Thanks to Dave Lull and Aaron Blaisdell.
I have blogged several times about Caroline Rodger’s idea that sonograms during pregnancy greatly increase the risk of autism in the fetus. Her idea is supported by several lines of evidence, as she explains in this talk.
A new study provides more evidence. It found a high concordance rate among fraternal twins. In the general population from which the new study was drawn (California), about 1 child in 100 has autism. But if you are an identical twin, and your co-twin has autism spectrum disorder, your chance of having the same diagnosis is about 70%. The crucial point of the study is that the concordance was also high for fraternal twins: about 40%. As one commenter put it, this result “puts a spotlight on pregnancy as a time when environmental factors might exert their effects”.
Another study found more risk of autism if the mom took an anti-depressant during pregnancy. This supports the idea that a bad prenatal environment causes autism.
Thanks to Paul Sas and Gary Wolf.
Robert Delaney is a geologist who does environmental cleanup in Michigan. While cleaning up an abandoned military base, he found remarkably high contamination by a chemical called PFOS. He had been wondering what causes autism. He came across a rodent study that found that the combination of PFOS and ultrasound was much more damaging to the nervous system than either alone. (See also this study.) He remembered that study when he read my posts about ultrasound and autism. He wrote to me: (more…)
Gary Taubes pointed to this PNAS paper about climate change and noted that one of the authors, Stephen Schneider, had a big non-financial conflict of interest: If it turns out the whole argument is wrong, he looks like a fool. The accompanying statement (“The authors declare no conflict of interest”) is, if taken to mean the authors have no conflict of interest, wildly inaccurate. Readers unaware of Schneider’s history wouldn’t know this.
I came across a similar example today. A reader of this blog wrote extensive criticisms (here and here) of the idea that prenatal ultrasound may cause autism. He believed Caroline Rodgers, my source for that idea, misrepresented the evidence. In particular, Rodgers pointed to a study that found ultrasound disturbed neuronal migration in mouse fetuses. She said it supported her idea. The reader disagreed, saying,
The bottom line for me is that Dr. Rakic (from the mouse study) clarified, “Our study in mice does not mean that use of ultrasound on human fetuses for appropriate diagnostic and medical purposes should be abandoned. Instead, our study warns against its non-medical use.†Yes. Okay. No more boutiquey, keepsake ultrasounds. Great. But for Rodgers to skew this data (along with the FDA’s and others’) into claiming that ultrasounds under the care of an Obstetrics professional (and for medical use) are causing autism is disingenuous at best, unethical propaganda for the Midwifery Way at worst.
The reader is a professor who teaches composition. Maybe an English professor. He or she takes Rakic seriously, where I completely ignore his statement because of a conflict of interest. If Rakic questions “appropriate” ultrasound, he will be attacked in many ways, making his life unpleasant. I have no idea whether this swayed Rakic, but he would be only human if it did.
Of course developing neurons are unable to distinguish appropriate and inappropriate ultrasound. Rakic’s statement is ridiculous as Rakic and all insiders (neuroscientists) know, I believe. All insiders know that there are dozens of examples where findings from mouse brains have turned out to be true for human brains, in spite of the many differences between them, and that there are thousands of grant proposals in which mouse brains are claimed to be a worthwhile model for human brains. All insiders know this, realize the pressure on Rakic to say what he said, and, like me, just ignore it. As far as I can tell, Rakic pays no price for misleading outsiders because the outsiders don’t know they are being misled. (Just as with political lobbying: the public doesn’t understand what’s happening.) The composition professor doesn’t know this, as far as I can tell.
Rodgers is not claiming that ultrasounds “are causing autism”. She is saying they might cause autism, that there are several reasons to think so, and therefore (a) the ultrasound-autism idea deserves further scrutiny and (b) ultrasounds should be avoided as much as possible until more is known.
I previously blogged (also here) about Carolyn Rodgers’s idea that prenatal ultrasound may cause autism. It turns out that she isn’t the only person with this idea; researchers at the University of Louisville recently published the same idea.
I learned about the Louisville study from Anne Weiss, who said the connection has been plausible for a long time.
Ultrasound was introduced into obstetrics in the 1970′s and was generally restricted to high-risk pregnancies. By the 1980′s policy statements were issued by ACOG, the NIH and equivalent bodies in Europe and Canada stating that its use should remain limited to high-risk cases. Despite these recommendations, ultrasound technology became common in hospitals and doctors’ offices and routinely applied to low-risk populations. Within a short time the majority of pregnant woman were being exposed at prenatal visits, during multiple scans in hospitals, and during continuous monitoring during labour (which could mean 12 to 14 hours during childbirth alone). Skills and techniques used to monitor the fetus prior to the introduction of ultrasound (in utero and during the birth process) were slowly undermined by the technology and often underutilized. Iatrogenic effects from false positive readings, – unnecessary C- sections, inductions, instrumental deliveries etc. caused harm to moms and babies, especially in the early 1980′s.
Three important names in the 1980s were (1) Robin Mole, who presented a paper “Possible Hazards of Imaging and Doppler Ultrasound in Obstetrics” to the Royal Society of Medicine Forum on Maternity and the Newborn: Ultrasonagraphy in Obstetrics, April 1985. She was former director of the Medical Research Council Radiobiology Unit, England. Also the work of (2) M.E. Stratmeyer – Research in ultrasound. A public health view. Birth and Family Journal 1980 and (3) Doreen Liebeskind – still at Albert Enstein and a prof of radiology- presented at a symposium at Columbia in 1983.  She was concerned that ultrasound may be producing subtle changes in the fetal brain perhaps affecting behavioral mechanisms, possible changes in reflexes, IQ, attention span or some of the more subtle psychological, psychiatric or neurological phenomena. Referred to animal and lab studies that showed ultrasound may cause chromosomal damage, breakdown of DNA, etc. There are others who sounded the warning that this was not a benign technology but these voices were crowded out for varied reasons like threats of litigation, loss of the traditions skills of birthing etc.
There were also Japanese studies that raised concerns about ultrasound. Weiss continued:
Unfortunately the use of ultrasound in obstetrics has not declined, despite safety concerns and the lack of research to rule out serious neurological effects. It’s so entrenched in modern obstetrical practice.  Doctors use the machines to protect themselves from litigation – in the case of fetal abnormalities, undetected multiples, placenta previa, neurological or physical damage to the fetus during childbirth, stillbirth etc. It has almost become a form of entertainment – you can get photos and videos of baby’s ultrasound. It’s disturbing how benign it appears.
Within the context of the work I do, ultrasound is just one of many concerns I have with the over-management and medicalization of childbirth. My clients come to me to find ways to subvert this within the hospital setting or to prepare for a home birth with a midwife.  I also get referrals from doctors whose patients are dealing with difficult issues while pregnant.
You are currently browsing the archives for the autism category.
