The phrase “autism epidemic” sounds harsh but we must recognize the fact that autism is the
fastest growing developmental disorder. Once considered a “genetic disorder,” autism is now
being diagnosed at an astounding rate. Yet while parents, health professionals, teachers, and a
growing number of researchers confirm the overabundance of autistic children, this biological
condition seems to have touched off an epidemic of public concern. There’s much criticism
concerning denial of both the fact of a rise in the number of children diagnosed with autism and
the possibility that genetic factors may have influence the increase. This denial only threatens to
accelerate an educational, financial, social and human catastrophe in future years.
Living in Epidemic Denial
Diagnoses of autism and pervasive developmental disorders (PDDs) or autism spectrum
disorders (ASDs) have increased since they were first exposed there has been a rapid increase
over the last decade. Where rates were once 3 in 10,000, they are now 1 in 150. A recent state
funded study conducted by the M.I.N.D. Institute in California confirmed a 273 percent increase in
autism from 1987 through 1998, originally reported in a March 1999 study conducted by the
California Department of Developmental Services, which disagrees that the rise is not due to
more aggressive diagnosis, improved detection, or certain populations. This increase is
apparently to be nationwide.
Although no other state has kept comparable statistics, the US Department of Education has
recorded a nationwide average increase of 544 percent in autistic students from 1992-93 to 2000-
01, and comparable rates have been found in a number of local studies. A CDC study showed a
tenfold increase over the last decade. There are several ways in which these figures considerably
underestimate the extent of the inflation. Mainly, autism affects boys three to four times as often
as girls; furthermore, the rates in California reported only the most severe cases; when mildly but
still notably impaired children are included, the numbers can be significantly higher. And many
people consider other disorders, such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and
many learning disabilities, to be on a spectrum with autism.
Perceived to be an epidemic, autism may affect a range of millions to as many as 20 percent of
children in the U.S. Such an extreme growth implies the influence of non-genetic or environmental
factors, since, there is no such thing as a “genetic epidemic.” But research continues to focus
almost exclusively on studies of brains, screening and genes, as well as on denying the increase
or disproving the connection of controversial environmental triggers, especially immunizations.
Autism a Genetic Condition
What does it mean to describe a condition as genetic? Every disease, including viral and
infectious ones, involves vulnerabilities or resistances that relate in somehow to genetic
influences. But for many autism researchers, genetics is not about infliction or vulnerability it is
about “cause” and “purpose.” These researchers justify their search for autism genes by
presenting a study of twins: while a range of 36 to 96 percent of both identical twins have autistic
features, this is true for only 0 to 33 percent of fraternal twins. The irregularity in the numbers
shows that claims of entirely genetic roots are frivolous; but these figures can also be used to
argue that environmental factors must play a role, since the link for identical twins is not 100%.
However, the “genetic” approach to autism has secured upwards of $60 million in research
funding. To date there have been as many as eight inheritable traits scans and dozens of genetic
studies. As in so many other gene research studies, at least a few specific regions have been
located on nearly every chromosome, but they have not led to particular gene for investigation.
Autism a Biological Disorder
Many established autism researchers understandably pride themselves on ejecting the
discriminatory “refrigerator mother” theory, which thought that autism was a behavioral response
of children to mothers who failed to display affection. Findings in the 1980s of abnormalities in
autistic brains freed parents of this blame and shame, and opened the way to treating autism as a
biological disorder. These brain abnormalities appeared to be of prenatal origin, and this seemed
to fit with the evidence for genetic causes and the lifelong, apparently irreversible impairment of
people with autism.
Researchers concluded that autism was determined by the genes, and originated before birth,
and is treatable by behavior modification. This has established the recent research guide, which
is mainly driven by genetics, neuroscience and psychology. But this theory is now evolving. New
evidence is emerging from both within and outside the dominant research areas that makes
autism look more like an environmentally designed condition. Many autistic children turn out to
develop abnormally large brains, and do so after birth, in the first 2-3 years of life. Recent studies
suggest that other brain changes, previously thought to be prenatal, could have occurred after
birth.
It also turns out that autistic children have considerable ailments not only in their brains but in
their bodies. While the researchers and health community considers physical symptoms to be
“circumstantial” to the root autism, and pays little attention to them, subgroups of autistic children
have common patterns of significant biomedical illness notably immune system disturbances,
disturbances in various biochemical passages (including impaired detoxification, which may
explain increased susceptibility to toxic exposure), and painful gastrointestinal conditions. When
treated biomedically, many autistic children have shown great behavioral improvement and
improved receptiveness, suggesting that their behaviors aren’t entirely fixed.
From a general perspective, which defines autism in terms of a rigid genetically originated brain
disorder, it is unfathomable that nutritional or metabolic interventions could have any effect on the
condition. Therefore, such approaches are dismissed, usually without investigation, as
“controversial.” But for those who see autism as an environmentally driven condition, it makes
perfect sense that the body as well as the brain should be affected. Why would toxins only inflict
illness to the brain? A growing social movement of parents and doctors who take environmental
causes seriously feel that the genetic approach has letdown autistic children by assuming that
biomedical treatment can’t help. They argue that they look at their physically ill children and
“believe what they see,” while the genetic advocates “see what they believe.”
The Bio-Medical Approach
The mainstream’s refusal towards new approaches to autism exposes two sets of rules about
evidence. While parents and practitioners offering these methods are unable on their own to bear
the overwhelming cost of double-blind controlled studies, neither have the accepted
pharmacological and behavioral approaches been tested in this precise manner. No one in the
field of autism treatment has much support for achieving an acknowledged formula of “Evidence
Based Medicine”.
