or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Is acetaminophen behind the autism epidemic?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is acetaminophen behind the autism epidemic? - Page 4

post #61 of 97
That google books link doesn't prove anything, it is a secondary source & subjective. I suggested looking @ the very first papers published. Yk, primary sources.

So obvious 'it hits you in the face' is actually also just so subjective. People w/o diagnostic responsibilities retroactively diagnosing historical figures is an inherently suspect enterprise.
post #62 of 97

True Dina. My grandparents' generation had kids from 18-mid 40ies. They had no birth control really so they had kids until menopause.

 

EineMutti, vaccination was compulsory but was done much more carefully. Vaccines were spread apart - I never received more than one vaccine at a time. OPV and DTP were not given at the same time to anyone in my family. We got BCG at birth but then nothing until 9 months... It's a very different schedule that only featured BCG, DTP, OPV and measles and starting in the mid80ies MMR instead of measles. I don't think the schedule is comparable at all to todays' schedules. I do wonder if anyone could find a package insert of the vaccines given in the ex soviet countries. From my understanding they made their own and didn't purchase them from "Western pharma companies".

post #63 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by autismepi View Post
 

Acetaminophen usage rates and autism rates do mirror each other   Acetaminophen was rarely used prior to 1980 but replaced aspirin, for pregnant women and children, after aspirin was associated with Reye's syndrome. This is when the autism rates started to increase.  Autism did occur prior to 1980 but it was very rare.

 

Boys get autism 4-5 times more often than girls.  Acetaminophen being a causal factor provides on of the few plausible explanations why. In the mid 1990's, pain management guidelines started suggesting that boys get 5-7 doses of acetaminophen in the vulnerable first days of life with the circumcision procedure. At this time, metabolic systems are not functioning well. Worldwide and US state autism rates highly correlate to their circumcision rates.  Worldwide prenatal acetaminophen usage rates also correlate to the autism rates.  Obviously, correlation is not causation, but this is interesting enough that this should be investigated further.

 

A new study in Nature states "Our findings suggest that chemicals and genetic mutations that impair topoisomerases could commonly contribute to autism spectrum disorder and other neurodevelopmental disorders".  NAPQI the toxic metabolite of acetaminophen is a topoisomerase poison.  Just doubling the dose of acetaminophen can cause it to convert to NAPQI.

 

Caution and more research is warranted!

http://www.ehjournal.net/content/12/1/41

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23995680

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15035644


Rarely used prior to 1980? What are you basing this on? I was a kid in the 60s and 70s. I was raised along with my cousins a lot of the time, and we were all given APAP for fevers in the 60s and 70s, as it was available OTC. Back then it was simply called "liquid aspirin" (Aspirin itself cannot be held in solution or suspension due to its molecular make up.) or simply by its brand name, Tylenol. It was often used in infants and toddlers who could not chew baby aspirin, for kids with tummy problems as it didn't cause the GI distress that aspirin does, or just out of the parent's choice.  When I grew up there was a bottle of "liquid aspirin" (acetaminophen) in everyone's medicine cabinet. Tylenol, APAP, acetaminophen, Para whatever you want to call it was introduced originally as an OTC fever reducer and pain medication in 1953.

 

It's actually one of the safer meds in the US pharmacopeia, as long as one doesn't overdose on it. I have a child "on the spectrum" and I highly doubt aceto has anything to do with it.

 

I'll wait for more evidence based data and peer reviewed data before I completely make up my mind about this.

 

My children were selectively immunized after our oldest dd suffered a vaccine injury, (and I have a child who is considered "on the spectrum" but I am still debating the actual link between Asperger's and true autism)  but I am not going to jump on every new bandwagon without a lot of scientific proof. APAP usage is so ubiquitous that I am finding it hard to link it with autism.


Edited by MaggieLC - 11/21/13 at 11:36am
post #64 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by nia82 View Post
 

EineMutti, vaccination was compulsory but was done much more carefully. Vaccines were spread apart - I never received more than one vaccine at a time. OPV and DTP were not given at the same time to anyone in my family. We got BCG at birth but then nothing until 9 months... It's a very different schedule that only featured BCG, DTP, OPV and measles and starting in the mid80ies MMR instead of measles. I don't think the schedule is comparable at all to todays' schedules. I do wonder if anyone could find a package insert of the vaccines given in the ex soviet countries. From my understanding they made their own and didn't purchase them from "Western pharma companies".

