Autism- Enviornmental factors or genetic?

Post Reply New Topic

So recently it's been discovered that apparently pollution causes Autism and also if you were born early it increases the chances of getting it.
What's the truth? I know that sometimes people can be born after full term and still develop it just like people who live in the countryside and away from pollution could still develop it.

Thing is, autism runs in my family and so does dyslexia and learning difficulties, my dad has possible AS, my twin brother has autism, I have As.
Me and my twin were born early at 37 weeks and I was underweight.
I grew up in an environment, near pollution, so what triggered it? or was I simply more suspitible due to the genetic links?

I doubt i'll get married and have kids but if I do, what are the chances of my kids getting autism too?



serious answers please.

I believe that autism is the result of genetic mutations. I also believe that, like many other mimicked or induced disorders and diseases, certain environmental factors (pharmaceutical drugs and contaminants) can mimic or induce (not "cause") autistic behaviors convincingly. As the research into genetic causes of ASD, I suspect we will find that many who are diagnosed with ASD don't have the genetic markers despite having clear behaviors. The question at that point might be: "What now?"

In general, autism has many causes--whether environmental, genetic, or otherwise.

It's not inevitable that you, as an autistic person, will give birth to an autistic person. Obviously, it could happen--but it could happen even if you're a neurotypical person. Autism is not something like Sickle-Cell Anemia. Nobody is a "carrier" of autism.

I don't believe having autism should, in and of itself, prevent someone from having and raising children. Obviously, there are unique problems in being an autistic parent--but there are many success stories.

kraftiekortie @

Do we know for sure that people may be a carrier? no one is hundred percent sure. Although I refused it, my family were offered blood tests to see if theirs any genetic link as part of an experimental thing, we think it's genetic even though we could be wrong but we're going by the links in the family.
Yes it's true that a neurotypical would give birth to someone with autism, since autism is more likely in males but as a female, would that mean that the chances decrease if I were say married to a neurotypical and had a kid with a neurotypical.



In general, autism has many causes--whether environmental, genetic, or otherwise.

It's not inevitable that you, as an autistic person, will give birth to an autistic person. Obviously, it could happen--but it could happen even if you're a neurotypical person. Autism is not something like Sickle-Cell Anemia. Nobody is a "carrier" of autism.

I don't think I will ever get married or have kids I have trouble meeting people but if I did, i'm not sure if I could be good enough to look after a kid, even though I can just about get by in life, providing that I have a bit of support but in the future theirs little support out their which doesn't help.


@aspieutah
That makes sense about pharmaceutical and contaminants minic Autistic like behaviour as well as environmental factors ect and I know that sometimes people could have autistic like tendencies which could be as a result to other neurological differences or even mental illness. What now is a good question. They haven't officially used it as a diagnostic tool but I've heard that possible an mri scan will be the way to go, for a diagnosis in the future, once they figure out the differences between the structure parts of the brain.

Thanks for the replies

I would agree with AspieUtah that autism arises out of seemingly random mutations.

I am on the Spectrum--and NOBODY, for at least four generations, has any indication of autism. All are NT as heck.

Like I said, autism has many causes--it's pretty impossible for one to be a "carrier" in the literal sense.

It is possible, though, that one could be a "carrier" of a PREDISPOSITION towards autism.

I still wouldn't deny myself the opportunity of having a child, if you feel you could take care of him/her, love him/her, etc.

@KraftieKortie.
Maybe it isn't genetic for everyone but it is for some families, what with it being more predominant in males usually and the chances are higher in kids and siblings, if a parent or another sibling have Autism and for many people, besides my cases, it runs in a lot of peoples families, although it isn't always the case.
What with your family being one of the cases where their isn't a link then I don't know what causes it for people in these cases.

I'm sure it has many causes which is why they don't know for definite but theirs strong cases and tests that are being currently implement to show that sometimes it could be genetic but not always the case, just like diseases, sometimes genetic, sometimes due to other environmental factors. Truth is no one is 100 percent but people are beginning to learn more about autism and explore the reasons as to why, some babies develop autism and some don't

Thanks, was using the kid thing as an ideal on the what if, if I were in that situation which i'm not but it's worth considering, just in case things happen in the future.

I would love to know if it's entirely to do with genetics or DNA mutations or simply due to environmental factors and one day know the truth.

It shouldn't matter too much if it is a combination of factors. An individual with one set of factors experiences life in much the same way as another individual whose set of factors are different in substance and severity. We shouldn't value and support genetically-affected people with ASD while ignoring environmentally-affected people with ASD, should we?

Still, I am as curious as you seem to be.

