TV Causes Autism (as reported on Slate). Oh please.

[Brotherjohn]

http://www.slate.com/id/2151538/nav/tap1/

Gregg Easterbrook reports in this "exclusive" for Slate that Cornell researchers have published a study indicating that television may cause autism. He points out how it backs up his "hunch" from a month before. He is, not coincidentally, an author who writes against the ills of "progress", and has probably long been proud to claim that he "doesn't watch TV".

There are so many problems with this study that it's difficult to know where to start. But before anyone promotes this bit of pseudoscientific dribble as a "story", I'd suggest reading the response on the Slate page by a poster named "emptyscience" (here: http://www.slate.com/id/3936/m/18353499/). Emptyscience pretty much says it all, better than I could, and from a very informed perspective.

Yes, children shouldn't watch excessive TV. But to say a correlation between autism and television viewing means the latter causes the former is nonsense. It reveals the most common error of pseudoscience: assuming that correlation proves causation (when of course, it does not).

More properly, this study appears to show a correlation between a states' admittedly questionable statistics on autism diagnoses (at a time when the diagnostic criteria were re-evaluated to cast a much larger net anyway) with increased geographic availability of cable television (i.e. increased income, i.e. increased availability of medical care, i.e. increased likelihood of a diagnosis). There are likely many other, less obvious factors that go along with this correlation which might have more causative links with autism.

The study did not actually look at children known to have autism, nor know anything about the rate at which they actually watched TV. It compared rates of diagnosis in areas with rates of cable access. The attempt at linking to TV viewing more tightly by looking at autism rates in years/counties with higher rainfall/snowfall (therefore likely more time inside, therefore likely more time on TV), gets so far removed and is so laden with assumptions that it's no wonder this "paper" was "published" on a web site, with no typical journalistic peer review process, by professors in the "management" and "policy analysis" fields.

If there is (and there will likely be) studies coming next showing links between actual television viewing incidence in actual children with autism, it should be understood that one of the hallmarks of autism is that it is extremely difficult to interact normally with other people (even to look them in the eye). Autistic children more than most would be drawn to television, but it is more likely BECAUSE they are autistic, and not THE CAUSE of their autism.

So again, I'd recommend reading the response by "emptyscience" before putting too much credence in this dribble. He/she is particularly prescient in the observation that this is another attempt at finding a "one size fits all" cause to a condition that likely has many different contributing factors (and is actually many different, but related, conditions). Autism is hard enough on families dealing with it than to have discussion (and resources) diverted to such pseudoscience. My son is autistic, and I have to deal more than enough with ignorant bystanders commenting that he needs a "good whippin'" or is a brat. I'd hate to have to start making excuses for him ever watching television (which, for the record, he watched VERY little of before he was 2).

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. Oh how ridiculous

My opinion of Slate just went down a bit more.

[1932]

2. Perhaps the study only points to a correlation

and it's the Slate reporter's or readers' mistaken impression that it's claiming causation.

[Brotherjohn]

5. That is often the case in the media. Not here, though.

From the Slate article:
"Thus the study has two separate findings: that having cable television in the home increased autism rates in California and Pennsylvania somewhat, and that more hours of actually watching television increased autism in California, Oregon, and Washington by a lot."

From the actual study:
"Our precipitation tests indicate that just under forty percent of autism diagnoses in the three states studied is the result of television watching due to precipitation, while our cable tests indicate that approximately seventeen percent of the growth in autism in California and Pennsylvania during the 1970s and 1980s is due to the growth of cable television. These findings are consistent with early childhood television viewing being an important trigger for autism."

They both strongly state that this correlation is causative.

Science 101: Correlation does not prove causation (nor does this paper).

[MADem]

13. Ya gotta wonder how those kids back in the old days got it

Did someone take them to the moving pictures continuously? And what about those who got it before films came into existence? Well, I guess blaming a TV beats blaming a "frigid mother" for the condition of the child:

The History of Autism
In 1908, Eugen Bleuler coined the word "autism" in schizophrenic patients who screened themselves off and were self-absorbed.

In 1943, the American child psychiatrist Leo Kanner described 11 children with the following common traits: impairments in social interaction, anguish for changes, good memory, belated echolalia, over sensitivity to certain stimuli (especially sound), food problems, limitations in spontaneous activity, good intellectual potential, often coming from talented families. He called the children autistic.

In 1944, Hans Asperger, independent of Kanner, wrote about a group of children he called autistic psychopaths. In most aspects they resembled the children of Kanner's description. The difference was that he did not mention echolalia as a linguistic problem but that the children talked like little grown-ups. In addition he mentioned their motor activity which was more clumsy and different from normal children.

Bruno Bettelheim wrote about three therapy sessions with children in The Empty Fortress. He called them autistic and claimed that their disorder was due to the coldness of their mothers. He totally disengaged the parents from the children's therapy.

The work of Asperger did not become known until the end of the 1980s when his book was translated into English. Kanner's and Bettelheim's work were quite often confused and it was generally accepted that autistic children had frigid mothers.....For many years, researchers searched for the underlying cause of contact and language disorders, but they realized that the disability was more complex. There was no single, basic cause.


http://www.english.certec.lth.se/autism/kunskap_e.html

[northzax]

19. read the study.

they attribute PART, a SMALL PART of the growth in diagnosis to television. or don't bother to read it and simply mock. whichever makes you happiest.

[MADem]

20. Please, get off the damn high horse

My response was to the OP, not the article, Nanny.....

