new situation. This is the reason the children say "no" to go eat now, they aren't flexible enough to change situation.

And that is the reason that the children can't disengage from watching television.

The Amish

For religious reasons the Amish do not use electricity and so young children in that population watch no or at most very little television. Thus, our hypothesis that early childhood television watching is an important trigger for autism suggests that autism rates among the Amish should be distinctly ower than in the rest of the population

[2]

For reasons i have stated above it would be expected to have a lower amount of people with visible autism in a society like the Amish. Not because they don't have television, but from the simple fact that it is a simpler, less confusing, and less demanding, society to live in. The people with autism are still there, but since they haven't got that many demands on requirements it isn't as visible as it is outside of the Amish culture.

It is not required to be as flexible in the Amish culture as it is in the general population. The demands are different, and because of that the evidence of autism isn't as apparant. But there are still people with autism in the Amish culture. Just like there have been through most of human history. It is just only the most extreme cases that are visible.


Links:

[1] TV Really Might Cause Autism

[2] DOES TELEVISION CAUSE AUTISM?


From my page: http://www.autismmyths.com/index.php?na ... cle&sid=22

Again, sorry for it not being totally on topic with the mercury thing, but i still feel it have some valuable data.

Matthew Taylor wrote:Let me make this sound more dramatic. ... It's the third most hazardous substance.

*EDIT* What do you mean by hazardous? The point of "hazard" in the context of this debate is surely entirely based on the toxicity of mercury (and the likelihood that any mercury-based compounds share that toxicity or will degrade in the body in such a way as to be poisonous).

The way your paragraph reads suggests that mercury is the 3rd most toxic substance in the world. It is not. If you are saying this you have misunderstood the nature of the ASTDR report that I presume you are quoting:

wikipedia wrote:It should be noted that this priority list is not a list of "most toxic" substances, but rather a prioritization of substances based on a combination of their frequency, toxicity, and potential for human exposure at NPL sites; thus, it is possible for substances with low toxicity but high NPL frequency of occurrence and exposure to be on this priority list.

no doubt about it, mercury in its pure state is bad news but risking overstating and oversimplifying the science is argument-damaging.

I know that my nephew is autistic. I know that my sister and brother in law have studied in great detail the varying theories behind the causes for autism, and have found that the mercury in vaccines is as likely a cause as about three or four other factors, but that none of those factors seem to be more likely than any other.

Tobias, everyone is a troll here at 1st. So don't worry about it.

I wanted to thank you for your posts. A lot of good info there.

Antero wrote:]Looking at the statistics, we have an exponential rise in autism incidence resulting from a fixed amount of vaccination.

If the incidence is increasing exponentially, one would conclude that the environmental cause of the disorder would also be increasing. Otherwise there would be a single jump after the input grows (say, vaccinations with trace Hg begin) and a constant proportion after that. Judging by the chart, there is no decrease in incidence of autism, nor any decrease in proportional incidence of autism. Basically, it doesn't make sense for the graph to be doing what it is doing if we're claiming the cause was a fixed input (thimerosal).

You're saying that the chart should look like a stair step after the increase in Thimoseral in vaccines?

Prior to 1989, American infants generally received three vaccinations (polio, measles-mumps-rubella, and diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis). In the early 1990s, public health officials dramatically increased the number of Thimerosal-containing vaccinations without considering the cumulative impact of the mercury load on developing brains.

I think what the chart reflects is a normal incline in reported cases, due to the increased mercury in the vaccines. The survey practices of all the states are not uniformly effective. It's not like we have a thermometer in the ass of all America, and we can track temperature changes ( or increases in autism ) instantly.