ASD Is autism really getting more common and what are its causes ?

[Maciamo]

This could be as simple as the eggs and sperm getting older. Women used to have a first kid around age of 18, now it is closer to 30, and often late thirties. Same goes to the man. These first kids recently are produced from twice older sperm and eggs. Without going deep into genetic degeneration, let's say, that the eggs are not that fresh anymore.etrified:

This is a misconception. People are not getting married or having children later today. At least not in northern Europe. There are big cultural differences between countries, so that in parts of Africa or in India it may be or may have been common to marry and have children very young (even as young as 12). Non-Western countries are increasingly adopting Western practices though.

However, the median age of marriage in Europe in the 16th century was already around 26 years old (27 for men and 25 for women). I clearly remember seeing a chart with the evolution of the median age of marriage in England since the 16th century, and how it lowered to 23-23 years old in the early 19th century, then went up again to 26-27 years old in the late 19th century, then down again in the mid 20th century (probably as a result of WWI and WWII), to rise again in the late 20th century. Unfortunately I cannot find it anymore (it might have been in a book I read and not on the Internet). All I could find was the median age of marriage in the USA from 1890 to 2010. This page on the social history of Europe, though, confirms my recollections. Europeans married in their mid-20's in the Middle Ages, and late 20's or later from the 16th to 18th century. There are small fluctuations over the decades and centuries, but nothing tremendous.

Therefore I do not believe that autism is more common today because people are having children at an older age. I also do not believe that autism is more common today. The annual increase that is reported by doctors is simply the result of better screening and more parents sending their kids to the shrink when they don't fit nicely in the system (especially in the USA).

 

[dublin]

maciamo

Therefore I do not believe that autism is more common today because people are having children at an older age. I also do not believe that autism is more common today. The annual increase that is reported by doctors is simply the result of better screening and more parents sending their kids to the shrink when they don't fit nicely in the system (especially in the USA).

professor Fellon claims that it is ever increasing as are all the other auto immune diseases. by the way the relationship between the lack of parasites and extreme auto immune reactions is not a theory any more. the scientists know which exact chemicals secreted by the worms switch the immune system off. they just can't make pills from them. this is why they are now doing clinical trials with live worms. they are talking about preventative infection of children to insure development of a healthy immune system. he was also very critical of the mmr vaccines, saying that they mess up the immune system.

 

[JFWR]

This is a misconception. People are not getting married or having children later today. At least not in northern Europe. There are big cultural differences between countries, so that in parts of Africa or in India it may be or may have been common to marry and have children very young (even as young as 12). Non-Western countries are increasingly adopting Western practices though.

However, the median age of marriage in Europe in the 16th century was already around 26 years old (27 for men and 25 for women). I clearly remember seeing a chart with the evolution of the median age of marriage in England since the 16th century, and how it lowered to 23-23 years old in the early 19th century, then went up again to 26-27 years old in the late 19th century, then down again in the mid 20th century (probably as a result of WWI and WWII), to rise again in the late 20th century. Unfortunately I cannot find it anymore (it might have been in a book I read and not on the Internet). All I could find was the median age of marriage in the USA from 1890 to 2010. This page on the social history of Europe, though, confirms my recollections. Europeans married in their mid-20's in the Middle Ages, and late 20's or later from the 16th to 18th century. There are small fluctuations over the decades and centuries, but nothing tremendous.

Therefore I do not believe that autism is more common today because people are having children at an older age. I also do not believe that autism is more common today. The annual increase that is reported by doctors is simply the result of better screening and more parents sending their kids to the shrink when they don't fit nicely in the system (especially in the USA).

Two things:

First, do you have numbers for the ages of men at marriage v. women? It was very frequently historically for men to be much older, which could significantly alter an average number.

