Birth Control Pill Causes Autism

In many parts of the world, including the U.S., U.K., Canada, Japan and Scandinavia, "The rates were flat through the late '80s, and then suddenly a massive rise happened at same time"

These were the countries who legalized and experienced a rapid increase in the use of birth control pills. This did not happen in countries like Italy, Germany, Spain, France, Portugal, and Oman, who never legalized or adopted birth control pills on such a massive scale

It would be expected that countries like Spain, Italy, Portugal, France, Germany, and Oman would have such low autism rates (two orders of magnitude lower than us) because their religions prohibit them from taking any birth control measures, including abortion, the pill, and the morning after pill. The fact that the autism rates in Mexico, China, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Hong Kong, and Venezuela is an order of magnitude higher than these West European nations, and an order of magnitude lower than ours, can be explained by their legalization of birth control, but an implementation at a much lower rate than us.

Across the country, from state to state, the states with the highest percentage of Catholics (and thus the lowest rates of contraception) have the lowest rates of autism, whereas those with the lowest percentage of Catholics (and thus the highest rates of contraception) are also the states with the highest rates of autism, with 1 in 718 children in Vermont vs. 1 in 67 children in Minnesota (a difference of more than one order of magnitude, larger than the differences across most countries).

How Else Can the Huge Gaps in Autism Rate in Europe be Explained?

Country 1988 2011 US 5 150 S Korea 5 126 Japan 5 60 Canada 1 22 Hong Kong 2 16 China 1 16 Mexico 1 14.3 Saudi Arabia 1 13 Indonesia 1 11.7 Venezuela 1 11 Portugal 1 9.2 France 1 5 Denmark 1 4 England 0.11 3 Germany 1 1.9 Oman 1 1.4 Italy 0 0 Spain 0 0

"The Pill was approved for use in June 1999. According to estimates, only 1.3 percent of 28 million Japanese females use the Pill, compared with 15.6 percent in the United States. The Pill prescription guidelines the government endorsed require Pill users to visit a doctor every three months for pelvic examinations and undergo tests for sexually transmitted diseases and uterine cancer. In the United States and Europe, in contrast, an annual or bi-annual clinic visit is standard for Pill users. However, as far back as 2007, many Japanese OBGYNs now only require a yearly visit for pill users, with the tri-annual visits only recommended to those who are older or at increased risk of side effects.[11]"

"I wonder if anyone has done a study to determine if there is a correlation between the rise in the use of birth control pills and the rise in autism and/or ADHD. The use of birth control is now in about the third generation, since it was women in the 1970’s that began using it widely. Perhaps there were genetic affects on the children that weren’t apparent (both boys and girls) whose mothers stopped taking the pill to have a child, but when the girls grew into their 20’s and began using birth control pills too, (in the 1990’s) perhaps the effects were cumulative. Now in 2011 some of those children would be 3rd generation “pill” users and in their child bearing years. There may be some unknown genetic problems in the reproductive systems in either sex as a result of a mother’s/grandmother's/great-grandmother's use of birth control pills. There also seems to be a correlation with race, since use of the “pill” became acceptable among whites first, then blacks, then Hispanics, hence the “lag” in incidence. It would be interesting also to know if other first world areas such as Canada or the European Union are experiencing the same increases in autism and ADHD and what the birth control use was, and if third world nations are showing the same incidence but not using birth control pills."

Finland

Autism in Northern Finland.

Source Department of Pediatrics, Clinic of Child Psychiatry, University of Oulu, Finland.

Abstract Recent research reports show that autistic spectrum disorders may actually be more common than previously believed. General awareness and clinical knowledge of these disorders have increased, and the criteria in the ICD-10 and the DSM-IV are also now more detailed. The diagnostic criteria and the methods of ascertainment influence the prevalence. The age specific incidence obtained in this study showed the cumulative incidence to be lowest, 6.1 per 10,000, in the oldest age group of 15- to 18-year-old children, and highest, 20.7 per 10,000, in the age group of 5-7 year-olds, when the criteria of the ICD-10 and the DSM-IV were used. In this study, almost 50% of the autistic cases had a tested IQ above 70. The degree of autism, as assessed by the Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS), varied from mild autistic features in 8.5% through moderate in 58.5% to severe in 33.0%.

PMID: 11095038 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

England

Introduction

Christian ideas about contraception come from church teachings rather than scripture, as the Bible has little to say about the subject. As a result, their teachings on birth control are often based on different Christian interpretations of the meaning of marriage, sex and the family.

Christian acceptance of contraception is relatively new; all churches disapproved of artificial contraception until the start of the 20th century.

In modern times different Christian churches hold different views about the rightness and wrongness of using birth control.

Liberal Protestant churches often teach that it is acceptable to use birth control, as long as it is not used to encourage or permit promiscuous behaviour.

Less liberal churches only approve the use of contraception for people who are married to each other.

Since these churches regard sex outside marriage as morally wrong (or if not wrong, as less than good), they believe that abstaining from sex would be morally better than having sex and using birth control.

