Television and Autism

One thing that I remember reading on the topic was that it is genetic, and that putting a bunch of autistic people together (for instance Silicon Valley), could lead to a high rate of diagnosis in children. So for all you Software Engineers, find yourself an art major.

I just heard that TV's crush about 10 children to death each year. I figured it was bad for you but...

As a parent of an Autistic child I'd sooner lend credibility to analyzing skull lumps to identify schytzophrinics. Random association to common events as a diagnostic tool is fools folly. I new when my son came out of the womb he was different. Accurate Autisim identification & diagnosis is less than 20 years old. Just last night a freind descibed a nephew who was 17 years old and obviuosly "in the spectrum", but his parents were in denial from the stigma associated with the diagnosis. This poor child has been denied the special education he needs to assimilate, largly due to simple ignorance. For the record; Autisim is NOT an intelligence indicator. Autisitic kids like my son are hypersensitive to all sorts of stimuli, including sight, sound, textile, olphactory, and even temperature. When you or I sit in a room full of people, we easily dismiss & remove distractions and noises not associated with our goals. The Autistic child is bombarded with the speaker's perfume, the buzz of the light ballist, the sound of the truck backing up out the window, the feel of the A/c blowing on his skin. Could you learn effectivley under those circumstances? Associating TV with causation is akin to saying blacks can't swim. You can make a good empiracal argument, but you would still be a fool.

Well said. Thank-you for enlightening me on what it must be like to be Autistic.

I'm sorry for you and admire your ability to cope with the situation which you have found yourself in. It seems to me that your conclusion about the poster of this topic is too harsh. A person is not a fool simply for making an observation and putting a theory forward.

It has been speculated that Autism is liked to a brain disorder which many times is associated with "synesthesia" where multiple senses are "meshed" together. This is a physical disruption in the brain where a person will experience symptoms such as feeling a sound, or smelling something they are seeing. It's weird to try and imagine this phenomenon, and I have trouble with it myself.

Autism hase also been linked with certain "learned activities" such as social behavior. This is where autistic people cannot "put themselves in someone elses shoes". It is imposible for them to imagine what someone elses' perception of them is. Perhaps this is partly due to the brain malfunction, and perhaps there are some developemental contributions to this behavioral characteristic. There are indeed different degrees of autism, and it is possible that certain stimuli introduced to a young autistic child may have a compounding effect on the problem.

It seems to me that the theory introduced by the poster is not foolish, but in fact it is rather interesting. More research should be done on the impact of childhood influences of the severity of the disease, and theories should not be thrown away as foolish unless there is objective evidence which would impel one to do so.

Wow, a little harsh- calling people who are trying to figure it all out "fools." How are we going to help people with autism if the parents take everything personally, and lash out like that at people making observations?

I'm sure you have been through a lot of pain, and you seem to describe autism well. But your anger towards people trying to help is uncalled for, and sounded really defensive. It makes me think you might be in denial over what may have caused your child's autism. You have to be willing to hear these things. Resorting to name calling isn't going to solve anything.

I am not an engineer but I do have a post-graduate qualification in Statistics: as part of my course we were encouraged to think about the difference between random association and causation, with the classic example being the relationship between salaries for Baptist Ministers in Northern cities and prevalence of alcoholism. Will anyone who thinks that increasing the number or the pay of Baptist Ministers increases alcoholism please make him/herself a Dunce's cap and sit in the corner?

I find it too difficult to believe that Guest#3 is in denial because he rejects the easy option of blaming an external influence over which he has no control - a common feature of those in denial is to do exactly the opposite and say that it is all the fault of the hospital or the MMR jab or cow's milk or fluoride in the water supply or ... Guest #3 has honestly faced up to the fact that his son was born different (I should say more different - each of us is born different): how can that be denial?
I want to listen to anyone who is trying to help but those indulging in random association without proper research or thinking through their arguments are not helping.

As a teacher, I have to say, that it is impossible to ignore the fact that I have observed a serious problem with autistic children consuming way too much television. While I can appreciate that the parents do need a rest, we have to be willing to look at the fact that this practice of television consumption is a problem. It seems as though people lash out, every time someone tries to mention the fact that some behaviors might be a little more managable if parents modified or eliminated television consumption. While I don't pretend to know if it is a causation or corralation, I have to say that after 17 years in the classroom, one cannot ignore the fact that children who don't watch t.v. seem to have a better shot at success in this world.

