9 ms·

New study looks at the connection between parental age and autism risk

33 points by jrs235 11y ago

randomname2 11y ago
"Another hypothesis is that people who have children at advanced ages may do so because they themselves are “on the spectrum,” and may have social difficulties that made it tough for them to couple up and become parents for much of their early adult lives; in these cases, researchers theorize, there may be a genetic link to autism." Ouch. I wonder if there's any truth to this, it's certainly an interesting hypothesis!
- tsotha 11y ago
  It wouldn't explain why the incidence of autism is increasing, though.
  - ekianjo 11y ago
    That is, I think, explained by the fact that they have broadened quite a bit the definition of autism in recent history -> and higher awareness from parents results in higher diagnosis rates. Hardly surprising.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    There is also the contribution of assortative mating.
  - wil421 11y ago
    Do we really know if it is increasing? Or has our ability to detect it increased? I wonder the same things about cancer and I believe that in the past 50+ years we have identified more types of cancer. Same with autism, the spectrum has broadened in the past decades. People who were once just plain weird or different for my parents generation could now be classified as having autism in my generation. It would be interesting to see a study if cancer or autism are actually increasing or if we are just now finding diseases that have plagued mankind for generations.
    - dghf 11y ago
      I was under the impression that at least part of the perceived rise in cancer was because more people used to die of things like heart disease in their sixties or even fifties, and thus didn't live long enough to get cancer. (I have no links or data to back this up.)
    - __z 11y ago
      >I wonder the same things about cancer and I believe that in the past 50+ years we have identified more types of cancer. I wrote a long post about this a few weeks ago but the long story short is YES! We absolutely have detected more (asymptomatic) cancers with increased screening of healthy people. Here's my previous post - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9621249 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9621249 Here's some random links: https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/screening-for-disease-in-people-without-symptoms-the-reality/ https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/screening-for-disease-i... https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/a-skeptical-look-at-screening-tests/ https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/a-skeptical-look-at-scr... >Prostate cancer is very common but isn’t always harmful. It is found in 80% of autopsies where the men died of something else. Many more men die with prostate cancer than because of it. >The screening test for prostate cancer is a blood test for prostate-specific antigen (PSA). This is not a yes-or-no test. It must be interpreted in the context of the patient’s age and risk factors and the rate of rise, and any cut-off level is arbitrary and will miss some small percentage of cancers. If the PSA test is positive, the next step is biopsy. Typically, 12 needle biopsies are done, 6 on each side. They find cancer in 25% of patients. But if you go back and do more biopsies, you’ll find cancer in 25% more patients. Theoretically, if you could see every cell in the prostate, you might be able to find a cancer cell or two in almost everyone, most of which would never progress or kill the patient. So you have to decide how many biopsies are reasonable. If you find cancer on a biopsy, the next step is treatment, and treatments for prostate cancer are not benign. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/11/overkill-atul-gawande http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/11/overkill-atul-g... >we’ve assumed, he says, that cancers are all like rabbits that you want to catch before they escape the barnyard pen. But some are more like birds—the most aggressive cancers have already taken flight before you can discover them, which is why some people still die from cancer, despite early detection. And lots are more like turtles. They aren’t going anywhere. Removing them won’t make any difference. >Over the past two decades, we’ve tripled the number of thyroid cancers we detect and remove in the United States, but we haven’t reduced the death rate at all. In South Korea, widespread ultrasound screening has led to a fifteen-fold increase in detection of small thyroid cancers. Thyroid cancer is now the No. 1 cancer diagnosed and treated in that country. But, as Welch points out, the death rate hasn’t dropped one iota there, either. (Meanwhile, the number of people with permanent complications from thyroid surgery has skyrocketed.) It’s all over-diagnosis. We’re just catching turtles.
  - pavel_lishin 11y ago
    I have a theory that the folk tales of changelings - babies being stolen by and replaced with fairies - are probably sparked by children with autism in the past. From what I understand, sometimes a child can seem to be developing neurotypically for a long time before developing symptoms of Asperger's or autism pretty suddenly. If you're a farmer in 1400, your child suddenly stops being communicative, and effectively turns into a different person. Obviously fairies did it.
    - salgernon 11y ago