The incidence and changes in incidence with time are unclear in the UK.[52] The reported autism incidence in the UK rose starting before the first introduction of the MMR vaccine in 1989.[53] A 2004 study found that the reported incidence of pervasive developmental disorders in a general practice research database in England and Wales grew steadily during 1988-2001 from 0.11 to 2.98 per 10,000 person-years, and concluded that much of this increase may be due to changes in diagnostic practice.

United States

On June 10, 1957, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Enovid 10 mg (9.85 mg norethynodrel and 150 µg mestranol) for menstrual disorders, based on data from its use by more than 600 women. Numerous additional contraceptive trials showed Enovid at 10, 5, and 2.5 mg doses to be highly effective. On July 23, 1959, Searle filed a supplemental application to add contraception as an approved indication for 10, 5, and 2.5 mg doses of Enovid. The FDA refused to consider the application until Searle agreed to withdraw the lower dosage forms from the application. On May 9, 1960, the FDA announced it would approve Enovid 10 mg for contraceptive use, which it did on June 23, 1960, by which time Enovid 10 mg had been in general use for three years during which time, by conservative estimate, at least half a million women had used it.[23][36][41]

Although FDA-approved for contraceptive use, Searle never marketed Enovid 10 mg as a contraceptive. Eight months later, on February 15, 1961, the FDA approved Enovid 5 mg for contraceptive use. In July 1961, Searle finally began marketing Enovid 5 mg (5 mg norethynodrel and 75 µg mestranol) to physicians as a contraceptive.[23][24]

Although the FDA approved the first oral contraceptive in 1960, contraceptives were not available to married women in all states until Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and were not available to unmarried women in all states until Eisenstadt v. Baird in 1972.[20][24]

The first published case report of a blood clot and pulmonary embolism in a woman using Enavid (Enovid 10 mg in the U.S.) at a dose of 20 mg/day did not appear until November 1961, four years after its approval, by which time it had been used by over one million women.[36][42][43] It would take almost a decade of epidemiological studies to conclusively establish an increased risk of venous thrombosis in oral contraceptive users and an increased risk of stroke and myocardial infarction in oral contraceptive users who smoke or have high blood pressure or other cardiovascular or cerebrovascular risk factors.[23] These risks of oral contraceptives were dramatized in the 1969 book The Doctors' Case Against the Pill by feminist journalist Barbara Seaman who helped arrange the 1970 Nelson Pill Hearings called by Senator Gaylord Nelson.[44] The hearings were conducted by Senators who were all men and the witnesses in the first round of hearings were all men, leading Alice Wolfson and other feminists to protest the hearings and generate media attention.[24] Their work led to mandating the inclusion of patient package inserts with oral contraceptives to explain their possible side effects and risks to help facilitate informed consent.[45][46][47] Today's standard dose oral contraceptives contain an estrogen dose that is one third lower than the first marketed oral contraceptive and contain lower doses of different, more potent progestins in a variety of formulations.[23][24][25]

Australia

The first oral contraceptive introduced outside the United States was Schering's Anovlar (norethindrone acetate 4 mg + ethinyl estradiol 50 µg) on January 1, 1961 in Australia.[48]

Germany

The first oral contraceptive introduced in Europe was Schering's Anovlar on June 1, 1961 in West Germany.[48] The lower hormonal dose, still in use, was studied by the Belgian Gynaecologist Ferdinand Peeters.[49][50]

Britain

Before the mid-1960s, the United Kingdom did not require pre-marketing approval of drugs. The British Family Planning Association (FPA) through its clinics was then the primary provider of family planning services in Britain and provided only contraceptives that were on its Approved List of Contraceptives (established in 1934). In 1957, Searle began marketing Enavid (Enovid 10 mg in the U.S.) for menstrual disorders. Also in 1957, the FPA established a Council for the Investigation of Fertility Control (CIFC) to test and monitor oral contraceptives which began animal testing of oral contraceptives and in 1960 and 1961 began three large clinical trials in Birmingham, Slough, and London.[36][51]

In March 1960, the Birmingham FPA began trials of norethynodrel 2.5 mg + mestranol 50 µg, but a high pregnancy rate initially occurred when the pills accidentally contained only 36 µg of mestranol—the trials were continued with norethynodrel 5 mg + mestranol 75 µg (Conovid in Britain, Enovid 5 mg in the U.S.).[52] In August 1960, the Slough FPA began trials of norethynodrel 2.5 mg + mestranol 100 µg (Conovid-E in Britain, Enovid-E in the U.S.).[53] In May 1961, the London FPA began trials of Schering's Anovlar.[54]

In October 1961, at the recommendation of the Medical Advisory Council of its CIFC, the FPA added Searle's Conovid to its Approved List of Contraceptives.[55] On December 4, 1961, Enoch Powell, then Minister of Health, announced that the oral contraceptive pill Conovid could be prescribed through the NHS at a subsidized price of 2s per month.[56][57] In 1962, Schering's Anovlar and Searle's Conovid-E were added to the FPA's Approved List of Contraceptives.[36][53][54]

France

On December 28, 1967, the Neuwirth Law legalized contraception in France, including the pill.[58] The pill is the most popular form of contraception in France, especially among young women. It accounts for 60% of the birth control used in France. The abortion rate has remained stable since the introduction of the pill.[59]

