A Hypothesis: The rise in children diagnosed with autism, across racial and socio-economic backgrounds, is attributed to the pronounced use of Acetaminophen in children from birth to age 5. The theory of vaccine causation has masked the true cause of this epidemic. Acetaminophen is the sole environmental cause of this epidemic. These children are suffering from Acetaminophen Induced Autism. When children are diagnosed with autism by the age of two or three many parents often note that while their children have passed all hearing tests they did suffer from one or even frequent ear infections as infants and babies. This is notable because infants with ear infections are often given Acetaminophen (as it is the most often recommended by nurses and physicians) for the pain and crankiness associated with the ear infections. A child that is particularly sick or feverish between birth and age 5 may be given Acetaminophen on a regular basis to treat fevers and for general comfort. Parents often do not switch to Ibuprofen since they become brand loyal to the Acetaminophen products. Parents say have been told by nurses and pediatricians to give infants and babies Acetaminophen not only after each vaccination but before a vaccination is administered to prevent a fever, whether or not it is known if a fever will result for that child. Parents have given Acetaminophen for crankiness and the assumption of pain due to teething. Many children’s cold and cough medications sold over the counter have a fever reducer (Acetaminophen) added. Parents may or may not be aware of this additional Acetaminophen being given with this medication. Parents of children diagnosed with autism often note that their children seem to have a lowered immune system (getting sick more often or for longer periods of time than their siblings) and complain that the autistic children suffer from frequent diarrhea. Parents note they have seen success with the addition of probiotics to the child’s diet. According to these parents the consumption of daily probiotics has improved immunity and resulted in normal, firm stools. Many parents of autistic children have found success with dietary changes and supplements – indicating that these dietary changes are reversing an environmental cause. This hypothesis contends that the use of Acetaminophen in infants and children through age 5 has resulted in compromised immune systems and digestive issues in addition to the cognitive and developmental delays and impairments that reveal themselves in the typical autistic characteristics – lack of verbal communication, eye contact and social engagement. Acetaminophen induced autism can be prevented. The use of Acetaminophen in infants and children through age 5 must be reviewed and severely reduced. This hypothesis suggests that Acetaminophen should only be used in this group in emergency situations and should not be available in over-the-counter form for infants and children under age 6.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18055656

A temporary acute reduction implies that the reduction is due to acute regulation and not changes in neuroanatomy.

I have a long post on my blog as to what I think the physiology of that change in acute regulation is.

I’d encourage your readers to have a look at this ABC news article. There, parents are claiming recovery. Let them know about this study.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/T.....d=10045951

I forgot to add—part of my frustration comes from a recent blog post by Jenny McCarthy on the Huffington Post (discussed in detail by Orac). She’s on the board of Generation Rescue, and probably the most well known spokesperson for the cause of a whole cluster of organizations. In her piece she makes the comment:

Most doctors in our community share a common trait: their own child regressed into autism. They fixed their kid first and knew they’d have to spend their lives helping parents do the same, accepting the loss of “mainstream” status in their field.

Who’s afraid of autism recovery? Perhaps it’s the diagnosticians and pediatricians who have made a career out of telling parents autism is a hopeless condition.

Besides the fact that most DAN doctors I’ve read about have not recovered their kids, she seems to be pushing the same tactic—no one is concerned about “recovered” kids. One wonders whether Ms. McCarthy is ignorant of the facts or if she and her orgs are “afraid” of what will happen as the ideas of improving the wellbeing of autistics is separated from the “vaccine injury” message.

thanks for that information. I missed that. Interestingly, the recruitment started over 6 months ago. I would think that Lyn Redwood and Mark Blaxill, members of SafeMinds and participants in the IACC would be making great publicity out of this. I would think that the IACC watchers on the Age of Autism blog would make a big deal out of this. Here is a fragment of a recent comment (Jan 2010) on AoA, in response to a post highly critical of the IACC:

“’Here’s a thought Dr. Rice, if you haven’t been able to find the “origin” of autism – why not try it the other way? Go to the recovered children’s families and ask – What the heck did you do to help your child?”

Did anyone correct this person? Did the blogger actually inform this person that the study was already underway?

When it comes to issues like the truth that the budgets recommended by the IACC are heavily weighted towards environmental causation and the fact that the “remitted” autism study is ongoing, I’m covering it. Blogs like the Age of Autism are silent on these issues, letting their readership think that the IACC ignores their wishes.

The groups with a focus on vaccines tend to push the concept of “biomedical recovery” and “environmental causation”, but they don’t seem to care when the studies they supposedly called for are actually funded.

http://health.groups.yahoo.com.....age/272626

http://health.groups.yahoo.com.....age/264588

IIRC, the only responses were silence, or people who wished they could participate – if their child were recovered, rather than recovering.

I think this is a very interesting study, but my prediction is that they will be unable to find enough children who qualify for the REM-AUT group.

@Ian – good point!

That is to say it is one of Wittgensteins language games in that the notion is predicated upon how one defines autism at any one time, and that recovery is wholly dependent upon refining the categories across an age range. I cannot see, given that there are as yet no bio-markers for autism any wider validity at all.

It is essentially like defining recovery from epilepsy by observing people whose epilepsy is controlled by medication. You won’t see it, (by the same tokens that even the so called gold standards of autism measure the phenomenon) but it is still there.

Heck if I walk into a room, shake hands politely with a physician, fake eye contact, sit down, make my excuses and then depart, you won’t have measured autism or anything else unless you apply surmise and pseudo science to come up with your conclusion whatever that might be.

Larry