[northzax]

22. or don't

instead, engage in the exact same behaviour that you accuse the author of doing. Let's speak only in broad generalizations and mockery. It's the DU way! no wait, it's the Freeper way. (no, you are not a Freeper, but you sound suspiciously like one of them on a climate change or evolution thread, using reducto ad absurdum to dismiss something out of hand)

but whatever. Seriously though, do you have any comments on the content of the study?

[MADem]

27. No, I have no comments on the content of the study, other than to

aver that I think it's complete horseshit, just like the "frigid mothers" excuse.

But hey, go ahead and tell everyone to throw away their tvs, because obviously you want to be the fierce authoritarian here today, and decide just how people may discuss a subject. Those of us who fail to accord it sufficient reverence will simply have to go stand at the back of the classroom and yes, MOCK you, quietly, behind our hands.

And if you'd go back and bother to read what I actually wrote, I made NO accusations. NONE. I asked a few questions and quoted a website that discussed the HISTORY of AUTISM. Go on, go back and ACTUALLY READ (without a preconceived, snotty attitude welded to your psyche) what I ACTUALLY WROTE.

But hey, don't let what I actually said get in the way of your didactic whining. You've just GOT to let everyone know that you're more serious/sincere/gravitas-imbued than the rest of us, and far be it from me to deny you that important pleasure.

[northzax]

3. Easterbrook doesn't claim that TV casues Austism

in fact, if you actually read what he wrote (and what the Cornell study claims) he plainly says that it is a risk factor. He also says that perhaps it is from an allergen, or other pollutant that people who watch tv get more exposed to since they spend more time inside. It is also plainly not the only cause of autism (since autism predates TV, most likely) why are you so hostile to a study looking for potential contributing factors to the development of Autism?

oh, by the way, don't listen only to Easterbrook (better known for writing TMQ) go read the actual paper: http://www.johnson.cornell.edu/faculty/profiles/Waldman/AUTISM-WALDMAN-NICHOLSON-ADILOV.pdf

what THEY actually say, is that there is a correlation between precipitation and television watching among children (makes sense, no? the more it rains, the more TV gets watched) they then note that in counties with higher precipitation, there are higher rates of Autism. Do you have a better explanation for the epidemiological data? they pose one, and back it up. and instead of talking about their data, or their arguements, or anything else, you call it 'pseudoscience' and dismiss it. read the paper, and criticise that.

and they atribute TV to 17% of the growth of cases in two states they studied (California and Pennsylvania). 17%. not ALL cases, not even a majority of cases. read the study. please.

[Brotherjohn]

7. Yes, he does (and the Cornell researchers do as well). Read my post 5...

... above. Sure, he says there are other opinions, like the media says "Democrats have other opinions" when Bush is caught in a bald-faced lie. But he repeatedly states explicitly that television viewing increases autism.

Mr. Easterbrook engages in the kind of "skepticism" that we usually see on shows like "Most Haunted". The "skeptic" will say things like "of course, it is possible that the orb was just a speck of dust, and that the sound was someone upstairs... but there has been so much activity here tonight that we simply cannot explain it all."

Other possibilities are (loosely and briefly) explored, but the entire article is written with the pre-concieved notion that television contributes to autism.

I am not "hostile to a study looking for potential contributing factors to the development of Autism". There are plenty of good, scientific studies investigating such links, and I laud them. What I am hostile to is pseudoscience, which this study clearly is. It does harm to the public good.

[northzax]

9. it's called epidemiology

same type of methodology used to determine that 650,000 assitional iraqi civilians had been killed by the war in Iraq. I haven't checked those threads, but I assume you were calling that 'pseudoscience' and dismissing it as well?

after all, there has never been a double-blind peer reviewed study proving, physiologically, that cigarette smoke causes lung cancer in humans. not one. it's based on laboratory testing of animals and epidemiology, or what you like to call 'pseudoscience.' care for a smoke?

this is a preliminary study, they say so. they also suggest further routes of study. I fail to understand why this is a bad thing? because you think the causes are somewhere else, therefore no studies should be undertaken?

[Brotherjohn]

14. I'm not dismissing epidemiology as a field. And you know that.

But it can (and often is) misused, and I'm just saying it is in THIS case. But you know that, too.

I don't know enough about the 650,000 deaths study to argue its methodology. But I do know that there are far fewer assumptions about potential links, causation, etc. in polling data about who has died or not, than in such a study attempting to link environmental factors (the number of which are infinite) to a complex neurological condition (actually a range of them, which are not even as yet clearly defined). But you know that, too.

And while there may be no one study linking lung cancer to smoking (as in: expose people to smoking and see if they get cancer; yes, we as a society are going to do that :sarcasm:), there are reams and reams of physiological, clinical, studies demonstrating causative links between cigarrette smoke and cancer (damage to cells and DNA, induction of lung cancer in animals), and MUCH much better, and more extensive, epidemiological data than this little study. But you know that, too.

So if you know all this, what is it? Do you just hate TV? Are you just a fan of Gregg Easterbrook's writing? I'm sure he has some valid things to say about overconsumption and growth gone wild. I'm sure he does. But about autism? Nah.

[northzax]

18. the problem, of course

is that we don't have enough physiological data on Autism, and we certainly can't do animal testing (how does one diagnose an autistic lab rat, anyway?) We have to depend on epidemiological studies to see if there is an envrionmental risk factor, right? We certainly aren't going to do a double blind study on babies to see if we can force the development of autism, right? how would you design a laboratory study to test this hypothesis?