      Related discussion (where I mention the same conclusion, not that I'm an expert, someone else mentioned a book about this subject.) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9245022 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9245022
  - randomdata 11y ago
    Assuming it is increasing and not a matter of it simply being detected more frequently, perhaps it has become easier for parents 'on the spectrum' to eventually find partners? The rise of online dating comes to mind.
- jmkni 11y ago
  After the clusterfuck that was MMR -> Autism in the 90's, I'm wary of any news stories linking anything to Autism. This is an interesting angle though.
- rlpb 11y ago
  It's great to see this kind of point made in articles intended for the public, rather than imply causation where it has not been shown. I feel that this is a major step forward for popular science reporting; the journalist deserves credit here. Another great example from the same article: “Risk doesn’t mean cause,” he notes. “These are risk factors helping us to understand ideological pathways — but not a cause in itself.”
- __z 11y ago
  Blah, I think this is really simplistic and assumes way too much and doesn't look at the big picture. The group that is delaying childbirth the most are college educated women. The assumption (which may or may not have value) is that college educated and career focused women are delaying childbirth to focus on finishing school and establishing their careers first, not that they are "bad at coupling up" because they have social difficulties. I have a personal hypothesis that college educated women may be "bad a coupling up" because they can afford to be more picky - they may not feel a need to get married or be in a relationship for economic security so they can delay "settling down with someone" until they find a more desirable partner. Or even that being college educated makes you have higher standards. (not sure about that part) Combine that with the fact that this group is very unlikely to have a child out of wedlock. http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/03/getting-married-later-is-great-for-college-educated-women/274040/ http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/03/getting-mar... >College-educated women are unlikely to have a child before getting married For college-educated women, the average age of first birth (30) has risen along with the average age of marriage (27). Only 12 percent of births by college graduates are to unmarried women. >Women without college degrees are very likely to have a child before getting married Less-educated women have a much different experience with marriage and childbirth. For women without a college degree, the average age of first birth has not risen apace with the average age of marriage. The average age of first birth for this group is lower than the average marriage age. For women who dropped out of high school, the average age of first birth is 20, while the average marriage age is 25; 83 percent of first births in this demographic are to unmarried mothers. For women who graduated from high school and went to some college, the average age for first birth is 24 and the average marriage age is 27; 58 percent of first births are to unwed mothers. (This isn't even taking into the consideration that the change in the diagnostic criteria for autism has changed...)
wozniacki 11y ago
I think this topic is too important for it to go discussed meagerly or without a consensus opinion - however loose - based on an array of the most current exhaustive studies on the condition. Too often these findings pop up in popular media without any backdrop or without the larger context of other studies, whether with similar or dissimilar findings. Here is a study that links autism to low iron intake among pregnant women: Iron deficiency affects 40%–50% of pregnancies. Iron is critical for early neurodevelopmental processes that are dysregulated in autism spectrum disorder (ASD). We examined maternal iron intake in relation to ASD risk in California-born children enrolled in a population-based case-control study (the Childhood Autism Risks from Genetics and the Environment (CHARGE) Study) from 2003 to 2009 with a diagnosis of ASD (n = 520) or typical development (n = 346) that was clinically confirmed using standardized assessments. . . The highest quintile of iron intake during the index period was associated with reduced ASD risk compared with the lowest (adjusted odds ratio = 0.49, 95% confidence interval: 0.29, 0.82), especially during breastfeeding. Low iron intake significantly interacted with advanced maternal age and metabolic conditions; combined exposures were associated with a 5-fold increased ASD risk. Further studies of this link between maternal supplemental iron and ASD are needed to inform ASD prevention strategies.[1] [1] Maternal Intake of Supplemental Iron and Risk of Autism Spectrum Disorder http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/09/22/aje.kwu208 http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/09/22/aje.k...
- smtddr 11y ago
  Because of this my wife took iron supplements during pregnancy with our 2 kids. Seems to have worked? Of course I have no idea what would have happened without the supplements. Also, a lot of these things are part of our household diet even before pregnancy: http://i.imgur.com/rwOgsHS.png http://i.imgur.com/rwOgsHS.png
  - giarc 11y ago
    They are also part of a generally healthy diet.