Second, in the US here are some facts about the increase in autism:

1 percent of the population of children in the U.S. ages 3-17 have an autism spectrum disorder.¹
Prevalence is estimated at 1 in 88 births.²
1 to 1.5 million Americans live with an autism spectrum disorder.³
Fastest-growing developmental disability; 1,148% growth rate.⁴
10 - 17 % annual growth.⁵

From: http://www.autism-society.org/about-autism/facts-and-statistics.html
Some of that is based on criteria changes, but it would be absolutely absurd to suggest that it is overdiagnosis alone that is causing -this- much of an increase. Psychiatry would have to be condemned as quackery if it can so greatly expand a disease without the prevalence actually increasing.

 

[LeBrok]

However, the median age of marriage in Europe in the 16th century was already around 26 years old (27 for men and 25 for women). I clearly remember seeing a chart with the evolution of the median age of marriage in England since the 16th century, and how it lowered to 23-23 years old in the early 19th century, then went up again to 26-27 years old in the late 19th century, then down again in the mid 20th century (probably as a result of WWI and WWII), to rise again in the late 20th century. Unfortunately I cannot find it anymore (it might have been in a book I read and not on the Internet). All I could find was the median age of marriage in the USA from 1890 to 2010. This page on the social history of Europe, though, confirms my recollections. Europeans married in their mid-20's in the Middle Ages, and late 20's or later from the 16th to 18th century. There are small fluctuations over the decades and centuries, but nothing tremendous.

I'm pretty sure it was an English phenomenon, or maybe it just relates to upper classes. Maybe the minimum age was set by Anglican or Lutheran church, or other government regulations.
Technically there was no reason to keep a girl home over age of 20. There was no university to attend, carrier to make or save money for an apartment. They could only become a housewives or nuns, and for this they were ready at age 15.

 

[LeBrok]

This is a misconception. People are not getting married or having children later today. At least not in northern Europe. There are big cultural differences between countries, so that in parts of Africa or in India it may be or may have been common to marry and have children very young (even as young as 12). Non-Western countries are increasingly adopting Western practices though.

However, the median age of marriage in Europe in the 16th century was already around 26 years old (27 for men and 25 for women). I clearly remember seeing a chart with the evolution of the median age of marriage in England since the 16th century, and how it lowered to 23-23 years old in the early 19th century, then went up again to 26-27 years old in the late 19th century, then down again in the mid 20th century (probably as a result of WWI and WWII), to rise again in the late 20th century. Unfortunately I cannot find it anymore (it might have been in a book I read and not on the Internet). All I could find was the median age of marriage in the USA from 1890 to 2010. This page on the social history of Europe, though, confirms my recollections. Europeans married in their mid-20's in the Middle Ages, and late 20's or later from the 16th to 18th century. There are small fluctuations over the decades and centuries, but nothing tremendous.

Therefore I do not believe that autism is more common today because people are having children at an older age. I also do not believe that autism is more common today. The annual increase that is reported by doctors is simply the result of better screening and more parents sending their kids to the shrink when they don't fit nicely in the system (especially in the USA).

Never mind marriage, here is a statistics on first child born to women in Canada. It is amazing how quickly, in one generation, the shift happened. This strongly coincides with fast growth of ASD cases. Surely more kids with mild ASD are included in stats these days, as I stated before, but what I found is very interesting.

Moms keep getting olderThe change in the age distribution of mothers is particularly striking compared with one generation earlier. In 2004, women aged 24 and under made up 20.6% of all mothers, half of the proportion of 40.7% in 1979.
The bulk of the births now occur to women aged 25 to 34, who accounted for 62.1% of all births in 2004 compared with 54.7% in 1979.

Well, check this surprising part:

Births to older mothers, those aged 35 and older, were almost four times as frequent as a generation earlier. These mothers accounted for 17.2% of births in 2004, nearly four times the proportion of only 4.6% a quarter century earlier.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/060731/dq060731b-eng.htm
I'm pretty sure that this Canadian trend is also common in most western world. So, 4 times more kids are born to older mothers, therefore to older fathers too, than a generation ago. It is not a secret that age of parents goes in hand with more genetic abnormalities in kids. Lots of research and stats available online, especially with Down Syndrome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome

There are none so detailed statistics for ASD, but strong correlation with age of parents exists. Looking quickly at some stats, older parents age might account for 100%-200% increase of ASD cases in one generation, and the rest (other 100-200%) is probably explained with wider and more rigorous diagnostics.