I say this as a person who wants parents to understand that they are hurting their children by putting them infront of the t.v. - Do what you want with my insight, but I and many of my co-workers have come to the conclusion that T.V is damaging (let's not forget what the American Pediatric Society says too).

Why not give it a try? Get your kid out of the television for one month - Just try it!!! If we are wrong, than fine....you can put your kid back infront of the t.v. then. However, I think if you approach this with an open mind, and not get defensive, you will find a positive change for the better in your child.

Since I did not even own a TV when my son was born, I think that I can be fairly sure that his autism was not caused by our leaving him in front of a television. He was, in fact, diagnosed as autistic before we acquired one.

I have not and do not need to "lash out" at suggested criticisms of my behaviour management regarding TV. I was making a comment - yes a critical one- about people who use "post hoc ergo propter hoc" instead of proper mathematical or scientific analysis. I'm not sure when someone last tried "pre hoc ergo propter hoc" to criticise me but he was fairly effectively demolished by my then boss before I got a chance to speak.

I cannot say what happens in the USA but in my son's primary school class watching TV was apparently a consequence of their autism - a few formulaic programmes and, almost invariably, "Thomas the Tank Engine" videos.
There are a few occasions when we put him in front of the TV - when a programme is particularly relevant to what he is studying at school (e.g. a series by a leading historian on the first World War) or is concerning autism or children with learning difficulties or disabilities. in both of which he takes a keen interest, having encountered several at school. I make no apology for this.

Ad hominem attacks that are based on completely false assumptions about my and my son's behaviour do not belong in a scientific debate.

If your son was watching television in a Canadian classroom, that is not up to code, we are not allowed to show t.v. in the classrooms, and the teacher was at fault if he/she was doing that.

If you chose to continue to defend showing television to your children, that is fine.... it is your child.....there is not a lot anyone can do about it.

Put your kid infront of the T.V. all day, and live with the consequences.

Guest,

Please go back and read the post to which you responded. John77 stated that he "did not even own a TV when my son was born". He also said that there are "a few occassions" when he allows his son to watch TV, but that those programs are relevant to the boy's course of study at school, or are about autism.

It's unfair to accuse John77 of putting his son "infront of the T.V. all day". It's cruel to imply that the boy's autism is somehow John77's fault.

Moose

Probably many autistic children do watch a lot of TV. As it has been shown by countless studies that their primary method of processing informtion is visual (as opposed to verbal), that is what one might expect. They get a lot more out of it than they do out of many other activites.

However, that you lend any credence to this 'theory' that TV watching *causes* suggests to me three things:

i) you are so keen to spread the word about how damaging TV is, that you are willing to jump on any bandwagon linking it to any problem, however lacking in real evidence. I think most TV is rubbish and a waste of time; however I also know what a scientific argument looks like (though I am what you in the States would call an arts major), and this isn't it, not by any stretch of the imagination.

ii) you have only the sketchiest idea of what autism actually is. The 'difficult' behaviours are, by and large, a consequence of cognitive and sensory deficits: how will rationing TV help these? Autism is a *whole lot more* than a behaviour pattern.

iii) you haven't read the posts carefully enough, but instead leapt in to judge parents based on incomplete knowledge and prejudice

Yes, some things parents do may help improve certain difficulties autistic kids may have, depending on the child's level of functioning and any hypersensitivities he/she may have - hence the plethora of intensive home-based education methods. I don't think anyone here is denying or would deny that. However, to say that the child's disabiltiy in the first place was caused by anything they did -apart from reproduce and be unlucky - is just plain wrong, and belongs in the dark ages of the 50s and 60s when views like yours caused untold, unnecessary suffering to hundreds of loving, innocent parents. I, too, think you should apologise to John77.

You might as well go back to John Langdon Down who thought Down Syndrome was the fault of the parents for living in bad conditions and getting TB, thus leading to damage to the human stock and a reversion to a less developed racial type (i.e. mongolism). That's about the same level of "science" that we are dealing with here. Unfortunately there is no one "autism gene" to find, so unscientific, untenable ideas like this still abound.