 

 

 

I actually found my Impfausweis. And my Jungpionierausweis. ;) Will have a look at the schedule. 

 

What about this though? 

 

Conclusions: Because the incidence of autism among 2 to 5 year olds increased markedly among boys born in each year separately from 1988 to 1993 while MMR vaccine coverage was over 95% for successive annual birth cohorts, the data provide evidence that no correlation exists between the prevalence of MMR vaccination and the rapid increase in the risk of autism over time. The explanation for the marked increase in risk of the diagnosis of autism in the past decade remains uncertain.

 

http://www.bmj.com/content/322/7284/460

post #65 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

Actually tho: if you read the early, academic papers on Autism, it isn't like: hey, now we have a word for this thing that has always been observed. It is like 'this is a new phenomenon we have never observed before'. I personally do not believe in over diagnosis playing a major factor in the epidemic increase, nor am I a fan of 'retroactively diagnosing historical geniuses'.

nor am I and many others

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by EineMutti View Post
 

 

 

 

 

That is how it used to be before the criteria of diagnosis has changed. A while ago, I worked with young adults with autism and they were all severely impaired. Developmentally between 12 and 36 months, mostly non-verbal. But then, 100 years ago, they wouldn't have been diagnosed with autism either, but with "mental retardation". 

 

I just simply can't see how an 18-year-old, who is developmentally at the age of a toddler, who is incontinent and highly aggressive, is supposed to have the same diagnosis as a six-year-old, who has normal or high intelligence, but has trouble changing routine and instead of relating to peers, gets obsessed with dinosaur books? The "spectrum" is a little wide now and more and more people are getting included, many of them not sick or damaged. That goes for ADHD, too. 

That really is not at all how I feel.

I know many now do have children that are ADHD and they know it's not perfect and they need the help with their child.

 

this is OT but you may or may not know how things here in the US really work -

 

You as a parent WANT your child to be "on the spectrum" in many cases - you are told and encouraged to have a diagnose on the "spectrum" - you NEED IT. That does not mean their is over dig nose going on on Autism, since autism is not the only item on the specturm.

We do not have free health care, and if you are middle class parent (since so many with a child with a disability file for bankruptcy due to out of pocket medical expenses) - you only get a very limited amount of FREE "early intervention" help - IF you are lucky enough to have insurance you NEED a spectrum diagnose in many states for services, without it most parents can't make it. Public school only do so much and while they are mandated, many do not push for their child's rights (they simply don't know all their child is entitled too) but additional therapy hold more weigh if their child is classified as a "spectrum" child. The guide lines are changing and many are very much in fear that they will loose what little help they are getting having their child a "spectrum" child.

IRL I know a family (their child was developmentally on par for his age, but got a brain tumor) that maxed our their insurance (and the ACA is not 100% yet) - they needed their child to be on the spectrum after his surgery, regardless that he wasn't autistic in any normal definition of the term autistic. They were helped by his Dr's to do this just to get the care he needed.

 

Each states runs things differently and in certain states, if you don't have your child on the "spectrum" that can mean a whole lot in their care or lack their of.

post #66 of 97
Serenbat - so are you suggesting the increase in diagnose in the USA is due to a wish to get kids on the spectrum to qualify for help? That's an interesting idea - not one is heard before, but may make sense.

Shouldn't be an issue in most European countries with excellent tax funded health care. smile.gif
post #67 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Serenbat - so are you suggesting the increase in diagnose in the USA is due to a wish to get kids on the spectrum to qualify for help? That's an interesting idea - not one is heard before, but may make sense.

Shouldn't be an issue in most European countries with excellent tax funded health care. smile.gif

NO! not in "autism" but autism is not all that is included, you are aware of that? 

 

Pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified - is NOT full autism yet is included in "spectrum" - I know someone that had to get that to get that for their child to receive more services. After his surgery is was back developmentally to a newborn and he had several "traits" but clearly it was caused by the removal of the tumor on his pituitary gland. He had the surgery at age 3, he had been developmentally "normal" and on par prior. They had no clue there was even a problem except for his head size that cause testing to occur.

 

Every state and every insurance company (until ACA is 100%) picks and choose a WHOLE lot of what they will and will not cover for a child and you max out with insurance real quickly! - the federal mandates mostly are for public school(equal education) and "early intervention" (a part of public schools in most states) and they do not cover most therapies or extra services a child can get if they are "labeled as on the spectrum". 