 

[Maciamo]

I'm pretty sure it was an English phenomenon, or maybe it just relates to upper classes. Maybe the minimum age was set by Anglican or Lutheran church, or other government regulations.
Technically there was no reason to keep a girl home over age of 20. There was no university to attend, carrier to make or save money for an apartment. They could only become a housewives or nuns, and for this they were ready at age 15.

It is not an English or upper-class phenomenon. The link I posted is for all Europe, and for ordinary people. It is easy to double check this by going on a big international genealogy website and check a random the age of marriage for people in various countries and centuries. I did it and mid-20's seems to be the average age of first marriage.

However, people in past centuries had much more children than today because child mortality was much higher. Between the 16th and the early 20th century, it was not uncommon for a woman to have between 7 and 15 children, of which perhaps one third would die in low age. In such circumstances, the younger children were typically born when the mother was in her late thirties or in her forties (I have seen cases of early fifties), which is later than the average mother age for the last child today. So in all logic, in an older age of the parents did increase the rate of autism, autism should be decreasing now that most people only have in average two children born around the age of thirty.

Incidentally, autism seems to be more common in first born children*, so when the parents sperm and egg are the youngest. One of the reasons behind that is that first-time mothers have higher levels of testosterone in their body, and that testosterone masculinises the foetus' brain. This is also why, reversely, homosexuals are often boys with several older siblings (especially brothers).

It is somewhat of a contradiction that older mothers are also at increased risk of having autistic children, since the more children they have the older they are.

It is nevertheless well established that Down syndrome and schizophrenia are both associated with older parents, older mothers for the former and older fathers for the latter.


* this other study gives a 61% increase in risk of autism for first-born children compared with children born third or later.

 

[hope]

Before I post can I say that on noticing this thread having been moved from an earlier thread, and now my post from that thread being first here, is seen as myself breaking previous topic, then I apologise. In my defense there were two posts before mine that went that way and I merely answered the second.
:
:
In regards to older women having children with autism figures show that women of forty and over are 50% more likely to have an autistic child than women between the ages of 25-29. However , this only accounts for 5% of the rise in autism figures.
It is also suggested that an accumulation of environmental chemicals in a womans body may play a part.
Again the study says that mothers of some autistic children have anti-bodies in their blood which act against the brain protein of the foetus.
It is also noted (not in the same study) that more children with Down Syndrome are also being diagnosed with ASD, "dual-diagnosis".
I have added the link to the above mentioned if any-one is interested in reading it.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...ases-risk-of-autistic-child-researchers.html#

 

[Maciamo]

Before I post can I say that on noticing this thread having been moved from an earlier thread, and now my post from that thread being first here, is seen as myself breaking previous topic, then I apologise. In my defense there were two posts before mine that went that way and I merely answered the second.

No worries. One off-topic post wouldn't have been the object of a separate thread, but there were 25 of them, a whole new discussion from what I intended. So I think it's better to separate the two topics for the sake of consistency and clarity.

 

[LeBrok]

However, people in past centuries had much more children than today because child mortality was much higher. Between the 16th and the early 20th century, it was not uncommon for a woman to have between 7 and 15 children, of which perhaps one third would die in low age. In such circumstances, the younger children were typically born when the mother was in her late thirties or in her forties (I have seen cases of early fifties), which is later than the average mother age for the last child today. So in all logic, in an older age of the parents did increase the rate of autism, autism should be decreasing now that most people only have in average two children born around the age of thirty.
.

I'm sorry Maciamo but this is total fabrication. People had more kids because they didn't use contraceptives, and not because the kids were dying. When they had sex they usually produced kids. Today's situation is totally different.
Secondly, look at third world today and see how old the mothers are, the age the marry, how many kids they have, etc, and it goes same for all the races and religions. Europe was in same situation not that far back ago. There is no reason to pretend that this situation in Europe was much different than we can observe today in poor countries. This is the natural way for all people, and if in England it was different way back, it was because of some religious regulation or some other unusual factors.