All I am saying is that a study shows a preliminary link. I think it should be pursued. you think it should be dismissed out of hand. I want to know why you want to shut down this line of study so quickly? there's been one preliminary study, and you want it stopped. why?

[Brotherjohn]

26. I don't want it "stopped". Don't cry "censorship" on me. I want it...

evaluated on its merits.

That's what I am doing, and that's also what professionals in the field of autism treatment and research will be doing.

I am merely DISCUSSING, on a DISCUSSION BOARD, what my (informed) opinion of their research is, based on my reading of their methods and conclusions. It's not very flattering, no. If your opinion of their research is higher, and you think they have demonstrated that TV is at least partially responsible for autism, then that's your opinion.

My bet is that they're getting the feedback more along the lines of mine from professionals in autism research. I may be wrong. But whatever it is, the net result of the field's response (and if they can get another grant) will determine if this line of research continues much further. What you or I say will have little effect on that.

This study demonstrates a correlation with ONE environental factor (that itself is correlated with many many others), and with no evidence for causation, says there IS causation. Added is the fact that there are probably INFINITE other possible environmental triggers/causes for autism, and the open question of whether such an environental trigger is even involved.

There aren't unlimited funds to conduct research in any scientific field, much less autism research. If their peers (and benefactors) decide, as I believe they would based on what I have read, that this avenue of research isn't worthy of much further pursuit, then so be it. That isn't scientific censorship. That's SCIENCE.

[phylny]

49. Last November at the American Speech-Language-Hearing Assoc. convention,

we learned that the more television is on in a home, the slower many children learn language. Children do not learn language from television the same way they learn from hearing family members. It's even detrimental as "background noise."

I know that in many of the families I service for early intervention (speech therapy), I beg them to turn the television off. So many families say, "Oh, the television is almost never on." Yet, it is on when I come, no matter what time of the day.

Sigh.

TURN IT OFF!

[Brotherjohn]

12. What do you think I was quoting from? I'm not psychic.

Other possibilities? Hmmnn... more time inside, more time cooped up, cabin fever? How about simply less time running around playing outside, for starters, with television having absolutely nothing to do with it? Those are just a couple of possibilities. But when research gets so far removed from possible causative factors and starts to include so many levels of assumptions, such epidemiological data gets less and less useful.

Besides, the onus is not upon the reader to suggest other possibilities (they are near infinite and impossibly to predict in such uncontrolled "studies" of population data). The onus is on the researchers to prove their hypothesis.

Sure the paper hedges more than Easterbrook. He's the journalist, he has an agenda... that's always the case. The researchers do pose other possibilities (as does Easterbrook). But they clearly state things as causative which they have zero evidence of them being so. They have plenty of evidence that there is a correlation, and they prove that. But they have absolutely ZERO data to show a causation. ZERO. They go way too far for a study that is not clinical and uses only epidemiological data. There are plenty of valid studies of similar nature where the researchers limit their conclusions to what they can show (although the media often turns their correlations into proven causation). This is not one of them.

Again, for all your telling me where they point out alternative explanations... they're basically being "Ghost Hunters"-style "skeptics". They don't really give these valid alternatives much thought or weight. And they don't limit their conclusions to correlation. They explicitly state that at least part of autism's cause "is due to" television. The fact that they accept there are probably multiple causes to autism (duh!) does not validate the study. What they are trying to show is that television is one of these causes, and they have not demonstrated that (although they say they have).

[northzax]

15. so, using epidemiological standard methods

someone shows that there is a connection between television and autism. instead of doing further research, you simply state that it is ridiculous, and that something else is at fault.

I don't understand the hostility to science here, this is common practice (and of course, the title of the article is "TV really might cause Autism" but that wasn't inflammatory for this thread, I guess.

the Authors of the study pose an explanation for the strong correlation of autism diagnoses and increased precipitation. They back this up with data. you may now use that data to demonstrate that cabin fever is a risk factor. Should be easy enough to do. Of course, you aren't doing that, are you? you are simply ridiculing the data presented.

Is it because you feel guilty for having a TV in your house? The data, as presented, shows that this is a risk factor worthy of additional study. It may be that houses with televisions also have microwaves, and that is the cause of a spike, who knows? worth looking at though, right? Maybe it is dust bunnies, or shag carpeting. This is why we do research. To learn these things. To rule out ideas based on science and data. You say their data doesn't show what they say it does. fine, challenge it, tell us what it does say? preliminary epidemiology is all about making assumptions from data, this is what they are doing. Prove them wrong. take their data and show an alternative explanation that fits it. please. They set out to prove something, and they did. prove them wrong. it's the scientific method.

or just mock. whichever.

[Brotherjohn]

21. If they (and you) can't take this kind of "mocking", as you call it...

... then I guess that explains why they never actually published the study in a peer-reviewed journal. Let me tell you, they can be a LOT more harsh (and this paper wouldn't have made it through, as written, anyway).

But please, give me a break. I can't criticize a paper, reported on in the media, HERE, on a DISCUSSION BOARD... without actually getting a grant, starting my own lab, and conducting research on the subject?!

Please.

This is a DISCUSSION BOARD and I'm discussing. What you're suggesting is I have to enter these guys' field and publish to discuss it. While, yes, I do have a PhD, and it is in physiology, and I do have some experience with autism... no, I really don't have the time to do that.

