
New study looks at the connection between parental age and autism risk - jrs235
https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/the-type-of-parents-most-likely-to-have-a-child-121212598657.html
======
randomname2
"Another hypothesis is that people who have children at advanced ages may do
so because they themselves are “on the spectrum,” and may have social
difficulties that made it tough for them to couple up and become parents for
much of their early adult lives; in these cases, researchers theorize, there
may be a genetic link to autism."

Ouch. I wonder if there's any truth to this, it's certainly an interesting
hypothesis!

~~~
tsotha
It wouldn't explain why the incidence of autism is increasing, though.

~~~
wil421
Do we really know if it is increasing? Or has our ability to detect it
increased?

I wonder the same things about cancer and I believe that in the past 50+ years
we have identified more types of cancer. Same with autism, the spectrum has
broadened in the past decades. People who were once just plain weird or
different for my parents generation could now be classified as having autism
in my generation.

It would be interesting to see a study if cancer or autism are actually
increasing or if we are just now finding diseases that have plagued mankind
for generations.

~~~
__z
>I wonder the same things about cancer and I believe that in the past 50+
years we have identified more types of cancer.

I wrote a long post about this a few weeks ago but the long story short is
YES! We _absolutely_ have detected more (asymptomatic) cancers with increased
screening of healthy people.

Here's my previous post -
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9621249](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9621249)

Here's some random links:

[https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/screening-for-
disease-i...](https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/screening-for-disease-in-
people-without-symptoms-the-reality/)

[https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/a-skeptical-look-at-
scr...](https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/a-skeptical-look-at-screening-
tests/)

>Prostate cancer is very common but isn’t always harmful. It is found in 80%
of autopsies where the men died of something else. Many more men die with
prostate cancer than because of it.

>The screening test for prostate cancer is a blood test for prostate-specific
antigen (PSA). This is not a yes-or-no test. It must be interpreted in the
context of the patient’s age and risk factors and the rate of rise, and any
cut-off level is arbitrary and will miss some small percentage of cancers. If
the PSA test is positive, the next step is biopsy. Typically, 12 needle
biopsies are done, 6 on each side. They find cancer in 25% of patients. But if
you go back and do more biopsies, you’ll find cancer in 25% more patients.
Theoretically, if you could see every cell in the prostate, you might be able
to find a cancer cell or two in almost everyone, most of which would never
progress or kill the patient. So you have to decide how many biopsies are
reasonable. If you find cancer on a biopsy, the next step is treatment, and
treatments for prostate cancer are not benign.

[http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/11/overkill-
atul-g...](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/11/overkill-atul-gawande)

>we’ve assumed, he says, that cancers are all like rabbits that you want to
catch before they escape the barnyard pen. But some are more like birds—the
most aggressive cancers have already taken flight before you can discover
them, which is why some people still die from cancer, despite early detection.
And lots are more like turtles. They aren’t going anywhere. Removing them
won’t make any difference.

>Over the past two decades, we’ve tripled the number of thyroid cancers we
detect and remove in the United States, but we haven’t reduced the death rate
at all. In South Korea, widespread ultrasound screening has led to a fifteen-
fold increase in detection of small thyroid cancers. Thyroid cancer is now the
No. 1 cancer diagnosed and treated in that country. But, as Welch points out,
the death rate hasn’t dropped one iota there, either. (Meanwhile, the number
of people with permanent complications from thyroid surgery has skyrocketed.)
It’s all over-diagnosis. We’re just catching turtles.

~~~
wil421
Very interesting reads. Thank you for the comment.

------
alexggordon
The interesting thing about the increasing correlation between something
scientifically measurable (age in this case) and autism, is that means
something _physical_ is changing. If something physical is changing from
parents to children, then that means autism is at least partly genetic (it's
been shown before[0]) and it might be able to be measured and predicted before
birth and development, which further means that it can be treated earlier, and
prevented more.

I have a friend that was diagnosed with autism early, and through years of
help with an awesome therapist it would be hard to tell that they're autistic.
That said though, many people don't have access to that kind of help or
stability, and therefore suffer significantly more throughout their life.

I like making these connections because if people realize that things like
autism are _physical_ ailments contracted at birth, and not something that
fucking vaccines give you, then perhaps the stigma around them will disappear
and we can bring a higher quality of life to all.

