Subscribe
Previous Post
I am not sure if I should report about this latest theory of the cause of autism, for fear of sending waves of alarm and worry through expecting mothers and women who are thinking of having children, and if either of those phrases describes you (I am thinking in particular of some friends), please read the following while noting that the individual presenting this theory is a New Jersey politician, not a scientist. (As a caveat, I will note that I do not know if the politician in question has any personal links to autism.)
New Jersey Assemblyman Joe Pennacchio, R-Montville, has introduced legislation to have the state Department of Health investigate a possible link between sonogram and the increasing incidence of autism. Pennachio noted that “various scientific, published studies that show a displacement of brain cells associated with autistic children and the ability of sonograms to displace those cells.” Dr. Philip A. DeFina, a neuropsychologist, and Dr. Sandlin Lowe, both of the New York University School of Medicine’s Brain Research Laboratories and the International Brain Research Foundation, have been “working closely” with Pennachio on this, according to today’s Daily Record.
It must be me, but I did not find any references to autism when I put “autism” into the Brain Research Laboratories’ search engine (let me know if you do). The International Brain Research Foundation lists autism as among its research areas under the heading “Disorders of Consciousness.” The Autism Speaks website contains an article which says that Animal Studies Show Abnormalities Caused by Excessive Ultrasound , the animals considered being pregnant mice.
Considering the frequency of ultrasound use—and in light of too many recent and irresponsibly reported theories of the causes of autism—one hopes that Assemblyman Pennacchio and the scientists with whom he is “working closely,” will present their findings with all due restrain to the public, and in full knowledge of the alarmist responses this latest theory (I underscore, this is a theory) of the causes of autism.
Right on! It seems obvious. The whale studies point straight to it.
Why is this not being brought to light?
I totally agree with your assessment of the link between autism and sonograms! I know of 3 women all had desires to have multiple sonograms, one had 8, all three have children with autism. I think that there absolutely should be a study.
I came up with my Autism/Ultrasound connection theory alone. I am not a scientists, it just seemed to make sense. I started doing my own research and findings are pointing towards a connection. Speaking to those who perform ultrasounds, I was told that all fetuses try to escape or avoid being bombarded with sonic waves. I see porpoise and whale beachings as similar behaviour. That is, marine animals trying to escape sonic waves from submarines. To put it another way, if I was swimming underwater in a pool and blasted with ultrasonic waves, I would probably jump out as quickly as possible.
Only those who survive with Autism are here as proof of the connection. The rest unfortunately, didn’t make it out alive.
I’ve looked at who those reviewers of the dissertation/book (the same, yes?) are. Anyone can, and given the claims, should. It’s not bickering to ask real questions and expect real answers.
@Katherine Poehlmann,
I guess it’s rather late to say this, but certainly appreciate what you’ve posted. A lot of us feel so often barraged by theories and speculations about the causes of autism — and especially about the vaccine hypothesis —that there’s a tendency to respond with a lot of fervor. Very best wishes and look forward to reading about your work in published form——
I thought this site would be a good place to start exploring some hypotheses about autism causes. A colleague with PhD’s in chemistry, biology, and physics has performed lab experiments convincing him (and me) that u/s could be harmful to fetal brain tissue. In my first posting, I included his opinion that u/s is big business and some studies are dubious. It was a mistake to introduce a biased comment, and I apologize for stirring up angry emotions.
Also, since the terms “online” and “distance learning” are often derided, I posted some of my background info to assure participants that I was a serious researcher. I enrolled in the CCNH as a means to an end. As a grad student, I could gain access to university library materials and got student discounts to attend medical conferences where I could meet experts in the field of infectious diseases.
A doctorate, even from a non-Ivy League school, got me past the gatekeepers to ask prominent medical professionals to evaluate my work. Drs. Joel B. Baseman and Joseph G. Tully reviewed my doctoral dissertation. Three of my book reviewers are profiled on my web site. Dr. Harold W. Clark wrote the Foreword.
The point is, the school attended doesn’t matter. It is the knowledge obtained and how it is used that makes the difference. In 1997, CCNH was one of the few accredited colleges offering online degrees to the house-bound disabled. Now all the major universities have distance learning programs.