I guess I'd better shut up then. :sarcasm:

I have proposed a couple of alternative explanations. But that is not the point. The point is their study makes claims it does not back up, it goes way beyond the contention that there is a correlation, it chooses a possible target for this correlation out of the blue (with no clinical/physiological basis to start with)... and it remains focused in on it's pre-conceived conclusion like a laser. In short, it violates the scientific method.

If this study can't survive debate about it on a DU discussion board, then I don't know how they expect it to be received in the field.

[northzax]

24. right

and I want to make it clear that I thank you for being respectful and actually addressing the topic at hand, sorry if that didn't come through.

mocking is not saying "their data is flawed and could easily point to other causes" mocking is saying "this is stupid" without anything to back it up with. you have ceased doing the latter and have done the former, I should not have accused you of that.

however, I am intrigued by the sheer hostility that this topic has created. Why should this line of study be shut down after one preliminary, unpublished, study? no one has explained this to me, including you. Please do.

[Brotherjohn]

28. Thanks for the kinder words. As for wanting it "stopped", I don't. See...

... my post #26 above.

As for venting my opinion so forcefully (you might say with hostility), here's why.

There are millions of families dealing with this, and my own is one of them. But that is not even the main reason why.

Part of the reason is that I am a scientist, and when I see what strikes me as pseudoscience getting any traction publicly, I do what I can to fight it. Public opinion shapes policy, which shapes where scientific research goes.

But perhaps the bigger part of the reason is that I know that thousands of families spend years, and half their income, often at the expense of their child's well being, in desperate attempts to "cure" their child of autism. I'm talking about treatments such as chelation therapy and hyperbaric chambers. And more often than not, these "treatments" are based on preliminary studies showing correlations such as these.

Now, in this case, a blanket recommendation that your child not watch TV might not be so bad. But then again, if not related, you're just running away from the issue, and directly affecting research and treatments that can really help. It's the bigger issue of urging, and encouraging, good science (and criticizing it where I think it's not so good) in the field.

[northzax]

34. as for the perspective I am coming from

I have a significant family incidence of both Autism and Asbergers. (two of 8 children in my generation, on both sides of the family) so I have a vested interest in finding any and all environmental triggers or amplifiers that might increase the likelihood of the condition developing. I don't think that looking at envrionmental triggers is the same as potential 'cures'. And I don't think that TV 'causes' autism, per se, it is much more likely to be a trigger that increases the risk of developing autism in those already prone to it.

[Brotherjohn]

37. Well, you & I disagree w/ what this study concludes, and that's fine.

I don't have a problem w/ looking at possible environmental triggers, even though we do not know for sure if there ARE any (as you know, we really know precious little about autism). I think it's likely, and I think, as a general area, it merits investigation. I think television can very well exacerbate autistic symptoms, but as I point out in response to a poster below, i think that is very different from causing it (and any child will be negatively affected from too much TV).

The problem w/ looking for environmental triggers is that there are so MANY possible ones. As I stated above, pretty much infinite: TV, indoor air, too much sugar, mercury, ozone, PVC, fluoride, ... rock music (I kid). Studies looking for such, IMHO, need to forge a tighter link in order to get me to start to think "Hmmmnn, there's something to this one".

And I may be opening up a can of worms, but I think you & I have calmed down and can discuss this rationally. I don't know where you stand on the thimerosol thing, and I really don't have time to get into an extensive discussion of it (so if anybody else responds, sorry, I've gotta get back to my job). But in the vane of my last post re why i'm so opinionated on such studies (and wary of studies showing some environmental link), thousands of kids undergo chelation therapy (probably each day) in an attempt to treat autism. I think that is horrific and based on similar correlative evidence as this, so i think we really need to be more responsible in reporting and publishing studies that have not been thoroughly vetted, lest we get all kinds of quacks dealing snake oil to desperate parents.

IMHO, the mercury case has pretty much been closed (no discernible effect and mostly out of use now anyway), and in any case, there is no real evidence that transfusions with solutions that supposedly "cleanse" my child's blood of mercury would ever A) even do that or B) ever mediate hypothesized effects of mercury that mnay have already led to his autism. There is plenty of evidence, however, that such stress can cause regression (not to mention the stress of the family going bankrupt).

[northzax]

47. Chelation Therapy for Autism is, in my opinion

Child abuse. There is no, as you point out, even remotely conclusive data to justify such an invasive procedure.

That said, I would posit that the authors of this study meant for it to be a beginning point for future epidemiological research, not an end point. They probably did not intend for the likes of Gregg Easterbrook to have coincidentally theorized the same thing and pick up on their fairly rough drafted work. But them's the breaks.

What the data show me, from looking at what was presented in the paper, is that there is a correlation between high levels of precipitation and higher rates of Autism. Maybe it's a SAD problem, maybe it is overexposure to household cleaning products, maybe it is a vitamin D deficiency, too much Kenny G (that one I think might be a real problem, we should ban Kenny G just as a precautionary principle) From what I know of the research, it doesn't look like a chemical 'cure' for Autism is realistic, something goes wrong that we don't really understand, and that is the new baseline. Of course, the same has been said for epilepsy, schizophrenia and other 'diseases' until more reasearch was done. I support continuing medical research, but I also think that it is reasonable and an imperative, to begin to seriously look at all possible contributing triggers. TV, frankly, seems like a fairly reasonable culprit to start looking at. We know the children's brains develop incredibly rapidly at that age, and we know that stimuli matter.

