Read Anne's comments and view the links after the jump.
Nov 6, 2013, NEW STUDY ON SIGNS OF AUTISM IN INFANTS -- LA Times, NY Times, ABC News, NY Daily News
Nov 5, 2013, Huffington: When Skepticism Becomes Denial: The Unholy Alliance Between Science Denial Movements
Within hours yesterday news of a new study about seeing the signs of autism in two month old babies appeared in lots of places in the news.
LA Times : Tracking babies' eyes, scientists find signs of autism in 2-month-olds
"Children with autism spectrum disorders usually aren’t diagnosed until they are at least 2 years old, but a new study finds that signs of the condition are apparent as early as two months after birth.
"Researchers focused on babies’ ability to make eye contact with caregivers, since lack of eye contact is one of the hallmarks of autism. Among typical children, interest in the eyes increased steadily with age. But for children with autism, interest in the eyes waned starting between 2 and 6 months of age.
"By the time they reached their second birthdays, levels of eye fixation among children with autism were only half as high as levels seen in typically developing children, according to a report published Wednesday by the journal Nature.
"Though researchers expected to see a difference between the two groups of kids, they were surprised that the infants who were later diagnosed with autism started out developing just like their peers. That suggests that 'some social adaptive behaviors may initially be intact” in babies’ brains, which would “offer a remarkable opportunity for treatment,' the researchers wrote."
My questions for the researchers is, why did these infants start out with normal vision? What caused them to stop making eye contact? Will this be used a way to disprove the claim by so many parents that at 18 months or 2 years of age, their children regressed into autism? Are we supposed to believe that they just missed the signs when they were infants? Notice there was no mention of starting vaccines at the time kids are born and what the accumulative effects of that might be.
"5. The growing movement, even by very well-educated persons in first-world nations, to block vaccinations of their children, in spite of the fact that claimed links to autism or other childhood medical conditions have been soundly and repeatedly refuted."
I had a number of comments that I was going to post, but I was only allowed to put one up. Suddenly this line appeared with my comment: "Due to the potentially sensitive nature of this article, your comment may take longer to appear publicly"
My comment is still on the story, but I can't add any.
I notice that in point #5 about the controversy over vaccines and autism, there was a link to the Centers for Disease and Control. Those are the people who run the vaccine program. What else would we expect them to say?
Posted by Age of Autism at November 07, 2013 at 6:00 PM