@aspieutah

"We shouldn't value and support genetically-affected people with ASD while ignoring environmentally-affected people with ASD, should we?" I Never said anything about that :S

Simply saying it will be nice to know for sure one day, why people get affected by autism and why sometimes it runs in families and not others.

Agree it shouldn't matter but theirs no harm in trying to learn more about it.

I would almost go so far as to "take it on a case by case basis."

Some could be genetic, some epigenetic, some environmental, many a combination of the three.

I am sorry if my post appeared to be critical. It wasn't intended to be.

@Aspieutah,

No worries, sorry maybe I took it the wrong way, I thought you were having a go at me for a minute

@kraftiekortie
That makes sense, to take it by a case by case basis.

What are your thoughts on the fact that more people are getting diagnosis more then ever.
Is it because we have a better understanding of autism, is it because of environmental factors and pollution is possibly increasing peoples risks or is it a combination of the two?

I'd like to know your thoughts?

I think it's mostly because clinicians (and people in general) have more of an understanding of the "high functioning" part of the Spectrum. Previously (i.e., before the 1990s), only the people on the "low functioning" end of the Spectrum tended to be diagnosed. People who would be HFA or Aspergian now would probably have been diagnosed with something like "minimal brain dysfunction" or ADD in the 1970s-1980s (though the MBD diagnosis disappeared sometime during the 1980s.

I was diagnosed with autism when I was about three. I was diagnosed with "brain damage" when I was about four. The "brain damage" diagnosis stayed. Like minimal brain dysfunction in the 1970s, "brain damage" in the 1960s was diagnosed in todays HFA/Asperger's kids.

Pollution has been around FOREVER. It was probably worse, in general, in the 1970s than it is now. The autism rate certainly didn't go up in the 1970s.

I'm not denying, of course, that there could be environmental factors--but I believe "greater awareness" is behind the increased incidence of autism.

@KraftieKortie. As I was born in 1990, I wouldn't of known this, that's interesting to know, didn't realise HFA used to be referred to as MBD.

Ah yes their used to a lot of factories ect and now theirs more pollution control but where I'm from, which is in the uk, we have the highest levels of Pollution in Europe which needs to change, so I see it as being a major factor and perhaps a contributor just like theirs an increase now of illnesses due to pollution, as it's a problem for the uk but I cannot speak for those in other countries.

I agree with your views on the greater awareness now luckily but their still is a lot of to discover and only recently more females are being diagnosed later in life whereas still in todays society, a lot of people fall through the net and don't receive an official diagnosis throughout their childhood, so we still got along way to go in some ways.

You're right, of course: there is much to learn, still. Especially as regards such things as fMRI's and how certain brain regions differ in autism versus those who are neurotypical.

I wouldn't say HFA corresponded exactly to the 1970's MBD. It's just that people who would be HFA or Aspergian today would probably have been diagnosed with MBD back in the 1970s--though not definitely.

It could be said that autism, until at least the early 1980s, was exclusively what, according to the DSM IV, would have a combination of "Autistic Disorder" and "Childhood Disintegrative Disorder."

It was just not thought that people with HFA/Asperger's were autistic at all; they were thought of as being in a totally different category of disorder.

@KraftieKortie.

I suppose back then they didn't know so much about HFA, although a lot of people with HFA are very intelligent but I'm guessing that because people with Autism have problems with communication they considered it brain damage in some ways due to those reasons. Usually now we associate brain damage due to injury or trauma or due to complicated births and being born with disabilities as impairment or simply as learning disorders but that will probably change in the future.

Is childhood disintegrative disorder due to upbringing or what does it mean exactly?

Were those with HFA considered quirky or intelligent in the past, instead of being diagnosed as having HFA?

Tbh theirs a lot to take in

thank you both for your responses

"Childhood Disintegrative Disorder" means that the person acquired skills at the "normal" times, then lost them later. A kid might develop speech at age one, then lose it at age two. Like with all autism, it was speculated to have been caused by a cold, "refrigerator" mother. I've read many case studies, some of them from the 1940s, which contained this sort of "disintegration." Many of these kids were referred to as "autistic."

"Autism," in the modern sense, started with Leo Kanner's work, which was published in 1943.

A guy named Eugen Bleuler coined the term "autistic" to refer to people with schizophrenia being "into themselves"--that they had an "autistic" mindset. (Bleuler and others called schizophrenia "dementia praecox" in the late 19th-early 20th centuries).

I would say that some people with HFA/Asperger's were considered "quirky," "awkward," "intelligent," etc. As older children and adults, at least some of these people would have been called "eggheads" in the 1950s to 1970s. Others, especially those with behavioral problems and other difficulties in school, would have evoked concern on the part of parents and teachers, and would have been tested and probably diagnosed with MBD or (a bit later) with ADD.