Hello, John77. I'm glad that you returned to comment on this article. As the author of "The Y Files", I encourage you to throw rocks at the stories I post. I would, however, also refer you to a comment made by a Guest on 09/18/2006, "A person is not a fool simply for making an observation and putting a theory forward".

Greg Easterbrook, the Slate writer who originally broached this topic, admits that his ideas about TV and autism are "wholly speculative". I don't have a strong opinion on whether he's write or wrong, but the success of Freakonomics would seem to indicate that some far-out theories are worth the type of statistical analysis that trained professionals such as yourself can provide.

Best Regards,

Moose

P.S. My son enjoys watching "Thomas the Tank Engine" videos, too.

Dear Steve,

I did not necessarily disagree with that comment - although a lot depends on the theory and whether it is compatible with the observation. Guest #3 said that using random association as a diagnostic tool is fool's folly which is somewhat different. These days we are supposed to have scientific medicine that goes in for replicable experiments with control groups so that diagnosis rests on slightly surer foundations. Most medical advances have been based on the thorough investigation of NON-random associations, rather than the simple-minded assumption that a random association implies cause and effect.

I came in firstly to comment about autism in general and the difference between increase in occurrence and increase in diagnosis and later to protest at a scurrilous and ridiculous comment suggesting that Guest #3 was "in denial" because he recognised that his son was autistic without blaming it on an external agency (and in particular the external agency that that writer wished to blame).

I cannot find in my earlier entries any suggestion that my son watches TV or any suggestion that I am defending his doing so yet the "teacher" alleges that I am "lashing out" when someone suggests that his behaviour might be more manageable if we rationed or eliminated TV. On what grounds?
In the real world, as distinct from speculative fantasy, he spends far more time reading than watching TV and his behaviour is rarely a problem.

Is it too much to hope that the teacher will apologise?

It may be worth some scientific analysis of the effect of TV on the development of children IF you can obtain a control group of middle-class American or European children who do not watch TV, but my gut feeling is that it is more important to tackle the impact of TV on obesity than any impact it may have on the incidence of autism. We still do not know all the causes of autism, but the research already done leaves a relatively small number for whom TV could be the cause.

Yours sincerely
John

He's not "calling people who are tryng to figure it all out 'fools'" He's correctly pointing out that their conclusions are based on very bad methodology, so bad that anyone with even the most basic knowledge of genuine scientific enquiry (e.g. me!) can see it. There is no credible evidence whatever that watching TV can "cause" autism (just for a start, autism long pre-dates the invention) and anyone suggesting that it can is not likely to be greeted with grateful, polite attention from parents but with a hearty eye-roll and a "for goodness' sake, don't be so damn stupid'".

If anyone is being oversensitive, it's you, in jumping to the conclusion that any strong objection from a family member of a person with autism must be a personal attack (which I saw no evidence of, myself) based on 'denial', 'anger', 'lashing out' or other irrational motivations. The other poster is NOT 'in denial' about the causes of autism (Freud, you have a lot to answer for!) - he just points out that association is not proof of causation - simple logic, really.

Autism is defined by its effects on the individual, not by its cause.
There are a variety of causes of autism and Asperger's syndrome: some are genetic, some due to birth trauma, some may be environmental (since we don't fully understand the problem, this remains speculation, although the significant alleviation of symptoms in a minority of children when put on special diets makes it very plausible).

The largest part of the rise in numbers diagnosed in recent years where I live (UK Home Counties) is simply down to improved diagnosis and, once the Local Education Authority accepted that there were enough autistic children to justify providing specialised teaching for them in a two or three schools (once the Chairman, and star programmer, of a local software company proved that it is was cheaper to do this than any of the legal alternatives) a couple of good primary schools with dedicated and excellent teachers have achieved amazing results (if the school that took our younger son had forecast the improvement they actually achieved, I should have tried to find an alternative school because I should have thought they were bullshitting). There are a worryingly large number of adults who are obviously (to anyone with experience) autistic, who have never been officially diagnosed so are not provided with appropriate support: this week I met an undiagnosed 70-year-old.