It has been my experience as a systems engineer that those who are dedicated to a particular field of study are often unaware of findings in another area. Someone outside those insular fields can perhaps propose linkages leading to new research. I have no lab and no funding. My goal is to seek the truth and report it as accurately as possible, as a public service.
This is my last posting to this site. I have no time for bickering. Thanks to all who provided useful input to my autism research project.
Brusque? Abrupt? Direct?
How about “cutting through the static”? :-).
Warm regards.
Regan, you have a point. Some are courtly. I don’t know them, but I’ve heard rumors about them. All the ones I know are just…blunt. Brusque? Abrupt? Direct? I’m trying to think of all the adjectives that have been applied to me. And some nouns, too. Indeed. ;)
http://www.physorg.com/news144495604.html
In defense of scientists–some scientists are blunt and some are courtly, just like most other Joes (we’ve known both kinds)–the point is that they have to fearless and skeptical in considering the substantive points and what the data supports. Heated discussion and strong feelings are not unheard of.
Practicing researchers in the sciences, in my observation and experience, take care with control of bias, and consider the data that do not substantiate their hypotheses to be informative, and of at least of equal value to that which does–because the goal is elucidating nature, not supporting personal constructs no matter how attractive. They try to be clear on the limitations of that known, and usually the interest is…disinterested. Since it’s still a human enterprise, it’s not perfect but it’s the goal.
well Emily… i guess the gap between math and science is even bigger than i realized.
Every time someone legitimately challenges anything the shills are selling, the peanut gallery comes on here and whines about the “negativity” and the “hostility.” I’m just being a scientist, talking to another scientist (a researcher in infectious disease, right?). This is how real scientists talk to each other. We’re not known for our social skills, but we’re pretty big on digging deep for facts. We discuss things quite bluntly, and we don’t overlook gaps and fallacies for the sake of social niceties. The touchy feely folks apparently don’t like that, but…I guess that’s why there aren’t too many touchy-feely types in science. Gotta have a Teflon sensibility. And yes, I know, Teflon is baaaaaaad. ;-)
Speaking of science and facts, that Age of Autism writeup is a bit short on both.
http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/10/cell-division-a.html
Katherine, dont be put off by the hostility. it is baffling, but dont be baffled. any research is appreciated more than you might know. as far as correlations, misguided ones included, go – keep correlating. who knows, you might stumble upon something.
an inspiring show to watch with a dramatic sudden development due to correlation that brought instant insight, though off topic, is Frontline: The Meth Epidemic. the scientist just didnt give up correlating the data and hit on something that explained it all.
i might also recommend Life Extensions website for some great information, perhaps something there will help you with your health. thanks for being a contender, jaymee
‘Sorry about the link; see if it works this time.
Caviness, V.S., & Grant, P.E. (2006). Our unborn children at risk?. Proc Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 12661–12662.
I thought that it might be worthwhile to post the full-text commentary article that accompanied publication of the PNAS article that was summarized at Autism Speaks (no longer posted there, but available in full-text from PNAS).
Extract from the commentary,
“Are There Any Epidemiological Studies That Assess the Long-Term Effects of Fetal US?
(…)Although large prospective randomized controlled trials have not been performed,
there are many clinical indications where fetal US[UltraSound] is believed to be beneficial (15). Reassuringly, however, a study recently published by Newnham et al. (15) based on prospective randomized controlled trials of exposure to US provides strong evidence that fetal US, as performed in an accredited clinical center, is unlikely to be linked to worstcase potential outcomes, such as developmental neuropsychiatric, epileptic, language, and cognitive disorders. Children exposed to five fetal US studies were compared at a followup of 8 years to a cohort exposed to only one fetal US. The estimated ISPPA outputs were <5 mW per cm2. Although a higher incidence of intrauterine growth restriction at 1 year was noted in the cohort with more US studies, this difference disappeared after the first year. In addition, it happened that children exposed to multiple scans actually performed better than controls in a language acquisition task(…)”
from, Caviness, V.S., & Grant, P.E. (2006). Our unborn children at risk?. Proc Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 12661–12662.
