Autism is much more visible these days — just last month the CDC reported that 1 in 88 children has been diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder — but despite earlier and more accurate diagnoses, we’re still largely in the dark about why some kids have it and others don’t. Every so often a study will come out implicating a new risk factor, but most of the time it turns out to be largely media hype rather than the big breakthrough we’ve been hoping for.

Studies looking at identical twins have found concordance rates of around 60-90 percent — high enough to tell us that genetics certainly play a large role, but still low enough to suggest that environmental factors also matter. Many potential risk factors have been identified through observational studies, but most of their effects are modest. Just a few of these risk factors include parental age at birth, use of medication (specifically of psychiatric medication during pregnancy), having a multiple birth and even being born in the summer.

Another one of these risk factors is gestational diabetes, which was previously shown to double the risk of a woman having an autistic child. Because diabetes is characterized by a resistance to insulin, researchers decided to look at another metabolic condition with this hallmark: obesity.

In a new study, published last week in the journal Pediatrics, researchers at UC Davis followed a group of 1,004 children and their mothers over the course of seven years. This group included 517 kids with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD), 172 kids with another developmental disorder (DD) and 315 control children with neither disorder. As expected, they found that more mothers had either Type 2 or gestational diabetes during pregnancy in the DD group (11.6 percent) than in the control group (6.4 percent). And after adjusting for other factors that might explain differences between these groups, they found that mothers with diabetes were 2.3 times more likely to have a child with a developmental disorder. They also saw more diabetes in the ASD mothers (9.3 percent) than the control group, but the numbers were not statistically different.

What’s new about this study, though, is that they also looked at whether obesity was associated with an increased risk of having a child with an ASD. They found that obese women had a 67 percent higher risk of having a child with an ASD, and the risk of having a child with another DD more than doubled.

Although this study does not address how these two related metabolic conditions might contribute to autism and other developmental disorders, the researchers think one possibility may be that fetal exposure to excess glucose could lead to increased oxygen consumption and iron deficiency, either of which could have negative effects on brain development. Another possibility relates to the chronic inflammation seen during both obesity and diabetes, which could lead to chemical regulators of the immune system crossing the placenta and potentially disrupting brain development (but this has only been seen in animal studies so far, so it’s not yet known whether human development would be affected in the same way).

It’s also possible that something common to women with diabetes and obesity that wasn’t directly examined in this study is actually influencing the risk for these disorders. Even so, with one third of women of childbearing age obese today, understanding what’s driving these associations will be an important research question to consider with potentially large impacts on public health. Read more about the study here.

Me and my older brother William waiting for his turn on the rock wall at Mt. Hood Kiwanis, a camp for people with disabilities. William was diagnosed with autism at age six and attends Kiwanis every summer. I was an arts and crafts instructor there during high school.

“It’s supposed to be worse than being blind, not being able to communicate,” said my mom, Debbie Hastings. I wouldn’t know because my older brother, William, can’t tell me what it’s like to be on the spectrum.

National Autism Awareness Month has come to a close, but families of people with autism are aware of this pervasive disorder 24/7, 365 days a year.

William was diagnosed when he was six years old in 1990, the year I was born. At that time, one in every 10,000 people was diagnosed with autism, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The huge leap to one in every 110 can be, at least partially, attributed to a 1992 manual released by the American Psychiatric Association that refined the diagnostic criteria for autism disorder, creating the autism spectrum. An individual could be mildly autistic or severely autistic according to variations in a set of symptom: poor social skills, repetitive behavior and language impairment.

My brother? Severely autistic. He’s what professionals call “classic” autism.

But, classic autism isn’t what people always think of when they think of the disorder. When I tell people about my brother, they ask if he is a savant and has Asperger’s syndrome, a form of high-functioning autism. People with high-functioning autism can go on to do great things. They star in Blade Runner (Daryl Hannah), invent Pokémon (Satoshi Tajiri), become Nobel Laureates in economics (Vernon Smith) and design animal handling systems (Temple Grandin).

I don’t know my brother’s full potential. The great things he’s done are subtle: having a hearty laugh and making people think before they speak. So far he hasn’t mastered life goals others find simple to achieve, such as writing his name, crossing the street by himself or cooking his own meals. For my parents, they feel William’s problems are made more challenging by mental retardation, violence, depression, overeating and sensory problems – all much more pervasive in low-functioning individuals such as my brother. Surrounded by support, he is 26 and lives at home.

But my dad, David Hastings, thinks the spectrum has become too broad, that anyone with a little social deficit can earn the label. (Read more…)

In my previous post I proposed delving further into the autism-vaccine debate to learn about what factors caused this perfect storm of imperfect conclusions.

First, let’s look at how it all began.

In 1998, Andrew Wakefield plus others authored a report investigating the link between autism and the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine in twelve recently diagnosed children, eight of whom has just received the vaccination. In the discussion section of the report the authors concluded that they, “did not prove an association between the MMR vaccine and the syndrome described.”

I hope right now you’re thinking “Wait…what? They didn’t prove a link? But how did…”

In 1998, three factors coalesced to launch the autism-vaccine debate both in the UK and the United States. (Read more…)

If there’s one thing we can be sure about, it’s that the MMR vaccine doesn’t cause autism. Multiple court cases have ruled this causal relationship out because the evidence doesn’t prove the link and cannot be replicated. In addition, co-authors of the original study, the study’s publisher, and the UK General Medical Council have all ruled the hypothesis unsound and guided by unethical motivation.

Now that we can rest knowing our children will be protected from mumps, measles, and rubella without the risk of developing autism, the bigger question to ask is:

How did all this happen?

How did one study, conducted in 1998, cause such a storm? Why did it take 12 years for us to finally put this suggestion to rest? What toll has this common misconception taken on children receiving vaccines and on autism research?

These are the questions I want to research in the upcoming months. What we find can help shed light on how and why false cures gain popularity and what effects they have on the community. In autism treatment, these quick-fix cures abound; let’s look at why.

If you have suggestions, ideas, or sources please comment.

“An industrial chemical developed to help separate heavy metals from polluted soil and mining drainage is being sold as a dietary supplement by a luminary in the world of alternative autism treatments.”

Read that quote again.

In the frenzy around the increasing number of children being diagnosed with autism, some panicked parents aren’t making the best long-term choices for their children. They don’t want to wait around, they want a quick fix now. These feelings make sense but need to be rationalized.

Although not being publicly admitted, the drug referenced above acts as a chelator and treats heavy metal poisoning. No medical studies exist on this drug. The FDA has not approved this “antioxidant,” nor does it appear that the company selling it is cooperating.

The American Heart Association has spoken out against this type of treatment stating that “Organized medicine opposes chelation therapy because it’s an unproven procedure and it involves extreme risks to patients who receive it.” Risks including death- in 2005 a boy with autism died from a similar treatment.

Parents have expressed an inability to stand around and wait for treatments to be approved. I agree, don’t wait around. Love your child for who they are. Acceptance can go a long way. Look into behavioral therapies that may mesh well with your child’s individual needs. Stay updated on research coming out about various therapies through sites like the Autism Society of America and Autism News.

The greater awareness and increased funding for research have made a phenomenal impact on the resources available to families of children with autism, but this drug exemplifies the negative side. With money comes greed and manipulation- don’t support unfounded research, especially one as dangerous as this. It’s just not worth the risk.