Yes, there are seemingly infinite possibilities, but let's look at the obvious ones first, we might as well start looking, this damn thing ain't going away on it's own, and if there is something we are doing, unwittingly, to increase the chances of our children having this condition, let's figure it out.

[Brotherjohn]

48. I agree that they probably didn't know some Slate columnist was going...

... to have posited their hypothesis a month before they put this on the web. I also agree they meant this as a starting point (from their data, at least) to look at such epidemiological links.

But from what I have read, they are far from the first to start looking at data sets like this w/ the goal of finding triggers/causes for autism. They are one research group of many and will be evaluated like all the rest.

As far as their conclusions, when they link to TV to autism based on areas w/ cable access, that is a big flaw there, b/c as has been pointed out (even by Easterbrook, I think), that could be due solely to socioeconomic factors as they affect disgnostic likelihood. Their link gets tighter when they look at precipitation, but as you point out, there are a slew of other things that could be tied to an autism cause/trigger that occur when one spends more time inside. I don't think they did anything to single out television as even among the most likely of those.

Yet they go back to their pre-conceived notion, and name their paper "Does Television Cause Autism?" Then they publish it on a Cornell business school web page.

Maybe they were just looking for a "sexy" title, and they were in a hurry to publish. But I don't think that kind of publicity-seeking behavior has a place in scientific research.

[lumberjack_jeff]

51. The study no more demonstrates that TV triggers autism

Than informal observation demonstrates that testicular cancer is caused by urinals.

Correlation=causality?

TV only has a correlation because it is a preferred activity for children with autism. Chasing red herrings and wild geese detracts from useful research.

A parent of a child whos second-preferred activities involve biting, eating objects, scratching through walls and head banging is given some slack by me for allowing their child to watch tv or play computer games instead.

[northzax]

59. well, what if I showed you epi data

that showed a causal link between people who use urinals and increased likelihood of testicular cancer? Wouldn't you be at all curious about WHY that would be the case? Even if it's not the urinal, maybe it's something related to the urinal? And since these particular academics aren't doing lab research, they are hardly taking resources away from biological or chemical sciences in the field. When we have a condition as mysterious in origin as Autism, and no decent historical data to show rates of incidence (due to a combination of ineptitude, ignorance and willful denial) why not look at every potential indicator?

THe study, of course, concerns TV exposure before the age of two- standard practice, as you well know, requires symptoms to develop before the age of three. Obviously, once symptoms develop and are demonstrated, TV is not longer a cause of the condition, but serves as a pacifier of sorts.

remember, the study doesn't attribute TV as the sole cause of Autism, only that in houses where TV is more likely to be on at early ages, there is an increased likelihood of Autism. Doesn't that interest you at all?

[MADem]

31. Please join me at the back of the classroom

We're naughty lads for daring to differ and will have to stand up on one leg at a time for the remainder of the lesson....!!!! The professor has so decreed, and only his opinion counts, you see!

[Brotherjohn]

25. I am not "hostile" to science. I AM a scientist. I am "hostile" to pseudo-

-science. Particularly when there are so many pseudoscientific "studies", "claims" and "treatments" that directly affect those with a condition shared by my son. They detract funding and attention to legitimate research and treatment into autism, to the detriment of those with autism.

When such studies come out, I will argue against their validity (while informally), as will those in the field (more formally). THAT is part of the scientific method.

And my entire point is that "the data, as presented" DOES NOT show "that this is a risk factor worthy of additional study".

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. That's ludicrous

Autism is a developmental disability the traits of which can often be identified at age 2 or less.

http://www.autism-society.org/site/PageServer?pagename=whatisautism#TheoriesOnCauses

It's possible (I would say likely) that there are some environmental triggers involved, but unless infants are placed in front of a TV for hours on end, it's not likely one of them.

Children with Autism have an extremely difficult time with social expectations. It's unsurprising that they'll gravitate toward activities that have none; tv, video games, computers.

This is yet another story intended to blame parents. The "Refrigerator mother" redux.
http://www.autism-watch.org/causes/rm.shtml

[Greyhound]

6. Common fallacy engaged in all the time, and the sheeple are so ignorant

they buy it. Look at the studies on second hand smoke , bio-fuels, illegal immigration, salt, eggs, etc.

Ask any sheep-on-the-street and, after you explain what the terms mean, they will tell you that correlation = causation.

[patcox2]

8. People just love their mercury-vaccine myths, don't they?

They actually get angry when science comes up with something equally plausible.

As a parent of a kid on the spectrum somewhere, I have long noticed that watching TV regresses my son, markedly.

[Brotherjohn]

30. As a parent of a kid on the spectrum, I too notice that too much TV...

... can cause him to regress. But I know it didn't cause his autism. We observed many different aspects about our son by the time he was 1, and he had watched VERY little TV by then.

Extensive television viewing also affects neurotypical kids adversely. Any absorption in such a non-social activity would. It goes without saying that it would affect autistic kids differently, and moreso, as they are already socially challenged.

But that's an entirely different thing from saying it causes it.

[mmonk]

10. Bwahahahahahah

:rofl:
So how does that work? Proximity to a TV set? I ask since my oldest was diagnosed at an early age before he really paid very much attention to TV.

[MADem]

11. And drinking water causes

autism, pregnancy, obesity, cancer, athlete's foot, jock itch, ingrown toenails and sinusitis, and a host of other conditions.