The average life span back than was 35-40 years. What would be the benefit waiting to get married and have kids when in their thirties? Half of population was dead at that age.

Besides, look at canadian stats from my previous post, about a quick trend change of last generation, regarding having kids late.
There is now 4 times more kids born to mothers over 35 than generation ago. Now, this is a profound change only during last 25 years!

 

[LeBrok]

To shine some lights on the marriage discussion, this is what I've found, in my limited time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

In Ancient Greece, no specific civil ceremony was required for the creation of a marriage – only mutual agreement and the fact that the couple must regard each other as husband and wife accordingly.^{[citation needed]} Men usually married when they were in their 20s^{[citation needed]} and women in their teens.

Where Aristotle had set the prime of life at 37 years for men and 18 for women, the Visigothic Code of law in the seventh century placed the prime of life at twenty years for both men and women, after which both presumably married. It can be presumed that most ancient Germanic women were at least twenty years of age when they married and were roughly the same age as their husbands.^[51

Now middle ages:

The average age of marriage for most Northwestern Europeans from the late 14th century into the 19th century was around 25 years of age;^[58][59][60] as the Church dictated that both parties had to be at least 21 years of age to marry without the consent of their parents, the bride and groom were roughly the same age, with most brides in their early twenties and most grooms two or three years older

As part of the Protestant Reformation, the role of recording marriages and setting the rules for marriage passed to the state, reflecting Martin Luther's view that marriage was a "worldly thing".^[65] By the 17th century many of the Protestant European countries had a state involvement in marriage.

It looks more like Germanic traditions plus Anglican and Protestant churches set the minimum age to 21.

 

[LeBrok]

Here is an interesting read about mothers getting older.
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=age%20at%20first%20childbirth&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oecd.org%2Fdataoecd%2F62%2F49%2F41919586.pdf&ei=mEwGUM2DIsTkqAHyxN3DCA&usg=AFQjCNHX4-wIKKBw50ctLXDeyVjicrJ-XQ

and one more:
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500368_162-5242339.html

Women in the U.S. and other developed countries are waiting significantly longer before having their first children than new moms of a generation ago, according to a study by the CDC.

The average age of first-time mothers in the U.S. jumped from 21.4 in 1970 to 25 in 2006, an increase of 3.6 years, according to a report in the August edition of NCHS Data Brief, a publication of the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics.

By comparison, the average age at first birth in Switzerland is 29.4 and in Japan is 29.2.

One explanation of the change in average age of first-time mothers is that the proportion of first births to women 35 and older has increased nearly eight times since 1970, the researchers say.

Researchers T.J. Mathews, MS, and Brady E. Hamilton, PhD, both of the National Center for Health Statistics, say average age at first birth is important because it influences the total number of children a woman might have as well as the population's size and future growth. A mother's age is also a factor in birth outcomes such as birth weight and birth defects.

The study also shows:
• The average age at first birth has risen five years or more in Washington, D.C., Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, while increasing less than 2.5 years in Mississippi, New Mexico, and Oklahoma.
• Since 1990, average age at first birth has increased across all racial and ethnic groups.
• Asian or Pacific Islander women had the oldest average age at first birth, at 28.5, and American Indian or Alaska Native women the youngest at 21.9.
• In 1970, average age at first birth was lowest in Arkansas at 20.2 and highest at 22.5 in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York. In 2006, Mississippi had the lowest average age at 22.6 and Massachusetts the highest, 27.7.
• The average for non-Hispanic white women was higher at 26 than for the U.S. population as a whole, 25. The average for non-Hispanic black women was 22.7 and the average for Hispanic women was 23.1.
By Bill Hendrick

If it comes to society getting bit more sicker with every generation form allergies to cancers, we shouldn't overlook one important fact. In the past child mortality at birth or early childhood was at least about 20 times of today's. Only the strongest/healthiest kids survived to adulthood. For last 100 years, with advances in medicine, we are saving almost all kids, who typically would have died for variety of diseases, genetic ones too. These kids grow up and make new kids, maybe even weaker then themselves, that will survive thanks to even better medicine. New kids will make make more weaker kids, who will survive thanks to even better medical technologies in the future, etc, etc. Not only we have more people that wouldn't be alive if born in the past, but we have more and more people who can't live a year or even a month without constant medications, transplants or other medical technologies. This really should explain at least a portion in increase of some diseases in population.