- npalli 11y ago
alexggordon 11y ago
The interesting thing about the increasing correlation between something scientifically measurable (age in this case) and autism, is that means something physical is changing. If something physical is changing from parents to children, then that means autism is at least partly genetic (it's been shown before[0]) and it might be able to be measured and predicted before birth and development, which further means that it can be treated earlier, and prevented more. I have a friend that was diagnosed with autism early, and through years of help with an awesome therapist it would be hard to tell that they're autistic. That said though, many people don't have access to that kind of help or stability, and therefore suffer significantly more throughout their life. I like making these connections because if people realize that things like autism are physical ailments contracted at birth, and not something that fucking vaccines give you, then perhaps the stigma around them will disappear and we can bring a higher quality of life to all. [0] http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/new_autism_causing_genetic_variant_identified http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/new_autis...
- abandonliberty 11y ago
  Not enough people know that with early detection and treatment most autistic people can live successful, independent lives. An interesting ethics situation arises whenever we have the chance to eradicate a condition: Should we? With Aspergers, a mild variant, researchers have argued that it is a "different cognitive style, not a disorder or a disability, and that it should be removed from the standard Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, much as homosexuality was removed." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome#Society_and_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome#Society_and_...
  - jerf 11y ago
    I'm really leery of this recent push towards trying to create "acceptance" around autism. Yes, some people are only mildly autistic and can live mostly normal lives with significant extra help. If my luck holds, my autistic son will fit into that category. But autism is also the completely non-verbal 12-year-old I recently encountered at an indoor play structure, whose only verbal communication was the characteristic autistic squawk (I've heard it from my son too, and quite a few other of the autistic kids we've met through various groups), and who only narrowly avoided scratching his mother when she tried to remove his empty milk cup by virtue of her having long practice at dodging his clumsy movements. (I don't think he was deliberately trying to hurt her, but that matters little once the hands get moving.) I'll also be blunt, because I think too many people dance around this issue out of fear... even parenting a mildly autistic child is unbelievably emotionally exhausting. A great deal of those human interactions that are part of the reason to have children, or, if you find that too, ah, direct, one of the major things that helps you get through all the difficult work at 3am and during toilet training and all those other times... gone. I was actually creeped out a bit when holding another parent's baby a few months ago, because their five-month old was making eye contact with me... an experience I am not used to. (My other kid can't either, but for other reasons.) That's what I'm used to. It's hard to even express until you're in the middle of it, but it's hard. Honestly, improving autism isn't all about just the autistic person's life; they don't live isolated lives, in fact, they're drawing more than average resources, emotional and otherwise, from those around them. Those who live around the autistic person could benefit from autism being improved. And I'm grateful for what research has been done that has in fact been helpful. Never in a hundred years of parenting would I have imagined the amazing transformation that can come over my kid just by strapping 2 pounds of workout weights to his legs... I never would have made the proprioception connection without the research that has been done on the topic. So you'll forgive me if I get a bit nervous about anything that makes it even REMOTELY sound like maybe we should just shut down all the research and "accept". My son may need emotional acceptance, but he doesn't need acceptance of his autism... he needs research on how to deal with it, and parents who do not simply let him retreat into his own little world and pull the entrance in after him, something he clearly wanted to do when he was 3 and 4, thinking it's just another choice. Do not stop the research. Do not just "accept" autism. If your experience with autism leads you to the conclusion that's a valid choice, then be grateful you were only grazed by the bullet. Not everybody was, and that may even include some people around you who were only indirectly affected.
fecak 11y ago
In most posts about autism here, a reader is unaware of the early signs. Early intervention is a key in treatment. For the benefit of those who don't know some potential clues: not pointing, no/low eye contact, non-verbal/no babbling, rote behaviors, toe walking, no facial expressions, lack of response to outside stimuli. Further reading with milestones by age here http://www.autismsciencefoundation.org/autism-early-signs http://www.autismsciencefoundation.org/autism-early-signs
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

