Talk:Regressive autism

From the article: "It is more usual for autistic neurological development to not include such aberrations, with age-appropriate autistic symptoms being clear from birth, in which case the term "early infantile autism" is used."

Is that true? My understanding is that autism is generally unnoticeable before the age of 2. Clearly it would be difficult to determine if a baby is autistic. Neurodivergent 15:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Maternal antibodies to fetal brain

I think there are some papers by the researchers at Kennedy Krieger and MIND Institute indicating regression occurs in children whose mothers have certain antibodies to fetal brain. This is very counter intuitive to me, but in the case of my own son it seemed to be true. His Mom has some of the antibodies, and he seemed to regress somewhere between 15 and 24 months. I don't know what the review papers say but the brain undergoes, or is supposed to undergo, certain programmed changes after birth that are suspected of causing autism when they don't go right.

Such as apoptosis, which the article does hint at with the mention of larger brains in some kids who regressed.

I think this is basically a good article but there could be more for parents who are looking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.133.172 (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I was not thorough in explaining this. The findings from the maternal antibody researchers seem pretty clear. Certain patterns of maternal antibodies to fetal brain are VERY strongly correlated with regression. So the reasonable inference is, something that happened prenatally, in the womb, causes children to regress over a year AFTER birth.

This is very weird stuff, but that research has not be refuted by anyone.

It was very important for me as a parent to know my child regressed because unfortunately he was predetermined to regress and there was nothing we had done or failed to do to cause it. And nothing in the environment.

Parents need to know this because some believe it must have been something and suspect vaccines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.133.172 (talk) 02:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I would like to point out an issue that I think very relevant to the above comment. A baby's immune system is said to be 'turned down' in the early months to avoid developing autoimmunity, while it receives useful maternal antibodies from milk. In order to make vaccines work it is necessary to include adjuvants, like aluminium and mercury, or to combine vaccines (the mumps component of MMR is said to not work if administered on its own). Adjuvants turn the immune system of the baby on, and so might be expected to render the baby more susceptible to antibodies to itself, in this case from the mother. Do not assume therefore that nothing in the environment was involved. Vaccination could well be the reason why maternal antibodies are able to cause inflammation and damage which would not otherwise occur. While I know this is the place to discuss article entries rather than the topic generally, we have to start somewhere and then search for supporting material to cite. Lindosland (talk) 10:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)