The next largest cause for increase is a side-effect of the reduction in infant mortality. A substantial proportion of those suffering from autism due to birth trauma used to just die, so were never diagnosed. This is a price that we pay for improved medical care.

While I suspect that some marginal cases are tipped over the edge by viruses or allergic reactions, I should not point the finger at Television - over here, where the rate of diagnosis has increased at a similar speed, we don't usually leave babies and toddlers sitting in front of the TV, and autism usually becomes noticeable by or around the age of three. I can't say that it has never happened but it cannot account for more than a handful.

As to the comment by first Guest - a lot of the data suggests that it is not only genetic but sex-linked i.e. three-quarters of the victims are male but the female cases are usually much worse affected which suggests that a defect on the x chromosome is part of the cause. I noticed this after my wife pointed out that an (incomplete) study had found that a disproportionate number of fathers of autistic children were engineers (it failed dismally to analyse the pre-natal occupations of the mothers in looking at a sex-linked syndrome!!). So while marrying an arts major may, of itself, be a good idea for a software engineer, it doesn't solve this problem any more than that of haemophilia (for instance, my wife read History).

Second guest has my sympathy as does, to a much lesser extent, his friend. Fifteen years ago, so presumably also seventeen years ago, there existed a lobby saying "aurism is all the fault of the parents not handling the poor child properly" - when I heard of this I just could not believe it but later came to suspect that it had commercial motives, like most of the touted "miracle cures" for autism, with the sellers claiming credit (and $$$kkk) for the belated natural development of the children in a controlled environment - that socially criminalises BOTH parents for their misfortune. If his friend had announced "my son is autistic" his wife would have been blamed, completely wrongly. I am prepared to accept criticism/blame for my errors/ failures, occasionally put up with blame for others' mistakes but do not expect to have my wife blamed for something that is in no way her fault in order to allow others to make obscene profits. If he looks up www.nas.org.uk he can find links to a lot of advice for both himself and his friend.

See John77's reference to Autism spectrum disorder not being a "disease" per se, but rather a diagnoses of an effect on the individual. There may are MANY things that affect a developing fetus, including genetic, nutritional, toxic, and other factors, all of which may result in a baby that has some level of symptoms that develop as a result, and any or all of which may later be diagnosed as autistic. In addition, there is credible, repeatable, and unfortunately somewhat suppressed evidence to support the contention some have made that reactions - whether allergic or otherwise - to things like Mercury in infant vaccinations DOES, in fact, lead to some instances of autism. Not that anyone would suggest that the diseases for which we have vaccines would be better than the vaccination, but we now have thimerisol-free vaccinations due to market influence and fear of lawsuits brought on by these legitimate cases.

It's similar to early efforts to find a "cause" or a "cure" for "cancer." Now that we know more about mutations and immune systems, we also know that there is no one-thing called cancer, and there are LOTS of agents - genetic, nutritional, and environmental, that lead to greater chances of an individual one day developing some type of cancer. Oh, and then there are direct "causes," that are repeatable, have credible research, and are unfortunate, such as workers at early nuclear power plants that were often exposed accidentally to high doses of various radioactive isotopes...and now meet up in the cancer-ward waiting rooms where they all have the same prostrate cancer or bone cancer or what have you.

Autism is a spectrum, not "a disease," and as such a wider and wider portion of that spectrum has now been identified and diagnosed, leading to much broader acceptance of both the term, the syndrome, and the diagnosis. It can be carefully observed and described by caring experts who can address the individual needs of, and the most probable treatments and environments for, each person.

In the meantime, no one actively engaging in unprotected sex - female OR male, should be drinking, smoking, or taking any drug (prescription or otherwise) that may affect embryonic health or development, right?

Oh, and keep your newborn away from any toxic fumes, car exhaust, chemicals, or shots that include toxic metals like mercury-based preservatives...just in case. After that, we just have to deal with life as it comes, one learning challenge after another.

Fascinating.

On the engineer-autistic child front, could it possibly be a derivative of the overall 'better diagnostics' increasing the proportions? Even though not an engineer (perish the thought of such narrow disciplines) I often found myself looking on my children, and now grand-children, as little machines and marvel at the adaptive software that's in them. Particularly given the limited instruction set of their hardware.

