Posted on 11/07/2013 8:23:53 AM PST by Seizethecarp
Autism can be identified in babies as young as two months, early research suggests.
US researchers analysed how infants looked at faces from birth to the age of three.
They found children later diagnosed with autism had shown diminished eye contact - a hallmark of autism - in the first few months of life.
The findings, reported in Nature, raised hope for early interventions to tackle autism, said a UK expert.
In the study, researchers led by Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta used eye-tracking technology to measure the way babies looked at and responded to social clues.
They found infants later diagnosed with autism had shown a steady decline in attention to the eyes of other people from the age of two months onwards, when watching videos of natural human interactions.
"In infants with autism, eye contact is declining already in the first six months of life," said Dr Jones.
But he added this could be seen only with sophisticated technology and would not be visible to parents.
"It's not something that parents would be able to see by themselves at all. If parents have concerns they should talk to their paediatrician."
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...
Excellent point!
It will give the babykillers another reason to convince women to murder their unborn. Just wait and watch.
I never heard of autism growing up. Why is it so prevalent now?
Or give the mental health workers and the drug companies more business.
I believe Autism is due to food allergies and food sensitivities. I believe Naturopath is the best way to treat it.
“I never heard of autism growing up. Why is it so prevalent now?”
Recent research indicates an association between older fathers and the incidence of autism. Parents, in general, are older than ever, especially in higher income brackets.
This study clearly shows autism is not likely due to exogenous ex utero influences, such as vaccinations. Most likely, many if not most of the conditions under the autism rubric are related to genetic errors, singly or in combination, that effect brain development.
This whole study has a bit of a hokey feel to it and I wouldn't put much credence in it.
First of all, it involved only a total of 110 kids and they knew, going in, which would be more likely to develop autism.
Then, after they were all diagnosed with autism, the researchers went back and looked at their data and then identified the pattern "predicting" autism retroactively.
I'm not saying it's completely full of crap, but I'm reserving a good deal of skeptism. Let's see some success actually predicting autism in children, rather than going back and finding the indicators after the diagnosis.
Well, there are lots of vaccinations scheduled before 6 months.
Jes sayin.
Mail.
“Well, there are lots of vaccinations scheduled before 6 months.”
Yes. There are a few. And many reputable studies show no association between any vaccines (and their ingredients) and autism development. I have no vested interest in this issue, by the way, except that my nephew is autistic and I’m a physician (not a pediatrician, neurologist, or psychiatrist) who follows this issue closely. I find ludicrous the claims that pharmaceutical companies are hiding data about their vaccines causing autism. In fact, the British researcher who put forth data substantiating the concept of vaccinations causing autism was later found to have fabricated the data. Multiple studies have debunked the concept.
In my many years of psychologically testing children, I only tested two I put an Autistic label on. A true autistic child will NOT look you in the eye. I would beat on the table to try to get the child to look at me. They also refer to themselves as “he” or “she”, never as “I” if they do manage to say anything.
The reason there are so many with that label now is, they have opened up the behavioral characteristics to include so many behaviors that most any kid could get that label now and that is a farce.
What is considerec “older”?
What food allergies does a two month old have?
They where either believed to be a little strange, relatively shy or mentally retarded. I believe that many people have ad it for years as it was always normal for men to have children in their forties and for women to give birth well into their late thirties and even forties.
It can also not be excused out of hand that the massive amounts of female hormones, IE: Chemical Birth Control pills, infecting our drinking water.
“I never heard of autism growing up. Why is it so prevalent now?”
It’s really not. There are two reasons why it seems to be, though:
First, the doctors have changed the definition of autism. It used to only include the classic depiction of autism (extreme social withdrawal, uncommunicative, repetitive movements, etc). Now, they call it “Autism Spectrum Disorder”, because they believe that Autism is the more severe form of a range of related disorders, including milder varieties like Asperger’s. So people who would not be said to have autism 30 years ago, can be said to be “on the spectrum” today, even though nothing about their disorder has changed.
Secondly, there is evidence that false diagnoses (and simply false claims of autism with no diagnosis) have grown significantly. Many people who are just a bit antisocial, or “geeky”, but have no clinical issues, will “self-diagnosis” themselves with some form of ASD, for sympathy, or to be part of the “community”, or other reasons like that. Other times, parents who believe their children must have some disorder will doctor shop until they find one willing to make the diagnosis even if it is not warranted. One study found that having an autistic child in the neighborhood increased the likelihood that other children in the area would be diagnosed. It’s not a contagious disease, so that means there is a social element going on, causing increased diagnoses that probably shouldn’t be happening.
It’s never too early to drug people up.
It’s never too early to start drugging them up.
That's very interesting - I've never heard of that study.
Of course, couldn't it also indicate that the raised awareness caused more correct diagnoses?
Though, honestly, your scenario seems more likely to me.
It’s always good to be skeptical before results are checked and replicated plenty of times. I don’t think the methodology seems too bad though. They collected data, waited to find out who the affected subjects would be, and then combed back through the data to find a common characteristic that may be a predictor. Seems solid, in broad strokes at least, to me.
As you say, though, the real test will be to see if they really can predict it now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.