Autism Linked to Unusual Shapes in Lungs

Post Reply New Topic

This in one of the few studies that has linked anatomical features with autism. Preliminary research, not yet peer reviewed or replicated, but none the less interesting.


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500368_162-20125566/autism-linked-to-unusual-shapes-in-lungs/

It just happened

This seems interesting, although I would definitely call for replication before officially linking autism with unusual shapes in the lungs. I also don't think the author should claim that "Children born with a certain shape in their airways -- the tubes that take air to the lungs -- all have autism or autism spectrum disorder". I think it's a bit bold to say that when there was only one study with 49 kids. Maybe they should have put it the other way around, that "all children with autism are born with a certain shape in their airways"? Although it still makes it into a blanket statement, which I think is a bit presumptuous. It's also funny to read the comments below the article...a fair few of them claim that there haven't been any studies between autism prevalence in vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated children LOL! If only they would just research on GOOGLE for crying out loud...lol

I'm very apprehensive about this. Physical identification can lead to controversial responses.

Nowhere did they mention any sort of control group of NT children, so I'm not going along with this just yet.

We have weird lungs?! Next we will evolve and have gills

I don't have weird lungs.

I have very good lungs, but as far as I know I haven't got gills...

In fact, I can swim underwater 50 meters, the length of a full sized swimming pool.

i've always been short of breath and easily winded no matter what shape i was in.

It would be interesting to know more. While it may not be 100% accurate, it might generate good lines of investigation.

True dat.

I did NOT read the article, but have good reason to pipe in here before people start flatly dismissing this possibility.

Background for those who don't already know:

I, and all three of my boys are all Autistic. There is strong reason to believe my father may be as well. Autism runs on my wife's side of the family, and she is very likely an Aspie herself, or at least PDD-NOS.

During ALL THREE pregnancies my wife experienced, she had gestational diabetes, and low amniotic fluid. Because of her having both, doctors were concerned about her delivering as soon as was possible to do so safely. Allowing the pregnancy to continue past term ran the risk of her fluids being even lower, and increased risks by a huge amount. Thus, the one thing they told us they were monitoring was lung development. The plan, with each of them, was to induce labor as soon as the baby's lungs were developed enough to do so safely. This means they were planning to deliver BEFORE the lungs were as developed as most baby's are with "no-risk" pregnancies.

My first son was induced and was born with low oxygen levels. My second son was induced as well, with mildly low oxygen levels. My third was born naturally, with no drugs, but only because he came so fast there was no time to administer any. ALL THREE developed asthma.

All three, as I said, are Autistic.

I'm not so quick to simply dismiss the idea that lung development might possibly be linked.

There is more, BTW. My father, who was born a blue baby (look it up), had an older brother whom he never met, because he died of pneumonia as an infant. His younger sister was also a blue baby.

I know this could all be nothing more than a freak coincidence, but I think you can see why I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this particular idea as a bunch of bunk.

That's a completely different statement that barely says anything similar to the statement they made.

Think of the difference between "All fish are animals" and "All animals are fish".

They're trying to claim that everyone with a particular trait is also autistic, not that all of us have that trait.

You're right it is. (I have now read the article by the way.) All the "study" claims is what they found, which is that all of the patients they did observe with the abnormality in the airway, also had Autism. They did not say, "Therefore all Autistics have this abnormality."

The fact that 100% of the 49 patients observed did have both however, is very significant, and does indicate that further studies are warranted.




Well, no, they aren't trying to claim that we all have this trait. Not at all. They are simply saying that what they have observed so far indicates that it may be possible.

There is no way to know for certain without further studies, and what they have observed so far indicates strongly that further studies should definitely be done, to determine whether or not what has been observed in these 49 patients seems to indicate, is true or not.

Nowhere in the article is any definite statement made. Nowhere in the article are they saying what they (the researchers) are, or are not trying to claim, other than that there appears to be strong evidence of a link between the two. 49 out of 49 patients IS strong evidence, but it is not "proof."

The claim that there IS a link is made by the AUTHOR of the article, not the researchers.

Therein lies the danger of reporters making claims, and making them in ways that make it appear the claims actually are coming from the researchers themselves.

True, 49 out of 49 having both doesn't "prove" all Autistics have this physical trait, but it DOES prove that we'd probably better start looking seriously into whether or not all of us do, or at least whether a significant number of us do.

To NOT look more closely at this possibility after this doctor's finding would be scientifically irresponsible.

In other words a potential genetic or developmental cause, rather than any controllable action by a parent. Some parents do blame themselves, wondering if they did something wrong, that contributed to problems their child might have associated with autism.

Last edited by aghogday on 01 Nov 2011, 1:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The "they" I was using was "the people who wrote the statement quoted in the initial post" The quote says "Everyone with this type of lung is autistic", whether or not that is true, that statement is not the same as "everyone who is autistic has this type of lung". I was pointing that out in particular.

However, it might have been the authors who assumed of the negation of each part of the statement is equivalent to the negation of the statement. Either way, those two statements mean drastically different things.

Of course there needs to be more research. I don't think anyone here thinks that one not-peer reviewed study is necessarily true.