That part aside, it might be the point of view of the engineer which leads to early and more frequent diagnosis, as she/he analyzes the little creature before her/him.

Nice Job moose..... Marion Ave guy...

Big Fool Here.... Yes, we as Ontario tax payers pick up a hefty tab for autism, and if there is a way to prevent it, then we need to be able to find it.You are not the only victims in this situation! We the tax payers are too......we've been picking up the tab, while you refuse to look at your responsibilities in your child's health! Gee maybe we are all "fools."

You're earning the title you assigned yourself, cowboy. You still haven't read the post from John77, or Moose's comments from earlier today. We're willing to listen to you, but ask that you also listen to others. Allow me to quote you: "we've been picking up the tab, while you refuse to look at your responsibilities."

Stings, don't it?

Tim from Texas

I should refer you, again, to www.nas.org.uk for vast amounts of information about autism and summaries of scientific research over the last 60-odd years.

In the overwhelming majority of cases, the evidence shows that the only way to 'prevent' autism is not being born. However, there is no way of making a pre-natal diagnosis.

If you are concerned about the cost to the taxpayer, I can make a few sensible suggestions based partly on my experience and mostly on my observation:

Firstly, early diagnosis. The sooner that you recognise a problem exists the sooner you can start helping instead of making things worse by inappropriate action based on incorrect assumptions. Training paedatricians to recognise the symptoms will cost a little money but will save far more.

Secondly, providing parents with advice and information.
A subset of this includes advice on how to check on reaction to diet - the behaviour of a minority is significantly improved by being placed on e.g. dairy or gluten-free diets: in such cases the cost of implementation wil be borne by the parents.

Thirdly, better education - dedicated, trained teachers supported by specialists in autism and communication have achieved wonders. In primary school small classes are often essential as many autistic children find the noise and other impacts of a large class intolerable. In a majority of cases their tolerance increases with age and they are able to cope with larger classes in secondary school. Before transferring an autistic child into a "mainstream" school, brief the other children on what to expect.

Fourthly, if you want an autistic adult to be economically productive, adapt a job description to allow for his/her particular strengths and weaknesses. They have limited social skills but many jobs do not really require social skills and some have much higher tolerance to carrying on 'boring' tasks or exceptional mathematical talent.

If an autistic person is equipped to live a semi-independent life he or she will cost a small fraction of the cost of instutional care.

As to the tab - the direct cost to government in our son's case is substantially exceeded (by some multiple) by their loss of income tax revenue due to our very much reduced family income whilst caring for him. Incidentally, he enjoys excellent physical health, better than the rest of the family. Autism is not an illness.

I cannot think of a single occasion when I have refused to look at my responsibilities for my child's health, even when I have occasionally neglected my own.

My guess is that the person who mentioned a burden on the Ontario tax payer was not speaking of your loss of income, but rather speaking of the $2,286 spent on an autistic student in British Colombia public schools for every $1 spent on a "mainstream student." That is a really big differential. While I'm not in Ontario or familiar with their spending ratio, I'm sure it is similar to ours in B.C. Is this fair? I agree with the many posters who are saying you should not continue to play the vicitims. This impacts everybody, and parents in the U.S. (and Canada now) go around suing the school for not meeting their child's needs, and then plop their kid in front of the television. Doesn't seem right. People should hold themselves to a standard before holding everyone else to it.

Also, as an engineer who's wife works in actuarial science, I really recent the idea that "engineer types" have austistic kids. We are both "math types", and have three very social children.Of all my friends who are engineers, I can't think of one who has autistic children. I can however, think of autistic children who spent a lot of time in front of the t.v.

I have been trying to take part in a rational discussion about whether television is a cause of the increase in the numbers diagnosed as autistic. It is incontrovertible that it cannot be a cause of my son's autism and Guest #3 knew that his son was "different" before he saw (if he ever did) a TV screen. So these two are not relevant to the discussion. I am doing my my utmost to be calm (and disinterested since I don't pay or receive a cent from any state or province in North America) in order to be informative but since a self-proclaimed "teacher", who apparently doesn't know the difference betwen a class and a classroom and thinks the UK is in Canada, started on baseless personal attacks I have spent most of my time rebutting them. Poor Moose must be fed up with this by now.
It is now statistically significant that all the uninformed mudslinging has come from anonymous "Guest" individuals whereas all the signed-up subscribers plus Tim, the only non-anonymous Guest, have posted rational, courteous comments, whether or not they agreed with me.