Commentary on:
Ang, E. S. B. C., Jr., Gluncic, V., Duque, A., Schafer, M. E., & Rakic, P. (2006). Prenatal exposure to ultrasound waves impacts neuronal migration in mice. Proc Natl Acad.
Sci. USA 103, 12903–12910.
Also, I will add that the researchers who did the 2006 study listed disorders that might be associated with misplaced brain cells during development: “These disorders range from mental retardation and childhood epilepsy to developmental dyslexia, autism spectrum disorders and schizophrenia.”
Which leads me to my question: If this is linked to autism and the alleged increase in autism cases (that good old temporal correlation), did some sort of autism god decree that those other things on that list would not increase concordantly? Last I checked, MR (or intellectual disability) had gone down. Schizophrenia itself is likely to soon be broken into different diagnostic entities, each likely with its own specific etiology, but there’s been no explosion of cases, and rates are pretty stable. Is there an explosion of epilepsy in correlation with the increase in ultrasound use in pregnancy? How about dyslexia?
In other words, if u/s disrupts fetal brain development, why would an (alleged) increase in autism rates be the only measurable manifestation of that? Shouldn’t we be seeing rising prevalences and/or rates of several other neurodevelopmental “disorders”?
No degrees in medical science, biological sciences, biophysics, but you’re an “infectious disease researcher”? What you’re discussing here encompasses several fields of study and an enormous amount of research globally. How exactly do you propose, as a BA physics major and a “senior physicist,” to address in any kind of depth hypotheses focused on (a) “undetectable microorganism contaminants” (which, of course, begs the question of, “Well, how does one detect them?”); (b) the inability of the young immune system to “cope” with the “cluster” of vaccines (just disregard the natural bombardment those systems receive); (c) the effects of ultrasound (which has already been examined in large cohort studies); and (d) nutritional factors, which in an of themselves are an enormous and deep area of research, and then, once you’ve tested all of these myriad hypotheses, manage to bring them together into some unifying concept of their effects in the etiology of autism?
If you are an “infectious disease researcher,” you must have good funding from appropriate funding entities. Presumably that is how you support the enormous team of scientists that must be required to achieve the above. It must be the size of a small country.
Are you planning to submit your article to a peer-reviewed publication? Is it intended as a literature review, or will you be including original data? If the former, it’s likely to be eyed askance; if the latter, see the above questions regarding funding and your scientific team.
You make some assertions here regarding ultrasounds that are careless at best. If you’re planning to submit a paper for peer review that includes these assertions, I’d personally be curious to see which studies from the literature you’ll cite to support those sweeping assertions. The harm to “fetal brain cells” was from a PNAS study in mice and involved harm when the u/s had been used for 30 minutes or more, which is not reflective of the typical ultrasound period for a pregnant woman. Given the distinct differences in timing between mouse neural development and human neural development relative to the time required for an ultrasound, that factor alone renders any major claims for humans based in this study weak, at best. It’s not even that I think ultrasounds are harmless, but I definitely think that any urgent claims such as these require a stronger basis of support.
My base degrees are in math (magna cum laude) and physics from Immaculate Heart College. I have an MBA from the University of Redlands. I was also a PhD candidate at the RAND Graduate Institute for Policy Analysis. My background includes a lot of hard scientific research as a senior systems engineer for TRW and RAND.
When I was suddenly crippled with Rheumatoid Arthritis, I was determined to find the cause. I could not attend a traditional college, so I opted for the CCNH distance learning program.
My husband is a senior physicist and systems engineer. As co-researchers we are working together on an article about causes of autism. I posted a brief outline on this site hoping that visitors would add to our knowledge in this area.
I should have added a fourth factor: nutrition for both the pregnant mother and the developing child.
There is not just one answer for a condition as complex as autism. But if unnecessary ultrasound exposure is a contributing factor, the public should be warned.
an actual causal connection does not therefore follow
It does not necessarily follow but strong correlation could suggest a hypothesis to study.
@Katherine Poehlmann:
Is your PhD from the distance learning program at Clayton College of Natural Health?