Well, sure, it must--everyone who gets those conditions has spent their life (great, portentous pause......) DRINKING WATER!!!

Ah-HA!!!

Where's mah Nobel PRIZE???

[Taverner]

16. That damn Hydrogen Dioxide!

[Brotherjohn]

17. It's not the water per se... It's the FLUORIDE!

:sarcasm:

[Gormy Cuss]

23. The Cornell study does not claim causality.

In fact, 'correlation' is used throughout the paper. While this is only a preliminary study and does need to be replicated before anyone takes it too seriously, I don't see any indication that the researchers went outside the bounds of acceptable research methods. I would like to read peer reviews of the study.


Snips beginning on page 38, Section VII. INTERPRETATION AND IMPLICATIONS

As discussed briefly at the beginning of Section V, if we had a direct measure of early childhood television watching and showed that children who developed autism had watched more television before the age of three, we would have evidence consistent with the hypothesis that early childhood television watching is a trigger for autism but there would be a question of cause and effect. That is, especially given the findings of Zwaigenbaum et al. (2005) discussed earlier, it is possible that such a correlation could be due not to early childhood television watching causing autism but rather to children who are prone to developing autism being more drawn to television and therefore watching more of it....

... Based on our findings using the ATUS, one plausible candidate for this trigger is early childhood television watching. But this is not the only possibility. Given that it is also likely that for young children indoor activities in general, not just television watching, are positively correlated with precipitation, potentially any trigger for which indoor activities lead to more exposure than outdoor activities could explain our precipitation findings. With this in mind, we also investigated a second instrumental variable for television viewing. If early childhood television watching is a trigger for autism, then one would expect the percentage of households in a community or county with a susbscription to cable television to be correlated with the autism rate in that community or county. We investigate this issue using autism and corresponding cable rates broken down by geographic area in California and Pennsylvania for children born between 1972 and 1989 and show that indeed cable subscription rates are positively correlated with autism rates. Further, this is true even after one controls for the general increase in autism rates during the time period of the analysis. That is, our finding of a positive and statistically significant correlation between cable subscription rates and autism rates is not due to the fact that both cable subscription rates and autism rates both grew during the time period studied. Rather, the correlation is driven by the idea that autism grew faster, on average, in those counties in which cable subscription rates grew faster. Because we do not provide a direct test of the effects of television watching on autism, we do not consider our results to be definitive evidence in favor of the television viewing as trigger hypothesis. However, we believe that when viewed in combination our empirical findings provide strong support for the hypothesis. Whereas there is a readily plausible alternative explanation for why precipitation seems to be frequently positively correlated with autism, we have more trouble finding a plausible alternative explanation for why precipitation and cable subscriptions would both be positively correlated with autism....


... Although our findings are consistent with our hypothesis, we do not believe our findings represent definitive evidence for our hypothesis. We believe the only way to establish definitively whether or not early childhood television watching is a trigger for autism is to more directly test the hypothesis.... There is a belief in the medical community that, particularly before the age of two, television watching has negative health consequences. But because it is difficult to measure early childhood television viewing, it has been difficult to establish firm findings in this area.

In short, the researchers are not suggesting that all autism is related to T.V. viewing, only that it may be a trigger in some cases. To me, that's no less farfetched than investigating whether thimerosal or some other component of vaccines may be a trigger.

[Brotherjohn]

29. Yes, they hedge more in their text. But their abstract explicitly....

... states a causative relationship. See my Post #5 above.

Perhaps they're just bad writers. Perhaps they should have submitted their paper for peer review. But your abstract should be consistent with the contents of your paper, and not go further.

[Gormy Cuss]

42. The language is sloppy in that quote.

Perhaps the authors are not accustomed to writing for the sort of cherry-picking common outside of academia. Perhaps if the results were published in a peer-reviewed journal such language would have been questioned and probably edited.

I know full well how a single line out of context can be used to support something contrary to the intent of the author and that may be why Easterbrook cited this article, but reading the entire abstract one does not get the impression that the authors are claiming causality. As I wrote before, it's no more farfetched than examining whether something related to vaccination contributes to the rate of autism. At any rate all that their findings suggest is that more study should be done on this notion.

[MadHound]

32. Frankly, we know little of how watching television effects a person

There have been very few studies that actually monitor the physical changes in a person watching TV. What little we do know is that TV viewing, among other things, effects the brain to the point where it regularly puts a person into a light hypnotic trance. There have also been a few studies put out showing how TV viewing can promote ADHD. The studies that have been done however are very few, and there's been no real systematic exploration of TV's effect on those who watch it. Frankly I'd like to see more, and I hypothosize that we'll all be suprised by the results.

[Rosemary2205]

33. My husband is autistic and never watched TV as a kid.

and watches very little now.

[SmokingJacket]

35. Well, it's likely that autism has many causes, or a collection of

interacting causes. Obviously TV can't be THE cause of autism, because it existed long before TV.

But it's possible that there are many things that might interfere with neurological development at crucial points. Maybe environmental pollution is one (I suspect it is) -- maybe vaccines is another, maybe TV is one more thing that can contribute.

It seems logical that something (or many things together) must account for the *increase* in autism, assuming there is one aside from increase in diagnoses.

What's sad is how little we know about the etiology of autism, and the human mind/brain in general -- to the point that we need to look so hard at correlations that may or may not have any meaning at all.

[Ron Green]

55. It's also likely that Television has many effects.

If not actual diagnosed autism, then certainly alienation must be one of them.