[0]
[http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/new_autis...](http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/new_autism_causing_genetic_variant_identified)

~~~
abandonliberty
Not enough people know that with early detection and treatment most autistic
people can live successful, independent lives.

An interesting ethics situation arises whenever we have the chance to
eradicate a condition: Should we?

With Aspergers, a mild variant, researchers have argued that it is a
"different cognitive style, not a disorder or a disability, and that it should
be removed from the standard Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, much as
homosexuality was removed."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome#Society_and_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome#Society_and_culture)

~~~
jerf
I'm really leery of this recent push towards trying to create "acceptance"
around autism. Yes, some people are only mildly autistic and can live mostly
normal lives with significant extra help. If my luck holds, my autistic son
will fit into that category.

But autism is also the completely non-verbal 12-year-old I recently
encountered at an indoor play structure, whose only verbal communication was
the characteristic autistic squawk (I've heard it from my son too, and quite a
few other of the autistic kids we've met through various groups), and who only
narrowly avoided scratching his mother when she tried to remove his empty milk
cup by virtue of her having long practice at dodging his clumsy movements. (I
don't think he was deliberately trying to hurt her, but that matters little
once the hands get moving.)

I'll also be blunt, because I think too many people dance around this issue
out of fear... even parenting a mildly autistic child is _unbelievably
emotionally exhausting_. A great deal of those human interactions that are
part of the reason to have children, or, if you find that too, ah, direct, one
of the major things that helps you get through all the difficult work at 3am
and during toilet training and all those other times... gone. I was actually
creeped out a bit when holding another parent's baby a few months ago, because
their five-month old was _making eye contact with me_... an experience I am
not used to. (My other kid can't either, but for other reasons.) That's what
I'm used to. It's hard to even express until you're in the middle of it, but
it's _hard_.

Honestly, improving autism isn't all about just the autistic person's life;
they don't live isolated lives, in fact, they're drawing more than average
resources, emotional and otherwise, from those around them. Those who live
around the autistic person could benefit from autism being improved.

And I'm grateful for what research has been done that has in fact been
helpful. Never in a hundred years of parenting would I have imagined the
amazing transformation that can come over my kid just by strapping 2 pounds of
workout weights to his legs... I never would have made the proprioception
connection without the research that has been done on the topic. So you'll
forgive me if I get a bit nervous about anything that makes it even REMOTELY
sound like maybe we should just shut down all the research and "accept". My
son may need emotional acceptance, but he doesn't need acceptance of his
autism... he needs research on how to deal with it, and parents who do not
simply let him retreat into his own little world and pull the entrance in
after him, something he clearly wanted to do when he was 3 and 4, thinking
it's just another choice.

Do not stop the research. Do not just "accept" autism. If your experience with
autism leads you to the conclusion that's a valid choice, then _be grateful
you were only grazed by the bullet_. Not everybody was, and that may even
include some people around you who were only indirectly affected.

~~~
Lawtonfogle
Would you draw a distinction between those with autism who cannot live a self
sufficient life with those who can live a self sufficient (though not normal)
life? Especially in the cases of those who don't need significant resources
during childhood to live self sufficient lives.

To apply this to some other disorder, do you think there is a difference (in
terms of how society should respond) between someone with OCD enough to cause
issues but not significantly hamper their life versus someone who is unable to
leave their house?

~~~
jerf
I'd draw a ton of distinctions, in fact, I'd draw one per person. Everyone's
unique.

But I have no idea what in my post would even _remotely_ lead you to the
conclusion that _I_ am the one treating "autism" as an atomic condition that
you either have or don't, what with all the distinctions you'll find in it if
you look.

My concern is that I know where this sort of "acceptance" push leads. Already
I see autism researchers have to precede their perfectly acceptable and even
wonderful research with "Not that autistic people aren't wonderful, but..."
That's a step, no, that's _several_ steps down the road to where soppy-headed
thinkers start babbling about "autistophobia" and run the researchers out of
town on a rail.

(And then _congratulate_ themselves on running the researchers out of town on
a rail.)

Oh, jeez, when I typed that word I _really_ hoped it was a neologism...
[https://www.google.com/search?q=autistiophobia](https://www.google.com/search?q=autistiophobia)
That's not what my son needs. I don't think internalizing that one is
intrinsically and inescapably a victim is good for _anybody 's_ psychology but
he _really_ wouldn't be able to deal with life if he incorporated that into
his worldview.