Did we stop the natural selection?

 

[hope]

I like your graph LeBrok showing mean age for mothers, it`good to see it all in one picture.

:
Recent rates given by the Office for National Statistics show 48% of births in 2010 were to mothers age thirty and over.
For first time births in 2010 the age is averaged around 27.8 yrs, up from 27.6 in 2009 which in turn is an increase from 26.5 yrs
in 2000. So the trend to wait seems to be increasing.

For anyone interested there is a link below with some interesting facts. It does not deal with first time births only but all births in general.
(England and Wales,note)
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_239220.pdf

 

[JFWR]

To shine some lights on the marriage discussion, this is what I've found, in my limited time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage





Now middle ages:




It looks more like Germanic traditions plus Anglican and Protestant churches set the minimum age to 21.

Yes, but this is not counting parental consent, which is potentially far more common than non-parental consented marriages. Plus, the Visigothic code defined "prime of life" not "marriage age".

Also, one cannot forget (as I mentioned last page in the forum but Maciamo hasn't produced anything to that end) that many cultures had men marrying much younger women. If you then average the ages out, one gets a figure which isn't true of either sex.

 

[LeBrok]

Yes, but this is not counting parental consent, which is potentially far more common than non-parental consented marriages. Plus, the Visigothic code defined "prime of life" not "marriage age".

Also, one cannot forget (as I mentioned last page in the forum but Maciamo hasn't produced anything to that end) that many cultures had men marrying much younger women. If you then average the ages out, one gets a figure which isn't true of either sex.

It's hard to know for sure, marriages were not registered till couple of centuries ago, in some european countries even later. We have only records of general impressions of some historians. One thing obvious is that Northern European countries are leading in late marriages and later child birthing. Not sure what it equates too, are kids growing up there slower, have lesser sexual drive or are less romantic than the rest of the world? Maybe it is as a simple thing as GDP, wealth of a country? They have been stronger economically for some time, used contraceptives sooner than others, social and family pressure were not that great as anywhere else, to get married. Generally they went through these trends of "lateness"( that we observe right now around the world), sooner too.

 

[Maciamo]

I'm sorry Maciamo but this is total fabrication. People had more kids because they didn't use contraceptives, and not because the kids were dying.

For both reasons. I did enough genealogical research (over 500 direct ancestors + thousands of their siblings and cousins) to know that infants did die in great number under the age of five (especially under the age of one) as late as the early 20th century, even in Belgium.

When they had sex they usually produced kids. Today's situation is totally different.

I am sorry, but how is this helpful to the discussion about autism ? If people got married, say at 25, they didn't have children before that (from my experience as a genealogist, illegitimate children were extremely rare, except perhaps for kings or high nobility). If they had a lot of children, the average age of the parents for each birth was higher than now.

Secondly, look at third world today and see how old the mothers are, the age the marry, how many kids they have, etc, and it goes same for all the races and religions. Europe was in same situation not that far back ago. There is no reason to pretend that this situation in Europe was much different than we can observe today in poor countries. This is the natural way for all people, and if in England it was different way back, it was because of some religious regulation or some other unusual factors.

It's hard to know for sure, marriages were not registered till couple of centuries ago, in some european countries even later.

You are speculating about European history based on the Third World today, and that is just not the way to go. There happen to be detailed statistics about the births, marriages and deaths in many European countries going back several centuries. In Britain, the Benelux, France and Italy at least, almost all births and marriages were listed in registrars since the 17th century, but many families can go back even further. So there is no need to speculate about the average age of marriage and average age of either parent for all births. The data is there. Just look at it.