What a difference in the day-to-day environment of sight and sound in only a couple of generations! When I was a kid the TV was a box in the corner that only functioned in the evening, and was never on without someone watching. When my dad was a kid there was no TV at all. Now it's in every restaurant and waiting room; you never have to interact with another human being.

[patcox2]

36. Now I see what riles; TV as a cause implies parental fault

I couldn't understand really why this study is being greeted with evident hostility, that it brings out emotion, where I only found it interesting. IF it is true that TV watching "causes" autism, that would imply its the parents' fault for letting the kid watch so much TV. That's whats causing the dissonance. Much better to be an innocent victim of a conspiracy and coverup than to be a neglectful parent.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Brotherjohn]

41. They doubt it's a conspiracy, you accuse them of lying about their kid...

... being autistic.

That's what I call CLASS!

:sarcasm:

[earth mom]

43. First off, you don't even know me-so can the outrage.

I have a family member with autism and I KNOW what I'm talking about.

What that person posted was TOTALLY insulting to anyone who has an autistic family member and yet you, a parent of an autistic child defend them? You call that "class"?! :wtf:


Whatever. :eyes:


FYI-this is not the first time that person has posted insults about anyone who believes in the connection between mercury laden vaccines and autism. Feel free to do a search.

Oh and another thing, I WILL NOT stand by and let someone with an ax to grind or an agenda get away with that kind of crap-so call me whatever the hell you want I could give a damn. I'm not gonna stand by and be insulted like that. :grr:

[Brotherjohn]

45. Do you know patcox2 and do you know they don't have an autistic child?

If so, then I apologize.

If not, then please can your own outrage.

I maintain that is it an act lacking in class to accuse them of making up a child with autism. I say that because, as the parent of an autistic child, I would certainly not want someone to accuse me of lying about that. And I am not about to do that to you (you know, the Golden Rule and all).

I have an autistic family member, and that person's comment was not insulting to me. Yes, I probably agree with them on the mercury issue, but keep in mind that their comment was addressed to me and my OP, saying it was just another attempt at deflecting blame from the parents. I took issue with that, and argued back on the issue. I didn't accuse them of making up their autistic child.

The mercury-autism debate can get heated (here and elsewhere), and you may have a history of clashes with this patcox2. Search all you want, but I don't think their post above crossed the line of the kind of debate we have here. I think yours did.

[earth mom]

50. I don't owe anyone an apology-least of all someone who uses broad brush

smears against parents/family members of autistic children. Anyone who has lived with or dealt with a family member with autism well knows the difficulties involved. To have someone smear these parents/family members as bad care givers or to ridicule them for their belief that mercury laden vaccines are the cause of autism is flat out WRONG. I fail to see any "class" in that kind of behavior! For that person to post those smears proves that they have little if any compassion for what these families go through on a daily basis. IF that person understood that or had experienced it firsthand that they would NEVER have posted such crap in the first place! That is why I doubt they have any idea what they are talking about.

That I called them on it really isn't YOUR concern is it though? So why are you butting in when it clearly doesn't concern you? Frankly, I don't need anyone including you to be the judge of my morals, values, or ethics. There are plenty of ignorant fundies around in this country that already think that's their job and for your information that is WHO my user name is directed to. But, hey, if you are really so concerned with The Golden Rule why not follow it yourself? :eyes:

[Brotherjohn]

56. So I'm butting in. To the thread I started. Interesting.

I guess my thread's none of my business!

Look, I can see how you say he/she smeared parents of autistic children. I am one of them, and I responded to that aspect of what was posted. I just didn't take it as personally as you, and I think myself and now lumberjack jeff have responded in a much more mature manner.

You thought it was out of line for them to question parents of autistic kids' ability, and called them on it. I didn't have a problem with that aspect of your post (in fact I agree). I thought you were out of line for questioning that patcox even had an autistic child, and I called you on it. If you can dish it out.

And the Golden Rule... well, I know you know what it says. I haven't done anything here I wouldn't expect anyone to do to me in the same situation. I have expressed my opinion about someone's post and expect responses, and disagreement. I have argued on issues and based on what was posted. But I have not accused anyone of lying about their family with no basis in fact. If I did so, I would expect someone to yell, "No class!" As for the Golden Rule yourself, how would you like it if patcox accused you of lying about your family-member's autism? Then why would you do unto them?

[earth mom]

58. If I had seen an ounce of understanding or compassion

I wouldn't have questioned the post in the first place.

IMO, the disrespect the autism community has had to endure is beyond disgusting. It's the lowest and dirtiest thing I've ever seen-yes, even after 6 years of * rule, because it is being done to innocent children and their families. That the greedy pharma giants have been protected from a real and honest investigation is a total abomination.

I would suggest seeing the movie "The Constant Gardener" if you haven't already. The human experimentation in the film is chillingly reminiscent of what has happened to autistic children. Except in this country, the experimentation was done legally and oh yes, to the tune of great profit and absolutely NO accountability by the pharma giants. :puke:

[Brotherjohn]

46. And for the record, I didn't "defend them" for their post (or the insult..

... you accuse them of). They posted against my OP. I took issue with their opinion that my post was just another way that parents deflect blame from themselves, and posted two replies to that effect.

If I "defended" them at all, it was because someone accused them of making up their child with autism, because I know they have probably been through all of the same difficulties and heartbreak and fear that I have gone through with my son. Even though I was disagreeing with this poster, I couldn't let that stand. So yes, I would call that "class".