I do not know whether the British Columbia figure should read 2286 to 1 or just over two-and-one-quarter to 1. If the former, and assuming that an ordinary mainstream child is taught in a class of thirty, then an autistic child, to produce the ratio you cite, would need 76 teachers assigned to him/her full time; in fact, since other costs such as desks, books, food remain the same, it would be even worse than that. If the latter and they are talking of the relative costs of supporting the more able autistic child in mainstream school alongside "normal" ones, that might be about right.

The next question is how much does it cost to educate a blind or a deaf child, or one with Down's syndrome, or in a wheelchair or with dyslexia or....

Fairness is a gut feeling. So I cannot give you a mathematical formula for it. Is a "fair" race one where I have a 50:50 chance of beating Jesse Owens (or his modern-day equivalent -?Carl Lewis) or one where I (deservedly) have a snowflake's chance in Hell of doing so? I'm nearly 10,000 miles away and I don't know what is going on in British Columbia but if the ratio really is 2286 to 1 I suspect that something is unfair but don't blame the autistic children: ask your wife or someone equally talented to go through the accounts.

Do you mean by "fair" that no child should receive any special educational provision that costs the taxpayer an extra cent or dollar whatever their needs? By that argument, would you deny a public education to all blind, deaf, cerebral palsied or wheelchair-using students because they are going to cost more - or that this should be denied only to autistic children because in someone's opinion (which a little research on your part would demonstrate is false) their parents caused their autism by 'plopping' them in front of the TV? Look at Moose's post. Autistic children are in the same position as those others - 'fair' treatment for them, to give them a chance equal to their peers to learn, costs more. I don't know you, nor whether you voted for universal education to be paid from provincial taxes. However, if you did, please read my previous post for some suggestions in how to reduce long-term costs for people with autism. If you did not, then protest about the total cost of education.

I agree with the many posters who are saying you should not continue to play the vicitims.

Firstly, I'm not "playing the victim", I am simply replying honestly to questions/remarks even when some of them merit: "don't be so stupid/impertinent"; secondly one is not "many". No-one has said that only parents are affected, but I cannot take responsibility for the behaviour of American lawyers or their clients.

Once again, watching "too much" TV *does not cause autism* and anyone who suggests it does simply does not know what they are talking about. As another Guest has pointed out, autistic children like TV because it presents information in visual terms which they find easier to cope with than verbal ones, as a general rule.

I am not responsible for the research project that suggests that a disproportionate number of autistic kids have engineer fathers and only mentioned it because it was the trigger that led me to the data that produced a prima facie case that some/many causes of Autism are sex-linked. In which case the mother's profession is more likely to be relevant. I think jdst may have the best answer - that diagnosis is more likely when one parent is scientifically-oriented.

I'm not sure why you should "really resent" that (small, UK-based) study. Firstly, its conclusions are not the same as saying that "engineer types have autistic kids"; secondly, having a child with autism is not a personal insult, whatever you may have been told. I'm glad your children are all fine, as are 99% of all engineers' kids. However, if you truly want to find out what causes autism, all the real, scientific evidence suggests that inherited factors are likely to be the key in the overwhelming majority of cases.

I expect some autistic children spend a lot of time in front of the TV but that does not mean that TV is the cause rather than the effect: do you believe that Baptist ministers cause alcoholism?

Dear Guests,

Please take the time to register with CR4. We'd like to know who you are so that we can call you by name and keep all of your arguments straight. Registering with CR4 is easy and free. Simply click the "Register" link. (Hint: It's on the right-hand side of the red bar near the top of the CR4 home page) Then follow the steps.

Why should you join CR4?

1) You can subscribe to and track posts that are of interest to you and you'll be notified via email when your subscribed posts are updated.