There are plenty of reasons why the Third World today isn't comparable to Europe in the last 500 years. There are still a lot of places in Africa (or even in the Indian and Chinese countryside) where births are not officially recorded today. 150 years ago, almost nobody outside the Western World kept tracks of genealogical data, not even advanced cultures like Japan (where ordinary people didn't even have surnames until the late 19th century, under the influence of the West).

Even economically, it has been estimated that the real GDP per capita at PPP in late Medieval England was twice higher than many of the world's poorest nations today. Needless to say that it will take time before places like Congo can reach the same level of development as 16th century Europe - let alone 18th or 19th century.

 

[JFWR]

It's hard to know for sure, marriages were not registered till couple of centuries ago, in some european countries even later. We have only records of general impressions of some historians. One thing obvious is that Northern European countries are leading in late marriages and later child birthing. Not sure what it equates too, are kids growing up there slower, have lesser sexual drive or are less romantic than the rest of the world? Maybe it is as a simple thing as GDP, wealth of a country? They have been stronger economically for some time, used contraceptives sooner than others, social and family pressure were not that great as anywhere else, to get married. Generally they went through these trends of "lateness"( that we observe right now around the world), sooner too.

Birth control, feminism, career, economic conditions, abortion. Those all explain late first births.

 

[LeBrok]

For both reasons. I did enough genealogical research (over 500 direct ancestors + thousands of their siblings and cousins) to know that infants did die in great number under the age of five (especially under the age of one) as late as the early 20th century, even in Belgium.



I am sorry, but how is this helpful to the discussion about autism ? If people got married, say at 25, they didn't have children before that (from my experience as a genealogist, illegitimate children were extremely rare, except perhaps for kings or high nobility). If they had a lot of children, the average age of the parents for each birth was higher than now.

I'm not questioning child mortality. I was saying that your presumption about numerous kid families in the past is wrong. They didn't have many kids because they were dying easily. The main reasons they had many kids is because they had sex and there were no birth control pills.

You are speculating about European history based on the Third World today, and that is just not the way to go. There happen to be detailed statistics about the births, marriages and deaths in many European countries going back several centuries. In Britain, the Benelux, France and Italy at least, almost all births and marriages were listed in registrars since the 17th century, but many families can go back even further. So there is no need to speculate about the average age of marriage and average age of either parent for all births. The data is there. Just look at it.

Can you produce rural records from 17 century about age of mother when first and last child was born, at least a baptism of child and age of mother? Rural records are preferable as 80 to 90% of population lived in villages, therefore they were more representative of population in most European Countries. And off course let's skip the upper class, it's only 1-2% of population. Also it would be nice to sample 4 places in Europe, let's say England, Italy, Greece and Russia. We would have representatives of 4 main European cultures, not just North-West. Well, 18 century is fine too. That would be a great piece of statistics, and possibly relevant to autism issue.

Do you think any of the rural parishes had put their archives online?

I think we shall go on speculating...:indifferent:

 

[LeBrok]

Birth control, feminism, career, economic conditions, abortion. Those all explain late first births.

Yes, I was just musing why Northern Europeans lead the world with said trends.

 

[hope]

Did we stop the natural selection?

I suppose it is possible we may have, to a point, interfered.
There`s little doubt, as you have said, with the advance of medicine and science people are controlling diseases that may have killed them in the past.
However I think also the environment we live in can "trigger" some diseases. We live in a world surrounded by more chemicals than ever before. Even in our homes we spray and wipe every corner with some chemical or another to kill germs.
(dublin mentioned something similar) Animals are fed with hormones and we eat the animals. People take all sorts of medication for even minor ailments. We could be setting off ailments that might otherwise stay quiet.

 

[JFWR]

Yes, I was just musing why Northern Europeans lead the world with said trends.

Ideology, mainly.

Northern Europe is a hedonistic culture that has been ideologically bombarded for decades with the activists for precisely the things that are coming to pass. People are easily led when you tell them from birth that this is how society should function and what the role of men and women ought to be.

The result is a Europe that is dying off, men and women who are decreasingly happy with their situations, et cetera. And of course, late births leading to problems associated with late births.