Interesting new autism study.

Re: Interesting new autism study.

• ljlkm

  January 2011

  Just in case you think all I read is Perez Hilton. 
  

  Report0 Reply
• Loading the player...
• Gem17

  January 2011

  It's an interesting article.  Who knows what the reason behind it is?

  Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml

  Report0 Reply
• rinny627

  January 2011

  Definitely interesting. I wonder though, about the children who are only children, or the oldest with Autism. It doesn't explain that.

  Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml

  Report0 Reply
• slukd79 member

  January 2011

  Really interesting. I haven't heard this before.
  

  

  Report0 Reply
• Princess_Lily member

  January 2011

  What is more scarey, all of the reasons are speculation, no concrete conclusions, and its affecting our children!
  

   
  

    

   
  

  
  

  Report0 Reply
• CalinsBride

  January 2011

  rinny627:

  Definitely interesting. I wonder though, about the children who are only children, or the oldest with Autism. It doesn't explain that.

  I don't think it's saying that having kids close together is the cause of autism. Just that it increases the risk of developing it.

  Very interesting article, definitely. I know some doctors recommend two years between pregnancies so that the body can rebuild its nutrients.

  

  Report0 Reply
• gaughan258

  January 2011

  Interesting, but it doesn't change the statistics too drastically. We're still talking a less than 1% chance. "Of the 156,034 children conceived less than a year after the birth of their older siblings, 1,188 had an autism diagnosis ? a higher rate, but still less than 1 percent."

  
  
  

  

  Report0 Reply
• Soap1 member

  January 2011

  CalinsBride:

  rinny627:

  Definitely interesting. I wonder though, about the children who are only children, or the oldest with Autism. It doesn't explain that.

  I don't think it's saying that having kids close together is the cause of autism. Just that it increases the risk of developing it.

  Very interesting article, definitely. I know some doctors recommend two years between pregnancies so that the body can rebuild its nutrients.

  Or as the article mentions, it could just be that parents who have a young child can more easily spot developmental delays because they are comparing their children.  If it's your first, or if your older child is 3 or 4, you might not notice subtle differences.

  That could lead to a diagnosis of autism where one might not have occurred before (even though the article does say that mild forms of autism weren't included in the study).
  

  
  
  
  
  

  
  

  

  Report0 Reply
• desmerelda317

  January 2011

  gaughan258:

  Interesting, but it doesn't change the statistics too drastically. We're still talking a less than 1% chance. "Of the 156,034 children conceived less than a year after the birth oftheir older siblings, 1,188 had an autism diagnosis ? a higher rate,but still less than 1 percent."

  
  
  

  This is what I found interesting.  Less than 1 percent seems so tiny, and they were only studying the presence of autism in a second child where the first child is not on the spectrum.  So that is a small percentage of the population too.  It still doesn't give answers as to causation, which is what a lot of parents are really wanting to know.  I wonder though, not being a statistician or well-versed in that arena, is less than 1 percent statistically significant enough to consider it to be a true positive correlation?  Any statistics smarties want to comment?  I truly am interested because I don't know the answer. 

  Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml

  Report0 Reply
• katiekate1974 member

  January 2011

  Princess_Lily:

  What is more scarey, all of the reasons are speculation, no concrete conclusions, and its affecting our children!
  

  Autism is a scary thought, for sure. I would be deeply saddened of AJ, one of nieces of nephews, or future children had it. But I think it's really important to put this fear and concern in persecutive. As with peanut allergies, only ONE percent of children in the US has it. That means 99% don't. Not that we shouldn't research it, not that it's not awful, not that I don't want to know the reasons, but it is something we need to keep in perspective.

  Report0 Reply
• annibes member

  January 2011

  desmerelda317:

  gaughan258:

  Interesting, but it doesn't change the statistics too drastically. We're still talking a less than 1% chance. "Of the 156,034 children conceived less than a year after the birth oftheir older siblings, 1,188 had an autism diagnosis ? a higher rate,but still less than 1 percent."

  
  
  

  This is what I found interesting.  Less than 1 percent seems so tiny, and they were only studying the presence of autism in a second child where the first child is not on the spectrum.  So that is a small percentage of the population too.  It still doesn't give answers as to causation, which is what a lot of parents are really wanting to know.  I wonder though, not being a statistician or well-versed in that arena, is less than 1 percent statistically significant enough to consider it to be a true positive correlation?  Any statistics smarties want to comment?  I truly am interested because I don't know the answer. 

  It depends on the numbers- specific to the study, I think. I'd have to see the methods section of a research study and then take to DH (a research and statistics professor lol) to tell us for sure. Very interesting, though.

  Report0 Reply
• katiekate1974 member

  January 2011

  desmerelda317:

  gaughan258:

  Interesting, but it doesn't change the statistics too drastically. We're still talking a less than 1% chance. "Of the 156,034 children conceived less than a year after the birth oftheir older siblings, 1,188 had an autism diagnosis ? a higher rate,but still less than 1 percent."

  
  
  

  This is what I found interesting.  Less than 1 percent seems so tiny, and they were only studying the presence of autism in a second child where the first child is not on the spectrum.  So that is a small percentage of the population too.  It still doesn't give answers as to causation, which is what a lot of parents are really wanting to know.  I wonder though, not being a statistician or well-versed in that arena, is less than 1 percent statistically significant enough to consider it to be a true positive correlation?  Any statistics smarties want to comment?  I truly am interested because I don't know the answer. 

  Been a while since I've done this, so I am sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but since the numbers in the study correspond to the numbers in the population at large (1%), I believe there is statistical relevance.

  Report0 Reply