33 points by jrs235 11y ago

"Another hypothesis is that people who have children at advanced ages may do so because they themselves are “on the spectrum,” and may have social difficulties that made it tough for them to couple up and become parents for much of their early adult lives; in these cases, researchers theorize, there may be a genetic link to autism." Ouch. I wonder if there's any truth to this, it's certainly an interesting hypothesis!

tsotha 11y ago
It wouldn't explain why the incidence of autism is increasing, though.
- ekianjo 11y ago
  That is, I think, explained by the fact that they have broadened quite a bit the definition of autism in recent history -> and higher awareness from parents results in higher diagnosis rates. Hardly surprising.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  There is also the contribution of assortative mating.
- wil421 11y ago
  Do we really know if it is increasing? Or has our ability to detect it increased? I wonder the same things about cancer and I believe that in the past 50+ years we have identified more types of cancer. Same with autism, the spectrum has broadened in the past decades. People who were once just plain weird or different for my parents generation could now be classified as having autism in my generation. It would be interesting to see a study if cancer or autism are actually increasing or if we are just now finding diseases that have plagued mankind for generations.
  - dghf 11y ago
    I was under the impression that at least part of the perceived rise in cancer was because more people used to die of things like heart disease in their sixties or even fifties, and thus didn't live long enough to get cancer. (I have no links or data to back this up.)
  - __z 11y ago
    >I wonder the same things about cancer and I believe that in the past 50+ years we have identified more types of cancer. I wrote a long post about this a few weeks ago but the long story short is YES! We absolutely have detected more (asymptomatic) cancers with increased screening of healthy people. Here's my previous post - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9621249 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9621249 Here's some random links: https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/screening-for-disease-in-people-without-symptoms-the-reality/ https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/screening-for-disease-i... https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/a-skeptical-look-at-screening-tests/ https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/a-skeptical-look-at-scr... >Prostate cancer is very common but isn’t always harmful. It is found in 80% of autopsies where the men died of something else. Many more men die with prostate cancer than because of it. >The screening test for prostate cancer is a blood test for prostate-specific antigen (PSA). This is not a yes-or-no test. It must be interpreted in the context of the patient’s age and risk factors and the rate of rise, and any cut-off level is arbitrary and will miss some small percentage of cancers. If the PSA test is positive, the next step is biopsy. Typically, 12 needle biopsies are done, 6 on each side. They find cancer in 25% of patients. But if you go back and do more biopsies, you’ll find cancer in 25% more patients. Theoretically, if you could see every cell in the prostate, you might be able to find a cancer cell or two in almost everyone, most of which would never progress or kill the patient. So you have to decide how many biopsies are reasonable. If you find cancer on a biopsy, the next step is treatment, and treatments for prostate cancer are not benign. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/11/overkill-atul-gawande http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/11/overkill-atul-g... >we’ve assumed, he says, that cancers are all like rabbits that you want to catch before they escape the barnyard pen. But some are more like birds—the most aggressive cancers have already taken flight before you can discover them, which is why some people still die from cancer, despite early detection. And lots are more like turtles. They aren’t going anywhere. Removing them won’t make any difference. >Over the past two decades, we’ve tripled the number of thyroid cancers we detect and remove in the United States, but we haven’t reduced the death rate at all. In South Korea, widespread ultrasound screening has led to a fifteen-fold increase in detection of small thyroid cancers. Thyroid cancer is now the No. 1 cancer diagnosed and treated in that country. But, as Welch points out, the death rate hasn’t dropped one iota there, either. (Meanwhile, the number of people with permanent complications from thyroid surgery has skyrocketed.) It’s all over-diagnosis. We’re just catching turtles.
- pavel_lishin 11y ago
  I have a theory that the folk tales of changelings - babies being stolen by and replaced with fairies - are probably sparked by children with autism in the past. From what I understand, sometimes a child can seem to be developing neurotypically for a long time before developing symptoms of Asperger's or autism pretty suddenly. If you're a farmer in 1400, your child suddenly stops being communicative, and effectively turns into a different person. Obviously fairies did it.
  - salgernon 11y ago
    Related discussion (where I mention the same conclusion, not that I'm an expert, someone else mentioned a book about this subject.) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9245022 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9245022
- randomdata 11y ago
  Assuming it is increasing and not a matter of it simply being detected more frequently, perhaps it has become easier for parents 'on the spectrum' to eventually find partners? The rise of online dating comes to mind.
jmkni 11y ago
After the clusterfuck that was MMR -> Autism in the 90's, I'm wary of any news stories linking anything to Autism. This is an interesting angle though.
rlpb 11y ago
It's great to see this kind of point made in articles intended for the public, rather than imply causation where it has not been shown. I feel that this is a major step forward for popular science reporting; the journalist deserves credit here. Another great example from the same article: “Risk doesn’t mean cause,” he notes. “These are risk factors helping us to understand ideological pathways — but not a cause in itself.”
__z 11y ago
Blah, I think this is really simplistic and assumes way too much and doesn't look at the big picture. The group that is delaying childbirth the most are college educated women. The assumption (which may or may not have value) is that college educated and career focused women are delaying childbirth to focus on finishing school and establishing their careers first, not that they are "bad at coupling up" because they have social difficulties. I have a personal hypothesis that college educated women may be "bad a coupling up" because they can afford to be more picky - they may not feel a need to get married or be in a relationship for economic security so they can delay "settling down with someone" until they find a more desirable partner. Or even that being college educated makes you have higher standards. (not sure about that part) Combine that with the fact that this group is very unlikely to have a child out of wedlock. http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/03/getting-married-later-is-great-for-college-educated-women/274040/ http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/03/getting-mar... >College-educated women are unlikely to have a child before getting married For college-educated women, the average age of first birth (30) has risen along with the average age of marriage (27). Only 12 percent of births by college graduates are to unmarried women. >Women without college degrees are very likely to have a child before getting married Less-educated women have a much different experience with marriage and childbirth. For women without a college degree, the average age of first birth has not risen apace with the average age of marriage. The average age of first birth for this group is lower than the average marriage age. For women who dropped out of high school, the average age of first birth is 20, while the average marriage age is 25; 83 percent of first births in this demographic are to unmarried mothers. For women who graduated from high school and went to some college, the average age for first birth is 24 and the average marriage age is 27; 58 percent of first births are to unwed mothers. (This isn't even taking into the consideration that the change in the diagnostic criteria for autism has changed...)

