GMO foods and autism
MakaylaTheAspie
Veteran
Joined: 21 Jun 2011
Age: 27
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 14,565
Location: O'er the land of the so-called free and the home of the self-proclaimed brave. (Oregon)
Personally I doubt there is a connection. Also I don't think there is an autism epidemic at all. In the past many people like me were never diagnosed with anything. Now more of us are getting diagnosed. The increase is due to better education of teachers and medical staff not vaccines or food.
_________________
Self Diagnosed Asperger's since 2010
Officially Diagnosed Asperger's and ADHD-PI March 2012
Your Aspie score: 152 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 42 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
AQ = 41 EQ = 9
Oodain
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
the problem with tackling GMO as a a single thing (as implied by the use of GMO) is that it quite simply isnt, it is as varied as any natural lifeform,
so there is a potential for a harmfull plant, but it will be harmfull in a similar way to normal plants(plenty of those can kill, even if it is used as medicine or just as decoration)
so in short GMO as a concept says nothing about the inherent safety of modifying foodstuff.
_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
I replied but thetn it went away....anyway I'm speaking specifically about the corn with bt toxin if that helps.
I simply wonder what has changed in this generation. My family, for example has several people, including myself who fit the criteria for Aspergers, but mainly funtion normally except for not driving or other things of that nature. This generation is the first with non-verbal autism and it occured first in a girl, my sister's daughter. I have to wonder what is causing the more "severe" forms of autism to increase.
Will this "blame everything imaginable" nonsense ever end? What's next? Is someone going to try to blame it all on the JFK assassination? It would make just as much sense.
I have heard a lot of people say that. It does make sense for Aspergers but not for the "low functioning" end of things. Certainly they did not just get by in the past without being noticed. I do agree that more awareness leads to discovery and diagnosis but it seems to me that that would only apply to people who could have passed as typical. My niece, who is 13, non-verbal and in diapers would have definitely been diagnosed as would others who are similarly affected.
I was born in 85 and had normal language development but had sensory problems, social issues and would not play but would only arrange my collections of ponies and other things. I can not ride a bike, am learning to drive at 27 but do pretty well day to day. My sister, born in 1977 is much like me. My brother, born in 1980 did not talk until age 5 and prefers not to speak now but did have friends in school. My sister's daughter has severe autism ( born 1999) . I just wonder if maybe something in the environment is making autism more severe in people who may have had it to a lesser degree.
If there has indeed been an increase in the actual rates of Autism, then it is more useful to let the research into the reasons be done rather than to cast around looking at everything that has changed in the world as a potential cause. Given time, the answer will surely be determined, while anything done in a panic is likely to be wrong.
Take a look at http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-increase-in-autism-diagnoses-two-hypotheses/.
...
The confusion about the epidemiology of autism is one common to scientific medicine. Whenever historical comparisons are made it is possible that changing definitions and practices over time will distort those comparisons. This is why medical scientists are often reluctant to change nomenclature (disease names) and definitions – doing so immediately renders the literature obsolete. All subsequent literature must now have a footnote. But the progress of our understanding of biology and disease makes such changes unavoidable.
In the 1990′s the diagnosis of autism was changed to autism spectrum disorder (ASD) – the new name reflecting the changing concept of autism to include a broader spectrum of symptoms, including much more subtle manifestations. In particular a diagnostic entity known as Aspergers syndrome, which is essentially a subtle manifestation of autism features, was classified as part of ASD. Any time you broaden a category the number of individuals that fit into that category is likely to increase.
...
Another prediction that flows from the second hypothesis is that if we compare apples to apples – meaning if we look at the same community and apply the same diagnostic methods that were used in the past as documented in a published study, then the incidence should be the same. In other words – if we control for any changes in the diagnostic criteria and surveillance methods the incidence of autism should be stable over time. Chakrabarti and Fombonne did exactly that, comparing the incidence of autism in 2002 (looking at a cohort of children born between 1996-1998) to the same population using the same methods as a previous study looking at the cohort of children born between 1992-1995. They found:
If the broadened diagnosis hypothesis is true than it must also be true that as other diagnoses shifted over to autism they would decrease as autism numbers increased. This is exactly what Jick et al found when they reviewed a cohort of boys with and without autism. What was previously diagnosed as language disorder is now being diagnosed as autism, with a corresponding decrease in non-specific language disorders. Shattuck found the exact same effect, so called “diagnostic substitution,” when he studied the prevalence of disabilities among children in US special education from 1984 to 2003. He found that in locations where the prevalence of autism had increased there was a corresponding decrease in the prevalence of other disabilities. (Shattuck 2006)
I'm afraid there is no way to get an "apples to apples" comparison of the rates of classic autism. If there is, I have not found it. I will say though that the increase in diagnosis is a wonderful thing. Although I will not go to anyone to get formally diagnosed, it helps to know that there are others like you. Wondering all your life why you are different or why things are so difficult for you is draining.
Another prediction that flows from the second hypothesis is that if we compare apples to apples – meaning if we look at the same community and apply the same diagnostic methods that were used in the past as documented in a published study, then the incidence should be the same. In other words – if we control for any changes in the diagnostic criteria and surveillance methods the incidence of autism should be stable over time. Chakrabarti and Fombonne did exactly that, comparing the incidence of autism in 2002 (looking at a cohort of children born between 1996-1998) to the same population using the same methods as a previous study looking at the cohort of children born between 1992-1995. They found:
If the broadened diagnosis hypothesis is true than it must also be true that as other diagnoses shifted over to autism they would decrease as autism numbers increased. This is exactly what Jick et al found when they reviewed a cohort of boys with and without autism. What was previously diagnosed as language disorder is now being diagnosed as autism, with a corresponding decrease in non-specific language disorders. Shattuck found the exact same effect, so called “diagnostic substitution,” when he studied the prevalence of disabilities among children in US special education from 1984 to 2003. He found that in locations where the prevalence of autism had increased there was a corresponding decrease in the prevalence of other disabilities. (Shattuck 2006)
I'm glad somebody is looking into the exact figures because this is something that really puzzles me. I absolutely can understand how categorical shifting could inflate autism diagnostic figures while deflating figures for other diagnostic categories. The part that I am puzzled by is why there is a perception of more children needing special services in school. People in the education field say that there is a true and real rise in the number of children they need to provide services for. So if the percentage of children is unchanged and the only change is which category they were in, why the perception of rise? Is it a change in educational law(s) (depending on country)? Were these children simply flunked previously? If more severely affected, were they institutionalized and therefore educators were not responsible for educating them? I've googled around but can't find out for certain.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
trying new foods |
21 Apr 2024, 11:50 pm |
Particular foods |
24 Apr 2024, 12:02 am |
junk foods |
04 Apr 2024, 5:32 pm |
Does anyone else "dissect" certain foods? |
11 Feb 2024, 10:13 pm |