Progress in biomedical treatments will only happen once researchers move beyond a persistently
gene-brain link and coordinate funding to physiological and toxicological autism research.
Unfortunately, pharmaceutical companies are unlikely to investigate biomedical approaches for
autism, since many of the most promising nutritional interventions have little potential for patent
as a result there is little profit. Because the environmental triggers underlying the autism epidemic
are supposedly harming not just the brain but the body as well, researcher should be testing and
analyzing biomedical approaches, rather than just searching for new psychological drugs,
behavioral treatments and gene recognition.
First we must understand the source of these two sets of denials. The denial of increasing
incidence in autism and the denial of non-genetic biological and environmental factors are
essential both to responding to autism and understanding the ideal role of genetic research in
modern America.
Environmental Causes
At a conference in October 2002 at Rutgers University entitled “Autism: Genes and the
Environment,” leading researchers of the genetic background shared the stage with toxicologists
in what seemed to indicate the careful beginnings of a new culmination. But there is still no
coordinated step toward a research study that includes genes and environment. There are
probably several reasons for this. Certainly there are significant economic forces that stand to
gain from the current direction of research.
The idea that identifying genes and brain connections will lead to targeted drug development not
only benefits the pharmaceutical industry, but also leads researchers to down a path that is
familiar and realistic. In the belief of many researchers, is that genes dominate, while
environmental factors seem trivial and secondary. Furthermore, examining environmental agents
as causes opens up a difficult situation exposed to imperfections.
It’s difficult to envision that toxic results found in autism were triggered by the environment,
without doubting one’s own health and the health of our family. The thought of human actions,
rather than genes, being responsible for exposing the health of a huge portion of a whole
generation is, unimaginable. And if there are environmental causes, then there may be liability
and corporate accountability. If mismanagement with chemicals can harm children so extensively,
ultimately manufacturers will have to reinvent the way they do things. This is a controversial issue
where precautions will have to be taken, and the way we live would change. This is so significant
that companies will go through great lengths to avoid.
The Social Cost of Autism
At the same time, the dedication of many researchers, regulators, legislators, investors, as well as
some parent groups to explain away the increased incidence of autism will have serious social
effects. School districts have an excess amount of autistic children. These children are often
unable to function within a mainstream classroom, for several reasons because of violent or self-
inflicted behaviors, lack of toilet training, or inability to communicate. The cost of providing them
with individualized behavioral therapy, which requires up to forty hours a week for maximum
effectiveness, can run from $30,000 to $60,000 per year, per child. As a result, the already low
budget, public school districts will rather avoid providing these services, and parents without the
financial means are left with few options for their children, since Medicaid will not cover the
complete amount of behavioral therapy.
Autism was once thought to be a genetic disorder in origin, the extreme rise in the number of
cases during the last decade shows that environmental triggers may also be to blame. The huge
increase in autism rates coincides, with the early 1990s, the release of two new thimerosal
vaccines to the infant immunization schedule. In 1999, the FDA disclosed that the amount of
mercury in vaccines surpassed EPA safety guidelines. Manufacturers were asked to remove
thimerosal, although existing substance were left on the shelves. Parent groups like Safe Minds
demonstrated that the symptoms of mercury poisoning matched the abnormalities they saw in
their children. Scientists are now showing that vaccine levels of thimerosal can cause neuronal
apoptosis, immune imbalances, and autistic like brain lesions and behaviors.
Not only are lawsuits a threat, but the presence of an untested toxin in infant vaccines raises the
question of whether vaccines are being properly evaluated before being released to the public.
Vaccines are considered a lucrative business for pharmaceuticals now and in the future.
Hundreds of vaccines are in various stages of development. Revenues are expected to reach into
the hundreds of billions of dollars. Parents of autistic children are making a recognizable
interference, but the pharmaceutical giants are avenging with denials.
According to Safe Minds, full-spectrum autism (low functioning), even if treated early and
intensively, continues to have a poor prognosis. As this generation of children ages and their
parents are no longer able to provide full-time care for them, residential institutions will be unable
to provide facilities for even a fraction of these autistic adults. Estimates of the lifetime costs of
care for a child diagnosed with autism today range widely from conservative predictions of $2
million, to published figures as high as $12.4 million, depending on the extent of therapies, care,
and support services figured into the equation. Over the next decade, the autism epidemic is
likely to cost the U.S. economy hundreds of millions of dollars.
CONCLUSION
A children’s epidemic opens up an outpouring of concern and sets off a crucial search for
effective action. While discoveries that abnormal events may be occurring after birth should
initiate a search for environmental triggers, it also opens up optimistic views for prevention and for
treatment.
Time and time again we hear about conferences victoriously announcing that “scientists are
closing in” on the genetics of autism. The objective of genetics researchers, in failure of their
efforts, has been simply increasing the number of genes they expect to find. Currently, the
number of genes identified in autism is up to twenty or more, where it used to be as few as three
or four. The attempts should focus on to recognizing the increased susceptibility for autism in
small subgroups.
To persist on a genetic explanation for autism, and insist that the epidemic is a consequence of
heredity rather than toxic effects, is a desperate attempt to maintain new chemicals and
technology, which always brings advancements. By simplifying a complex genetic theory
researchers are obscuring the epidemic, because it carries taboos within the scientific community
against potentially controversial ideas about environmental factors, and it distracts governments
from addressing the financial and social demands that this epidemic generated.