wozniacki 11y ago

I think this topic is too important for it to go discussed meagerly or without a consensus opinion - however loose - based on an array of the most current exhaustive studies on the condition. Too often these findings pop up in popular media without any backdrop or without the larger context of other studies, whether with similar or dissimilar findings. Here is a study that links autism to low iron intake among pregnant women: Iron deficiency affects 40%–50% of pregnancies. Iron is critical for early neurodevelopmental processes that are dysregulated in autism spectrum disorder (ASD). We examined maternal iron intake in relation to ASD risk in California-born children enrolled in a population-based case-control study (the Childhood Autism Risks from Genetics and the Environment (CHARGE) Study) from 2003 to 2009 with a diagnosis of ASD (n = 520) or typical development (n = 346) that was clinically confirmed using standardized assessments. . . The highest quintile of iron intake during the index period was associated with reduced ASD risk compared with the lowest (adjusted odds ratio = 0.49, 95% confidence interval: 0.29, 0.82), especially during breastfeeding. Low iron intake significantly interacted with advanced maternal age and metabolic conditions; combined exposures were associated with a 5-fold increased ASD risk. Further studies of this link between maternal supplemental iron and ASD are needed to inform ASD prevention strategies.[1] [1] Maternal Intake of Supplemental Iron and Risk of Autism Spectrum Disorder http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/09/22/aje.kwu208 http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/09/22/aje.k...

