Soaring Autism Rates Linked to Environmental Causes September 2, 2009
Posted by Daniel Downs in health, medicine, news, research.add a comment
A study recently published in the journal Epidemiology has suggested that rapid increases in autism rates in California cannot be explained by migratory trends and looser diagnosis criteria, but is instead most likely down to environmental exposures. Not exactly news to those well versed in natural healing, but perhaps such findings will finally represent a breakthrough of sorts for the scientific and medical community.
Autism Symptoms and Statistics
Autism is characterized by difficulties in relating to events, objects and people. Some specific signs include fixation on certain physical objects, lack of eye contact, and repetitive bodily movements such as head banging.
In 1990, there were only 205 reported new cases of autism in California, while 6.2 out of every 10,000 children born in the state developed the condition by the time they were five years old. The respective figures, however, had ballooned to 3,000 new cases in 2006 and 42.5 for every 10,000 in 2001. What`s more, these numbers are not letting up and continue to escalate. Such trends are not unique to California, either, with statistics on the number of autistic children also soaring alarmingly across the United States.
According to 2007 statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1 in every 150 births develops autism. Its growth rate, at 10 to 17% per year, is fastest among all developmental disabilities. A London School of Economics study estimated that the condition costs $90 billion each year, and the Autism Society of America estimated that this will rise to $200 – $400 billion in 10 years (this was calculated in Feb 2003).
Details and Findings of Study
Quite amazingly, many medical officials have for years postulated that the rising trend of autism is artificial, and it only exists because of changes in diagnosis as well as migration patterns. To check things out, the study team analyzed 17 years of state data tracking developmental disabilities, as well as used Census Bureau data and birth records to calculate autism rates and diagnosis age. They concluded that migration to California had no effect on the state`s increasing autisms rates.
In addition, while doctors were found to be diagnosing autism earlier due to heightened awareness, this change could only account for a 24% increase in autism figures. Further, the diagnosis of milder cases could be responsible for another 56% of the rise, with changes in state reporting making up a 120% increase.
Put together, the increase due to these factors is still way short of the actual rise. There must thus be other very significant causative factors, likely to be environmental and genetic in nature.
Environmental versus Genetic Factors – Time for a Shift in Research
Unfortunately, research resources are currently heavily skewed towards genetic factors – funding for studies conducted on such causes of autism is 10 to 20 times as much as funding for environmental factors.
“The advances in molecular genetics have tended to obscure the principle that genes are always acting in and on a particular environment. This article, I think, will restore some balance to our thinking,” said Dr Bernard Weiss, a professor of environmental medicine and pediatrics at the University of Rochester Medical Center. He also said that “excessive emphasis has been placed on genetics as a cause”.
And it is time for mindsets, especially those of people controlling research funds, to change. “It`s time to start looking for the environmental culprits responsible for the remarkable increase in the rate of autism in California,” said Dr Hertz-Picciotto, an epidemiology professor at University of California, Davis, the leader of the study. “There`s genetics and there`s environment. And genetics don`t change in such short periods of time,” she also said.
This was echoed by Dr Weiss, who concurred that environmental factors should be more closely looked at. He also said that the autism rate reported in the UC Davis study “seems astonishing”.
All in all, the study team has advocated a nationwide shift in autism research, moving from studies on genetic factors towards potential environmental ones, such as infant and fetal exposure to pesticides, chemicals found in common household agents, and viruses. Along those lines, the dangers and effects of childhood vaccinations should be carefully investigated, too – this is likely to be a significant factor.
Environmental Causes and Factors
Strong voices, such as those belonging to some parent groups, assert that childhood vaccines are responsible. This is because a preservative used in them, thimerosal, is actually a mercury compound. But while this substance had been removed in 1999, autism rate increases show no signs of reversal. Is anyone looking into dental mercury as a possible cause?
Besides mercury, many chemicals in use today are also neuro-developmental toxins, i.e. they affect the growth of the brains, and these include brominated flame retardants (used in electronics and furniture), lead, pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls.
Other studies have shown that mothers who used pet flea shampoos had twice the likelihood of having autistic children, and that an association existed between autism and phthalates, substances used in cosmetics and vinyl. Ingredients in certain antibacterial soaps may have a part to play too, according to Dr Hertz-Picciotto, who is also a researcher at UC Davis` M.I.N.D. Institute, said to be a leading autism research facility.
In addition, there is fluoride in tap water – could it be playing a part, too? According to Dr Vyvyan Howard, a medical pathologist and toxicologist, and also President of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment, fluoride is a developmental toxin, a neurotoxin which may also affect the intelligence of the child. He feels there is no place for fluoride in our water supplies. Read more about this issue here: http://www.naturalnews.com/024855.html
What is quite clear is that there are many possible causative factors, and extensive research will have to be carried out to reveal more. “I don`t think there`s going to be one smoking gun in this autism problem. It`s such a big world out there and we know so little at this point. If we`re going to stop the rise in autism in California, we need to keep these studies going and expand them to the extent possible,” Dr Hertz-Picciotto said.