2) You can contact other CR4 members using the internal messaging system without having to post your contact information where any spammer can get it. This is a great tool for networking or carrying on discussions that aren't pertinent to the entire community.

3) You'll receive the CR4 Daily Digest - our email newsletter which, at a glance, will catch you up on the previous day's news and posts.

Moose

The studies don't say that watching t.v. causes autism, but rather acts as an onswitch for autism.The tendencies may be genetic, but television may turn it on. Just as diabetis may be genetic but certain diets may act as an onswitch. This is actually possible and does need to be explored. If we can keep the switch from being turned on, I'd like to know about it. If it means not letting my children watch t.v., then I'm open to it. Please don't stifle the research. It can help a lot of people.

In general I am all in favour of research, but in this instance it would be unethical. The only plausible experiment would be to take two large groups of new-born children with similar estimated probabilities (based on our limited knowledge of frequencies of autism linked to the number of previously diagnosed autistic relations or to birth trauma or, very rarely, both) and plonk one group in front on a TV on a regular, frequent basis and keep the control group away from a TV until the age of 4. I do not think it is good for any children to be over-exposed to TV - there is reason to suspect that this leads to myopia and obesity and the various unwelcome side-effects such as heart disease and diabetes; secondly, I consider that to set up an experiment to see how many children who would not otherwise be autistic would be tipped over into autism if the theory was correct (which I don't believe it to be) would be horrendous.

I haven't seen the studies to which you refer, but we know that autistic children are more likely to watch TV as a consequence of their autism. So any ex-post study will show a correlation between watching TV and autism - it does not follow from this that watching TV is a cause as well as an effect.

We also know that by far the largest cause of the inrease in reported incidence of autism is simple an increase in diagnosis. A large part is due to better training for doctors and teachers in recognising the syndrome but some is due to a widening of the definition. The next most important contributor is a decrease in infant mortality. The number that could be attributed to environmental factors is actually pretty small and I have yet to hear of a mechanism through which TV could be a trigger.

If you want to stop your kids watching TV or to limit the time they spend in front of it, you have my sympathy - but for a host of other reasons.

Television consumption can cause myopia and obesity, but it can't cause autism? That doesn't really make sense. I'm sure there would be a whole host of parents who have children with those conditions that would say their kids never watched t.v. And I'm sure there are a lot of kid who watch t.v. who don'thave these conditions. Are you admitting that t.v might be an onswitch?

The cold hard truth is that nobody know what causes autism. However, television consumption at a young age might be the onswitch to genetic conditions that were already there. Many people who have experience in this field, report that a lot of austistic children watch large amounts of television.

TV can't cause autism in those children who have not watched it before being diagnosed as autistic!

If the progression is from obsessively reading "Thomas the Tank Engine" books to watching "Thomas the Tank Engine" videos to watching TV it is pretty obvious that watching TV is an effect of autism not its cause.

I never said that watching television was the only cause of obesity and myopia but sitting around taking no exercise and eating "TV meals" are both liable to contribute to unhealthy weight gains. Too much close work and not enough switching between focal lengths (e.g. if you're working in an office during the day and studying for professional exams in the evening or spending hours on end in front of a television) can and frequently does lead to myopia. Neither of these is solely due to the TV, but if you bring up a kid as a couch potato you are much more likely to get one who is obese and short-sighted than if you encourage him/her to mix reading with fresh air and exercise.

Talking about an "on-switch" for autism sounds weird to those of us with experience of it - the most obvious trait in an autistic child is that his/her "feeling" for social interaction is permanently switched off. I do not know of any example (although there may be one) of a child who was definitely not autistic (as distinct from not yet diagnosed) who subsequently became autistic. If you want to believe in an "on-switch" you would need to find a substantial number of such cases and that a significant percentage of them had a common factor other than drinking water or eating apples.

John 77 seems to exhibit a lot of anti-social behaviors ie. calling kids with myopia "coach potatoes" Unfortnately, we engineers have had to deal with negative stereotypes, that people like John 77 bring on to all of us. Most of us, including my two boys (born to engineering parents) are nice, kind, social people, who enjoy healthy friendships and relationships with other people. John 77 really needs to work on things, I feel very bad for his son, as that it can't be easy for him.