smtddr 11y ago
Because of this my wife took iron supplements during pregnancy with our 2 kids. Seems to have worked? Of course I have no idea what would have happened without the supplements. Also, a lot of these things are part of our household diet even before pregnancy: http://i.imgur.com/rwOgsHS.png http://i.imgur.com/rwOgsHS.png
- giarc 11y ago
  They are also part of a generally healthy diet.
npalli 11y ago

alexggordon 11y ago

The interesting thing about the increasing correlation between something scientifically measurable (age in this case) and autism, is that means something physical is changing. If something physical is changing from parents to children, then that means autism is at least partly genetic (it's been shown before[0]) and it might be able to be measured and predicted before birth and development, which further means that it can be treated earlier, and prevented more. I have a friend that was diagnosed with autism early, and through years of help with an awesome therapist it would be hard to tell that they're autistic. That said though, many people don't have access to that kind of help or stability, and therefore suffer significantly more throughout their life. I like making these connections because if people realize that things like autism are physical ailments contracted at birth, and not something that fucking vaccines give you, then perhaps the stigma around them will disappear and we can bring a higher quality of life to all. [0] http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/new_autism_causing_genetic_variant_identified http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/new_autis...

abandonliberty 11y ago
Not enough people know that with early detection and treatment most autistic people can live successful, independent lives. An interesting ethics situation arises whenever we have the chance to eradicate a condition: Should we? With Aspergers, a mild variant, researchers have argued that it is a "different cognitive style, not a disorder or a disability, and that it should be removed from the standard Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, much as homosexuality was removed." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome#Society_and_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome#Society_and_...
- jerf 11y ago
  I'm really leery of this recent push towards trying to create "acceptance" around autism. Yes, some people are only mildly autistic and can live mostly normal lives with significant extra help. If my luck holds, my autistic son will fit into that category. But autism is also the completely non-verbal 12-year-old I recently encountered at an indoor play structure, whose only verbal communication was the characteristic autistic squawk (I've heard it from my son too, and quite a few other of the autistic kids we've met through various groups), and who only narrowly avoided scratching his mother when she tried to remove his empty milk cup by virtue of her having long practice at dodging his clumsy movements. (I don't think he was deliberately trying to hurt her, but that matters little once the hands get moving.) I'll also be blunt, because I think too many people dance around this issue out of fear... even parenting a mildly autistic child is unbelievably emotionally exhausting. A great deal of those human interactions that are part of the reason to have children, or, if you find that too, ah, direct, one of the major things that helps you get through all the difficult work at 3am and during toilet training and all those other times... gone. I was actually creeped out a bit when holding another parent's baby a few months ago, because their five-month old was making eye contact with me... an experience I am not used to. (My other kid can't either, but for other reasons.) That's what I'm used to. It's hard to even express until you're in the middle of it, but it's hard. Honestly, improving autism isn't all about just the autistic person's life; they don't live isolated lives, in fact, they're drawing more than average resources, emotional and otherwise, from those around them. Those who live around the autistic person could benefit from autism being improved. And I'm grateful for what research has been done that has in fact been helpful. Never in a hundred years of parenting would I have imagined the amazing transformation that can come over my kid just by strapping 2 pounds of workout weights to his legs... I never would have made the proprioception connection without the research that has been done on the topic. So you'll forgive me if I get a bit nervous about anything that makes it even REMOTELY sound like maybe we should just shut down all the research and "accept". My son may need emotional acceptance, but he doesn't need acceptance of his autism... he needs research on how to deal with it, and parents who do not simply let him retreat into his own little world and pull the entrance in after him, something he clearly wanted to do when he was 3 and 4, thinking it's just another choice. Do not stop the research. Do not just "accept" autism. If your experience with autism leads you to the conclusion that's a valid choice, then be grateful you were only grazed by the bullet. Not everybody was, and that may even include some people around you who were only indirectly affected.

fecak 11y ago

In most posts about autism here, a reader is unaware of the early signs. Early intervention is a key in treatment. For the benefit of those who don't know some potential clues: not pointing, no/low eye contact, non-verbal/no babbling, rote behaviors, toe walking, no facial expressions, lack of response to outside stimuli. Further reading with milestones by age here http://www.autismsciencefoundation.org/autism-early-signs http://www.autismsciencefoundation.org/autism-early-signs

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]