 

ETA- most people are quite clueless when it comes to adults and how they DO NOT get many services! Some states allow them to attend public school til 21 but not in all states and additional services simply end! And the end is near for many that do have sever forms of autism, we are facing the largest group ever to need assistance that are coming into adulthood. 

 

ETA-again, about a year ago there was a tread in the special needs parenting on these purposed changes to the spectrum and how it might effect care for those that are high vs low functioning


Edited by serenbat - 11/22/13 at 4:27am
post #68 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Serenbat - so are you suggesting the increase in diagnose in the USA is due to a wish to get kids on the spectrum to qualify for help? That's an interesting idea - not one is heard before, but may make sense.

Shouldn't be an issue in most European countries with excellent tax funded health care. smile.gif

It's not as simple as how you put it.  

 

There is a true increase in the number of children who are having major behavioral issues that are consistent with those on the autism spectrum.  These children may not be non-verbal, incontinent, spinning, flapping, rocking,or banging their head on the wall  24-7, but they still have major issues that prevent them from functioning adequately in the classroom.  Ask any kindergarten teacher who has taught for more than 20 years.  This increase is real, and not a result of improved diagnosis.

 

Remember, the diagnostic criteria changed in DSM-4 in 1994. That was 19 years ago, but diagnoses were still increasing steadily, every year, through 2008 (the latest year we have official CDC statistics for children with autism diagnoses, with the children in those rates being born in 2000).


What Serenbat is talking about is the fact that if your child displays behaviors and difficulties consistent with those found on the autism spectrum (such as speech delay, vestibular issues, lack of eye contact, failure to learn appropriate social skills, and/or the rigidity/ OCD behavior associated with Asperger's syndrome), parents are strongly encouraged to have their child screened for autism.  In the past, parents have often balked at this, because they don't want their child labeled.  But obtaining a diagnosis (and therefore a label) is often the only way to get help to DEAL with the behaviors and difficulties.

 

There is so much that is purposely muddled in the issue of autism.  Diagnosis is one.  Another is the issue of whether autistic children respond to dietary intervention.  There have recently been "studies" (i use the term loosely, you'll see why in a second) that were purposely set up to read to the average citizen as though it were a new study disproving the link between autism and gluten/casein.  But when you look at the "studies," what they are is a retrospective of medical records kept before the average person--no, before the average DOCTOR--had ever heard of gluten.  So when they analyzed the records, they found (surprise surprise) no indication of gluten-free or casein-free diets being at all helpful.

 

If you know anything at all about gluten-free diets, this is exactly what you'd expect. When I was first diagnosed with celiac disease, less than a decade ago, I met with 2 separate nutritionists.  One thought that Rice Krispies and Corn Flakes were gluten-free, and suggested I eat them (they are not).  The other thought that white bread (as opposed to wheat bread) was gluten-free, and told me to buy it fresh at a specific local bakery (whose owner immediately told me that she had never carried gluten-free bread, and that she wouldn't even order any, because she couldn't sell it in a facility with wheat flour blowing all over).

 

The point is, if these 2 were supposedly experts in nutrition, and they hadn't the faintest idea of what a gluten-free diet really entails, AS LATE AS THE MID-1990's, I don't think you're going to find that desperate parents of autistic children, trying a complicated diet in the pre-internet dark ages, would actually have managed a 100% gluten-free diet. 

 

And anyone with celiac or gluten sensitivity will tell you (as well as anyone whose autistic child turns out to be sensitive to gluten):  with a gluten-free diet, it has to be 100%, or you will not likely see any improvement.  

 

So any retrospective looking at medical records for proof of a diet's effectiveness, and looking at records from a time where the diet was poorly understood, is going to be useless.

 

Sorry for the veer off the subject, but I figured it was something that you probably are not aware of, and I think it's important.

 

Back to the subject, this would be a problem, no matter what country you live in, and no matter what the insurance system is, because there are so many more needing this specific kind of help than ever before.

 

Here in the US, where these things have always been discussed more openly than in the UK, what is coming up more and more often is the subject of Where To Put The Autistic Adults When Their Parents Can No Longer Care For Them.

 

Because we haven't always had 1% of the population with an autism diagnosis--not even when you count the ones who used to be diagnosed as MR, or psychotic.