[Brotherjohn]

40. See my post #28 as to why it riles me so (being the original poster).

"Blaming the parents" didn't rate. But it IS one thing I might add after the fact.

Really, as the parent of a child on the Spectrum, doesn't it irk you when you overhear some bystander mutter "they need to give that kid a good whippin'" when they have no clue what you deal with all day, every day?

But if it's a factor at all for me, it's not so much what people might say about me as a parent, as the fact that it's a big indicator of the level to which people are ignorant of ASD's (from the bystander level up to government and funding, and even some doctors).

The same people who blame the parents say "they just didn't have a name for it back then".

Well, yes, they did. It was "institutionalized".

For the record, I am not an innocent victim of a conspiracy or coverup, I am GLAD my son got all of his vaccinations, and I don't let him watch too much TV. I am (or rather my son is) the victim of a neurological condition that is as yet not clearly defined, with an as yet unknown cause or cure, and none of that is really important. What is important is that he get the best treatment available, and the best treatments come from good research.

[Brotherjohn]

44. To add, there IS a real danger of the "blame the parents" mindset.

Now, as the parent of an autistic son, I've seen many a kid in treatment where it is obvious that their parents have not done the things they need to do to help their child cope... in fact have done many things to harm their child's ability to live with autism.

But that is after the fact, parent's not getting proper treatment, ignoring symptoms, or treating their children in such a way as to exacerbate their symptoms. But it's their kid, and it's not my place to parent for them.

However, when stories like this get out there, on the possible causes of a disease, they often take on a life of their own and can affect opinions and policy. Every plausible link can and should be researched. But when studies get blown up to more than what they reveal, it has a way of seeping into the CV and influencing people and policy, sometimes badly. That has nothing to do with hurt feelings as a parent.

Let's say this study gets legs, more than its results merit. In a couple of years, most people (politicians and even doctors included) may simply dismiss autism as "bad parenting", with disastrous effects for millions of people. One need look no further back than the 1980s and AIDs to see the effects of such groupthink.

[lumberjack_jeff]

53. This post is extremely hurtful.

Autism was originally attributed to unmaternal mothers; "refrigerator mothers". It was a way for the medical establishment to avoid legitimate research by choosing the simplest answer and it was a way for parents of neurotypical children to feel that their parenting techniques were validated in comparison.

This study (or at least the journalistic treatment of it) is no better. It reinforces stereotypes of parents of children with autism as just being neglectful, a stereotype you are apparently all to happy to promulgate.

Yes, it is an emotional issue for me and if you find the topic only "interesting" - count your blessings. Being happily ignorant on the topic is a luxury that many of your neighbors do not have.

[earth mom]

57. Good post-Thank you.

The extent at which the autism community has been disrespected in recent years is completely and utterly the most disgusting and despicable thing I've ever seen in my life. :puke:

[earth mom]

38. Anyone that says that an autistic child needs a good whippin

needs a good whippin themselves! :grr:

That the powers that be are trying to pin autism on everything-is the man in the moon next?-BUT THE TRUE CRIMINALS THE PHARMA GIANTS is absolutely sickening. :puke:

The sad part is that the truth about autism may never be known given that the * administration has given the evil pharma giants a free pass/get out of jail free card. :grr:

[Spider Jerusalem]

52. That's just absurd;

the neurological differences present in autism are of such a nature and degree that they MUST have been present from early in gestation; autism isn't caused by watching television, or bad parenting, or vaccination. It's the result of significant differences in brain structure. Autistics have a higher proportion of white matter (connective neural tissue) to grey matter than do "neurotypicals"; there are also significant structural differences in the amygdala, hippocampal cortex, cerebellum, corpus callosum, temporal and frontal lobes (these differences vary between autistic individuals; someone with classical autism will show more neurological difference than someone with Asperger's Syndrome).

[tigereye]

54. many of the genetic factors that may contribute to the disorder

are in place long before any child sees a television. It seems more likely that television watching could reinforce many behaviors that occur with the disorder. I don't know enough about whether current research has ruled out the effects of chemical and environmental factors on neurodevelopment to comment on whether the tv/home has any contributory effect. Many homes have TVs!

It's an interesting point, but looks like an artifact to me.

[izzybeans]

60. It would be a mistake to dismiss the study without reading it first

http://www.johnson.cornell.edu/faculty/profiles/Waldman/AUTISM-WALDMAN-NICHOLSON-ADILOV.pdf

If some folks have an interest in hoping for another cause not associated with the home environment, such as mercury, they are not saying only TV triggers autism. However, the increases in autism have occurred alongside parallel increases in TV watching.

There are reasons why the American Academy of Pediatricians recommends no TV viewing for children under two and ADHD is only one of them.

The spuriousness argument is just as valid for the correlation between vaccinations and autism. The advance in this study is the use of time-series data. While no methodology can fully resolve requirements for establishing causation, which require other forms of reasoning, alongside control variables and longitudinal data, they do provide evidence for an interesting coincidence in both time and space. Higher television watching households are more likely to have children with autism.

That being said, their argument follows the logic of "biology is not destiny, and neither is society". However there argument calls for a focus on the interaction between forms of socialization and brain development. Let's think seriously about what forms of socialization provide a greater outcome for children when it comes to brain, language, and social development. That is all.

[NashVegas]

61. Autism-Like Behavior v Autism

Shit, why not just say computers cause autism.