The UC Davis researchers are in the process of looking at the association between childhood exposure to flame retardants and pesticides to the occurrence of autism.
Conclusion
Autism, from several perspectives, is clearly a serious health issue. While many officials and experts are dilly dallying and perhaps finally beginning to accept that environmental causes are behind the huge surges in rates of ailments like autism and asthma, many of us have long been aware of such an (obvious) association.
In fact, knowledgeable natural health care practitioners and progressive medical doctors pay a great deal of attention on eliminating sources of environmental toxins and detoxifying their patients while working with autistic persons.
Will it be too late? Who knows. However, besides working with a behavioral therapist for immediate improvements, that is the best (and perhaps only) long-term and true solution which tackles the root causes. Medical chemical drugs do not offer true healing; they never did, and never will.
Source: Natural News, February 18, 2009
America’s Aristocratic Founding Fathers August 31, 2009
Posted by Daniel Downs in American history, Declaration of Independence, equality, politics.add a comment
It is widely believed that the American republic is ultimately based on the principle that all men are created equal. Contrary to universal opinion, however, this principle, far from being wholly democratic, is a precondition for any genuine aristocracy! Needless to say, so shocking or paradoxical an assertion requires supportive argument, for which purpose consider the argument of my book On the Silence of the Declaration of Independence.
The statement of the Declaration that all men are created equal was intended to inform mankind in general, and the British government in particular, that Americans belong to the same species as Englishmen, hence that they are endowed by nature with certain unalienable rights peculiar to homo sapiens.
Since man did not create his own nature, he did not create the rights he possesses by virtue of his nature. Hence, he cannot be justly divested of those rights so long as he does not violate his nature or that which distinguishes man and beasts. Of the qualities that distinguish men from beasts, suffice to mention philosophical reason and moral sensibility or the sense of shame. Thus, only because man is homo rationalis et civilis does he possess (or can he seriously claim) the unalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
Notice that while the statesmen of the Declaration claimed that Americans possess these rights as species, they were being prevented from fully exercising those rights as individuals. This implicit distinction between the possession and exercise of rights is of profound significance. For nothing in the Declaration suggests that all men as individuals are entitled to the actual exercise of their rights without qualification.
In proof of this, it is sufficient to point out that the Declaration of Independence was incorporated into most of the state constitutions, many of which prescribed property and other qualifications for voting and for office. An implicit distinction was therefore made between men’s rights and privileges. Whereas the rights men possess as species are defined by nature, the privileges they exercise as individuals are defined by law, whether written or customary.
Accordingly, the equality spoken of in the Declaration does not extend to privileges. Nevertheless, and strange as it may seem, the notion of privilege is a logical consequence of the Declaration’s principle of equality! For the principle that all men are created equal should be understood as a moral prohibition against any and all privileges based on race, nationality, class, or parentage. The only moral title to any privilege which society may confer must be based on individual merit.
In other words, what the equality of the Declaration requires is that no person be precluded by law from earning any established privilege on the basis of factors extrinsic to human nature or to those intellectual and moral qualities that distinguish the human from the sub-human. Examined in this light, the principle that all men are created equal—which does not mean they are born equal in their intellectual, moral, and physical endowments—may be regarded as the precondition of a genuine aristocracy!
As Jefferson wrote to John Adams: “I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. . . . The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society.” It thus appears that the American polity had its origin in a synthesis of democratic and aristocratic principles. This synthesis is consistent with the notion of government based on the consent of the governed, provided the governed consist of an enlightened and public-spirited body of citizens—citizens who possess the capacity to discern, select, and defer to men of merit.
This democratic-aristocratic synthesis underlies The Federalist Papers and is most clearly evident in its recurring theme of deference to merit. In Federalist 36, Alexander Hamilton declares: “There are strong minds in every walk of life that will rise superior to the disadvantages of situation, and will command the tribute due to their merit, not only from the classes to which they particularly belong, but from society in general. The door ought to be equally open to all.”
To be sure, James Madison admits (the obvious) in Federalist 10 that “Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.” Nevertheless he expects that the popularly elected members of the House of Representatives will more often than not be of such caliber as “to refine and enlarge the public views,” representatives “whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.”
As for the (original) Senate, inasmuch as the “State legislatures who appoint the senators, will in general be composed of the most enlightened and respectable citizens, there is reason to presume, says John Jay in Federalist 64, “that their attention and their votes will be directed to those men only who have become the most distinguished by their abilities and virtue, and in whom the people perceive just grounds for confidence.”
Finally, in Federalist 68, after analyzing the advantages of the electoral college method of choosing a President, Hamilton concludes: “It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters preeminent for abilities and virtue.”
Thus, even in this brief sketch (developed at great length in my Philosophy of the American Constitution) we see that the government established by America’s Founding Fathers exemplifies a synthesis of democratic and aristocratic principles. This will be made even more apparent in my forthcoming book Toward a Renaissance of Israel and America in which I develop a Judaic understanding of how America’s great founders combined the protection of economic interests and the cultivation of virtue.
By Prof. Paul Eidelberg
Keep Jerusalem United