I volunteer at a residential facility for severely impaired adults.  It's the only one of its kind in our metropolitan area.   It does not house 1% of the adult population, for starters.  More importantly, the adults in the facility are almost exclusively NOT AUTISTIC.  There are a few--maybe about 10%.  But most have Down Syndrome, other genetic disorders that result in severe mental restriction, or had obvious brain damage that resulted in their being in a slightly-more-than-vegetative existence (most of those are unresponsive, and unable to make purposeful movement-- in wheelchairs or worse).

This is where autistic people--no matter what their official diagnosis--would have been sent as they reached adulthood and/or as their parents became unable to care for them.

 

They aren't there.

 

If they've always been part of the population, we would know.  

 

So no health insurance in the world is financially capable of handling this, even if they wanted to.  And in the US, they DON'T want to.   And the reason is $$$$$$$$$$


Edited by Taximom5 - 11/25/13 at 7:10am
post #69 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

 

I volunteer at a residential facility for severely impaired adults.  It's the only one of its kind in our metropolitan area.   It does not house 1% of the adult population, for starters.  More importantly, the adults in the facility are almost exclusively NOT AUTISTIC.  There are a few--maybe about 10%.  But most have Down Syndrome, other genetic disorders that result in severe mental restriction, or had obvious brain damage that resulted in their being in a slightly-more-than-vegetable existence (most of those are in wheelchairs or worse).

This is where autistic people--no matter what their official diagnosis--would have been sent as they reached adulthood and/or as their parents became unable to care for them.

 

 

So no health insurance in the world is financially capable of handling this, even if they wanted to.  And in the US, they DON'T want to.   And the reason is $$$$$$$$$$

I don't want to stay OT but I feel it really should be out there for those who are non-US and may not know - what Taxi is talking about here also is not a freebie!

 

MOST do not even have this outlet-and if you do, even if it would be a low cost or community based program that would pick up the tab, it is very hard for a parent of a child to even take their child there - bus service, really ends the minute your child isn't in public school - the parent eats the cost. This will be a huge issue in the coming years for us to face as a nation and it's all about $$$$$ as she put it.  This is something we have never faced, to pretend that this "autism" is the same as in the past is clearly not accurate. These are children/adults now with total different needs vs the general population that needed mental health aid. 

 

And it really should be stressed I was not talking those (even children) that are MR, Downs, etc - they are not in the "spectrum" and are classified by what they have- example children/young adults with schizophrenia are not thrown in with those on the "spectrum" and causing the numbers to be inflated. They are not being lumped together. 

 

When so many don't even except that there is this population (and that it is increasing) that are classified as on the "spectrum", it will only hurt the lack of care these children/adults receive. 

post #70 of 97

Anectdotal again... but I have not seen one, not ONE child who profited AT ALL from the GFCF diet. Half the kids in the boarding school for autistic children are on GFCF. VERY strictly. Not a trace of gluten gets into their mouths and neither my colleagues nor I have seen any improvement whatsoever. The food they get is non GMO, all organic, mostly Paleo, no artificial anything, grass-fed cows, free range eggs, etc. 

 

However, we don't profit from gluten in our diet anyway, and it is the parent's wish, so no harm done. It is sad though that so many parents had so much hope that a dietary change would help improve the behaviours, but it does not. Mind you, those are kids who really are severely affected,  not the ones Taximom has described, kids who have issues in a classroom. It may be different for children who are not as severely affected. I, too, would love a proper study on diet and behaviour in special needs children. I have seen what artificial colours can do to ADHD.kids, it is truly scary. 

 

@Serenbat: It is different here. While a diagnosis of course gets you more help and better services, the diagnosis for the child you described shouldn't be PDD, but brain trauma due to a tumour and surgery. My boy has MDEM and his development was affected. The worst inflammatory "event" he had left him blind and 100% paralysed. It took months of several therapies per day (visual stimulation, swimming, Vojta, Padovan, Petö, hippotherapy, occupational therapy, swallowing therapy, speech therapy, animal therapy) to get him where he is now. And another two years of a special needs status and 1:1 at nursery and then school. He had impulse control issues (not aggression, but constant, constant talking with no break and not a lot of it made sense, plus restlessness), severe dysgrammatism and weakness in his legs. Would he have had a PDD diagnosis in the US to get that? 

