Spacing between babies creating higher risk of autism

Post Reply New Topic

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/med_autism_birth_spacing

Just when you think we've escaped the stupidity of Autism-Causing Theories.

Though oddly enough this could apply to me...just barely. I'm second born and about 1 3/4 years younger than my sister. But I have a hard time believing this is completely central to a majority of cases of autism.

I think that differences in children's development is not noticed as much by parents who have children born farther apart. When children are close in age, it's a lot easier to see when one is not developing as the other did, and therefore parents are more likely to seek a diagnosis. However, I do not quite believe the rest of the theories that are being postulated in the article

Space race topic

So what happens when the second is born and the older sibling has more noticeable developmental difficultities?

My brother has Tourettes(not dxd at the time, but the tics were obvious, as well as unsusual behaviours) and because I did not manifest tics no one seemed to notice my challenges(in some ways this was postitive as I was not labelled right away, and not dxd until my mid forties). Yet in comparison to my brother I spoke at the same time as he did (he is twenty seven months older than me), and no one noticed anything alarming. My mother really never thought to ask about developmental delays as in a strange way she was a control freak and the more independent we were in terms of speech and mobility the more anxious she became.

i saw that on cnn this morning.im the second youngest of seven.my next oldest sibling is 8 years older than me.at least not true in my family.thats the biggest space gap in the family.

Well, it's a higher risk, not a cause, right? Maybe the researchers just saw a correlation between rate of birth and autism. Of course, there is also a correlation between Justin Bieber and the economy. Ever since he became popular, the economy has gotten worse. I guess Justin Bieber is bad for the economy?

Many of these research studies into "causes" are looking at risk factors rather than a single cause of autism.

So all these types of studies mean is: the autism rate for one group of people was a bit higher than the autism rate for another group of people. Autism has many causes, and many risk factors. Rarely do any risk factors produce autism 100% of the time. That's not the point of the study.

It is no use saying that the study doesn't apply to you. Yes it does, because it is talking about the rate of autism in populations (to which you belong), and not about whether you as an individual have an ASD or have the particular risk factor. Autism can occur in children close together in age, and in children spread far apart. They know that. Their point is, the rate of autism is higher for one of these groups. They are not claiming that all children close together have autism, nor are they claiming that no children spread far apart have autism.

They are talking about populations - not about your individual family. This is a hugely important distinction.

I don't believe that. I was born 10 years after my older sisters and I'm the one with autism.

the most devalidating thing about this theory is that autism more common today.im from the boston area and when america was more religious the catholic church ruled massachusetts.in those day a couple would start at 22 and would not stop having kids until there thirties.people might have 4 kids in 6 years.today there is more family planning and people have fewer kids,hence bigger gaps between kids in general.so then is autism now afecting 1 in 100

I'm in a position where if they're playing with numbers with one thing and not clarifying it, then I find it hard to take anything they say seriously:
"Government data show the number of closely spaced births — where babies are less than two years apart — is rising, from 11 percent of all births in 1995 to 18 percent in 2002."

However, these are "percent of ALL births", so maybe it's just that people are having more babies. It doesn't have a "percent of those with an older sibling", which is what the article is talking about! If people were just having 1 child in 2002 and more people decide to have 2, then yes, that percentage is going to increase - it's not showing us anything relevant to the article without further information.

i was born two years before my brother and six years before my half-sister (i'm the oldest) so i don't really know if the age thing applies to me or not.
However, I did hear about an article in my local paper where researchers claimed the parents' status (as far as money, good jobs, homes, and etc.) played a role in the so called cause of autism.
Personally, I think it's a big crock b/c those things can never really be proven until you have actual facts to back up your words.

i certainly dont believe money or education can cause autism.however though both leo kanner and hans asperger said they saw a shadow of the syndrome in the parents.the parents of autistic children often have there own savant skills and special interests and that can lead to great career.my dad who i lost in may,came from the depression and was poor,but by his forty's drove a mercedes was a self made man and had his own genius.he was also known for relatives taking advantage of him,he had some social cluelesness.he had a little idiot savant in him and that was his success in his career