One of my "anti-social" behaviour patterns is to expect people to actually read the text and years ago someone complained to my boss when I just said "Yes" in response to "Do you expect the girls to read what they're typing?"

Please read Entry no 29 I never said that watching television was the only cause of obesity and myopia

Then if you really are nice, kind, and social, you might think about apologising

Incidentally, I have myopia because I spent the first three years after graduating working in an office five days a week and studying for professional exams every evening and at weekends. This doesn't prove too much close work causes myopia but it does fit in with the plethora of evidence that too much close work frequently does so.

this past week we saw what ignoring problems can do. This is so sad what happened at Virginia Tech, and ignoring these behaviors won't make them go away.Whatever the cause we have to be willing to face what it is.

Let's be clear - the murderer at Virginia Tech was not autistic.

Seung-Hui Cho was depraved, disturbed, mentally ill and - yes - evil. But he was not autistic.

I have seen reports that he was autistic

That is totally ridiculous.

Mr Cho was treated in a psychiatric unit because he was mentally ill.

Autism is not an illness.

Mr Cho is reported to have majored in English and specialised in Creative writing.

Creative writing and autism???

Kris describes his son as lacking the capacity for malevolent intent. This is typical of the children on the autistic spectrum whom I have met.
While it is possible for those on the autistic spectrum to have brief outbursts of rage resulting from frustration (this also aplies to "normal" people), this was not the case at Virginia Tech: the killer got a gun, walked over to the lecture room block and then started shooting; this was planned by a sick mind.

Please look at the Virginia Tech website: it has a specialist department within the Psychology department studying Autism. "Virginia Tech Autism Clinic seeks to provide cutting edge clinical services based on evidence-based treatment strategies, to increase knowledge and awareness about autism among the professional community and general public, and to conduct quality research"

If he had been autistic they might just have noticed. Someone a few thousand miles away says "Oh he doesn't talk much, so he's autistic" and you take that as Gospel? Please spend at least ten seconds checking your "facts" before posting on an Engineering blog.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on your meaning . You would have more credibility if you either registered or logged in . If I chance by here again and see anybody make an association between Autism and Virginia Tech who does not back up the claim , I shall hit the 'report' button likes there's no tomorrow . As said , you have the benefit of the doubt over your meaning for now. Be mindful you have gone from TV - Autism - Vitginia Tech and you will understand me being pissed at you.

That is really rude and uncalled for. You haven't read John77's post with any attention but plunged straight into an ad hominem attack for no good reason other than poorly- conceived pique. You don't come across at all as a "nice, kind, social person" - maybe you 'really need to work on' that internet posting thing, maybe you are in fact just as you sound, a judgemental...[fill in the blank]. Trying to imply you feel 'sorry' for his son to have him as a dad is lower than a snake's belly. You should be ashamed of yourself.

By making such a post, and on the basis of misreading what was written, you have done nothng to combat negative stereotypes of your profession, you do realise?

"Obese children double their intake after watching food advertisements on television, a survey has found.

Psychologists at the University of Liverpool found the children increased their consumption of sweet and savoury foods by 134 per cent after viewing fast food, breakfast cereal and soft drinks adverts. Overweight children upped their intake by 101 per cent and normal weight children by 84 per cent."

Source: Financial Times 25 April 2007

This is actually worse than I had anticipated though I expect the advertising agencies are delighted. You don't have to watch TV to become obese but it clearly increases the risk.

This is all very interesting. I have a 15 year old son who is Autistic (or 'autistic spectrum disorder' as current fashion would say ). He's benefitted from a fantastic special needs school , and is growing into a young man who is liked by all who meet him (he lack the capacity for malevolent intent ). He has a positive effect on all who meet him . That is not me speaking as a proud parent (although I am) - it is the feedback I get from others. For general info I am an Engineer , and I don't much care for train sets (though I would admit to a somewhat obsessive nature ). In time my son will find a place where his individual skills will be of use to himself and others. The ability to make money is not the only measure of a persons worth. I could end up spending too much time following this thread (being obsessive as I am) , so I shall just register my opinion on the question (does TV cause Autism) . NO.

Quack 'solutions' abound . Respect and love is the most important factor.