 

Having kids who have a different underlying condition thrown into the "spectrum pot" would raise the number of autistic children even more. So do all those kids who are now diagnosed with  PDD, ODD, ADHD who live on junk food and TV or computer games. The decline in abilities of children is visible in the UK and Germany also, and it is getting worse, despite vaccination rates going down or staying the same (I posted a link on that). Teachers who have been working for decades will confirm this... Social change? Overprotection? Too much junk, TV, video games? 

post #71 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by EineMutti View Post
 

 Would he have had a PDD diagnosis in the US to get that? I would not think to diagnosis your child - this thread is not about this.

 

Having kids who have a different underlying condition thrown into the "spectrum pot" would raise the number of autistic children even more. So do all those kids who are now diagnosed with  PDD, ODD, ADHD who live on junk food and TV or computer games.  ??? The decline in abilities of children is visible in the UK and Germany also, and it is getting worse, despite vaccination rates going down or staying the same (I posted a link on that). Teachers who have been working for decades will confirm this... Social change? Overprotection? Too much junk, TV, video games? This is what you think the "spectrum pot" as you call, is about? that's insulting! :irked

 

I can tell you and others can as well, teachers here do see major changes and it is not at all what you are describing.

post #72 of 97
Thread Starter 

"Too much Tylenol in pregnancy could affect child's development, study finds"

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/too-much-tylenol-pregnancy-could-affect-childs-development-study-finds-2D11644164

post #73 of 97
Thanks for sharing the link. Interesting - I will watch for the ongoing studies.

It's reassuring to me that they found this potential link and are studying it further - regardless of the Big Pharma profit machine. smile.gif Personally this reinforces my confidence that if any vaccination had serious long term side effects it would also be noticed and studied.
post #74 of 97
I agree to an extent, PSM, but judging from the extreme hostility to the news when I posted it on my FB from loyal Tylenol users, I would expect that news of serious side effects from any well utilized & beloved med would be initially met with hostility & resistance. (I only posted it b/c it is interesting that Tylenol gets so much bad press of late).

My DH's uncle actually threw down the Conspiracy Theory gambit even tho I am *very careful* to only post credible links from mainstream sources.
post #75 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 Personally this reinforces my confidence that if any vaccination had serious long term side effects it would also be noticed and studied.

Like with Japan and the HPV vaccine? 

post #76 of 97
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
Personally this reinforces my confidence that if any vaccination had serious long term side effects it would also be noticed and studied.

 

Like with Australia and the flu vaccine for children? And Europe and the narcolepsy link with the flu vaccine? Or how about the Urabe strain MMR vaccine? It was noticed in other countries enough to be banned, but given full liability protection in the U.K.

post #77 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

There are a few--maybe about 10%.  But most have Down Syndrome, other genetic disorders that result in severe mental restriction, or had obvious brain damage that resulted in their being in a slightly-more-than-vegetable existence (most of those are in wheelchairs or worse).

 

 

I wish people wouldn't use that term. My boy was in a coma, blind and paralysed. That was my BABY. Not a vegetable. The day he learned to sit in his little wheel chair, eating again for the first time and smiling was one of the happiest days of my life. It's VEGETATIVE. Not VEGETABLE. 

 

post #78 of 97

EineMutti, thanks for sharing with us. I did not know there was a specific term to use, so I'm glad you brought this up. I will be sure to use the term "vegetative", not "vegetable".

Your son is a handsome little guy!  It's wonderful that he has come so far with his recovery.

post #79 of 97

 Increased consumption of organic food and autism mirror each other too.

 

There is more and more evidence that autism starts in the womb during the time when even the most mainstream mothers are careful with consumption of anything.

 

I understand the urge to find a simple explanation but there is none.  Autism is one of those complex thing that is cause by complex interplay  of genetic and environmental causes.

 

Signs of austim are not diagnosed at 2 months.

 

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-autism-babies-eye-contact-two-months-20131106,0,7124658.story#axzz2lbyivBDY


Edited by Alenushka - 11/24/13 at 4:52pm
post #80 of 97

As per the question the title poses…..I don't know.  I have no idea what is behind the rise in chronic conditions in children (including but not limited to autism).  I do believe parents when they tell their story, though.  

 

Pharmaceuticals can do a lot of good, and they can do a lot of harm, as well.  My own take is that everyone, but fetuses and babies in particular, should use pharmaceuticals cautiously.  There are lots of potentially dangerous things in this world - pharmaceutical usage is one of the things that is often within our control.


Edited by kathymuggle - 11/24/13 at 4:40pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Is acetaminophen behind the autism epidemic?