(And carefully note my claim there... it is not that people are not sometimes
victims, even at scale, and it's not that sometimes they don't need this
pointed out... but convincing someone that they are _intrinsically and
inescapably eternally a victim_ is a terrible thing to do to a human being.)

~~~
tjradcliffe
Thanks for this. All you have to do is look at the "Deaf Culture" folks to see
where attempts to normalize a disease state leads.

The lack of ability to hear is not a difference to be celebrated, and anyone
who does celebrate it is a sad, pathetic individual spreading harm and--very
often--hate.

It is possible to gracefully accept who we are and the things about us that
can't yet be fixed, while at the same time striving to fix them.

Our diseases are not our identities.

Deaf Culture and other similar movements start off by accepting the lie that
collectivist bigots have imposed on them--that our diseases _are_ our
identities--and then simply declare that that identity is _good_. Accepting
the identity that hostile collectivists want to impose on you is rarely a good
thing. In the case of disease states it really does end in opposing any
attempt to cure the disease, and if there's a purer kind of evil than that--
cloaked in the brightly shining garb of rights and defense of the oppressed--
I'm not sure what it is.

~~~
pavedwalden
Although I'm sure there are examples of inappropriate dogmatism in the Deaf
Culture conversation, I think you're painting the whole situation with too
broad a brush. Unlike autism or OCD, deafness inducts you into a culture that
exists parallel to the hearing world. It has its own schools, its own norms,
and even its own bars. I'd say it's more similar to an isolated small town
than a pathological "disease community" like a pro-anna message board.

So for adults considering surgical intervention, there are very reasonable
questions about what it means to be reaching beyond their language community.
As for deciding when surgical intervention is appropriate for children, that's
an ethical shitshow I'm glad I don't have to sort out.

------
wozniacki
I think this topic is too important for it to go discussed meagerly or without
a consensus opinion - however loose - based on an array of the most current
exhaustive studies on the condition. Too often these findings pop up in
popular media without any backdrop or without the larger context of other
studies, whether with similar or dissimilar findings.

Here is a study that links autism to low iron intake among pregnant women:

    
    
      Iron deficiency affects 40%–50% of pregnancies. Iron is critical for early 
      neurodevelopmental processes that are dysregulated in autism spectrum 
      disorder (ASD). We examined maternal iron intake in relation to ASD risk in 
      California-born children enrolled in a population-based case-control study 
      (the Childhood Autism Risks from Genetics and the Environment (CHARGE) Study)
      from 2003 to 2009 with a diagnosis of ASD (n = 520) or typical development 
      (n = 346) that was clinically confirmed using standardized assessments.
      .
      .
      The highest quintile of iron intake during the index period was associated 
      with reduced ASD risk compared with the lowest (adjusted odds ratio = 0.49, 
      95% confidence interval: 0.29, 0.82), especially during breastfeeding. 
      Low iron intake significantly interacted with advanced maternal age and 
      metabolic conditions; combined exposures were associated with a 5-fold 
      increased ASD risk. Further studies of this link between maternal supplemental 
      iron and ASD are needed to inform ASD prevention strategies.[1]
    
    

[1] Maternal Intake of Supplemental Iron and Risk of Autism Spectrum Disorder

[http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/09/22/aje.k...](http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/09/22/aje.kwu208)

~~~
smtddr
Because of this my wife took iron supplements during pregnancy with our 2
kids. Seems to have worked? Of course I have no idea what would have happened
without the supplements. Also, a lot of these things are part of our household
diet even before pregnancy:
[http://i.imgur.com/rwOgsHS.png](http://i.imgur.com/rwOgsHS.png)

~~~
giarc
They are also part of a generally healthy diet.

------
fecak
In most posts about autism here, a reader is unaware of the early signs. Early
intervention is a key in treatment.

For the benefit of those who don't know some potential clues: not pointing,
no/low eye contact, non-verbal/no babbling, rote behaviors, toe walking, no
facial expressions, lack of response to outside stimuli.

Further reading with milestones by age here
[http://www.autismsciencefoundation.org/autism-early-
signs](http://www.autismsciencefoundation.org/autism-early-signs)