Japan

In Japan, lobbying from the Japan Medical Association prevented the Pill from being approved for nearly 40 years. Two main objections raised by the association were safety concerns over long-term use of the Pill, and concerns that the Pill use would lead to diminished use of condoms and thereby potentially increase sexually transmitted infection (STI) rates.[60] As of 2004, condoms accounted for 80% of birth control use in Japan, and this may explain Japan's comparatively low rates of AIDS.[11]

The Pill was approved for use in June 1999. According to estimates, only 1.3 percent of 28 million Japanese females use the Pill, compared with 15.6 percent in the United States. The Pill prescription guidelines the government endorsed require Pill users to visit a doctor every three months for pelvic examinations and undergo tests for sexually transmitted diseases and uterine cancer. In the United States and Europe, in contrast, an annual or bi-annual clinic visit is standard for Pill users. However, as far back as 2007, many Japanese OBGYNs now only require a yearly visit for pill users, with the tri-annual visits only recommended to those who are older or at increased risk of side effects.[11]

http://sfari.org/news-and-opinion/news/2011/researchers-track-down-autism-rates-across-the-globe

The first prevalence studies in any region typically find low numbers. For instance, the new study in Brazil found 27.2 cases of autism per 10,000 people, and last year's report from Oman found 1.4, compared with the oft-quoted U.S. average of 66. Similarly small numbers (see map) have come out of studies in China (16.1), Indonesia (11.7) and Israel (10).

These low rates are likely to be the result of the methods used, experts say. Most first-pass epidemiological studies are based on a review of medical records, which are often incomplete or non-existent, depending on the state of a country's healthcare system and the number of clinics with experts qualified to diagnose childhood disorders. "A records-based approach can only count the cases that you can see," Grinker says.

This is also a problem in the U.S. Data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows the highest autism prevalence in states with the best autism health and support services, such as Arizona (121 cases per 10,000 people), Missouri (121) and New Jersey (106). In contrast, areas with fewer services have lower rates, such as Alabama (60), Arkansas (69) and Florida (42).

Over time, however, as more parents and clinicians become familiar with autism, prevalence goes up. In many parts of the world, including the U.S., U.K., Canada, Japan and Scandinavia, "The rates were flat through the late '80s, and then suddenly a massive rise happened at same time," Fombonne says. The rise is probably not due to a mysterious global environmental exposure, he says. "It's more likely to reflect new concepts of autism worldwide."

Low autism prevalence is not confined to poor countries. A handful of small studies in France, for example, have found rates around 5 cases per 10,000 people. One study in Germany calculated it to be 1.9, and another in Portugal 16.7.

Differences in scientific approach among these countries may affect the results, notes Mayada Elsabbagh, research associate at Birkbeck University of London.

"In some European countries, they have very psychodynamic views about autism," she says. "If you don't think this disorder is driven by biological causes, then you wouldn't think there was any use in doing epidemiological studies or trying to understand causal pathways."

Elsabbagh is working with 11 international researchers on a systematic review sponsored by the World Health Organization, including articles published in languages other than English.

"Some of us started with the bias that there's nothing out there, but it turns out there's a lot, they just don't tend to be in mainstream journals," she says. The report is expected to be published later this year.

http://www.stellamarie.com/index.php/2010/06/24/autism-rates-per-state

In case you can't see the pic:

Autism Rate Per State Public Schools, 8-year-olds



Minnesota 1/67

Oregon 1/77

Maine 1/80

Connecticut 1/99

Rhode Island 1/104

Pennsylvania 1/105

Indiana 1/106

Massachusetts 1/107

National Avg 1/110

New Jersey 1/114

Wisconsin 1/120

Nevada 1/124

Virginia 1/127

Maryland 1/127

Michigan 1/128

California 1/128

New Hampshire 1/138

Missouri 1/140

North Carolina 1/140

US & Outlying 1/143

Georgia 1/145

Wyoming 1/149

New York 1/151

Arizona 1/153

Florida 1/155

Ohio 1/158

\Illinois 1/158

Washington 1/159

Delaware 1/160

Texas 1/163

Nebraska 1/168

Utah 1/175

D.C. 1/178

Kentucky 1/181

Idaho 1/185

W. Virginia 1/193

S. Dakota 1/199

Tennessee 1/205

Hawaii 1/206

Alaska 1/212

S. Carolina 1/217

Kansas 1/219

N. Dakota 1/219

Arkansas 1/224

Alabama 1/227

Montana 1/233

Colorado 1/273

New Mexico 1/275

Louisiana 1/295

Oklahoma 1/309

Mississippi 1/317

Iowa 1/718

Vermont -





http://www.child-psych.org/2009/12/a-closer-look-at-the-new-cdc-autism-prevalance-rates.html

In sum, the 2006 data came from 11 states (Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Wisconsin). Teams at these sites reviewed the records of 8-year-old children living in specific communities. The teams reviewed medical/health and educational records for evidence of a probable autism diagnosis (education records were only monitored in 6 of the 11 states). When probable cases were identified, the records were then reviewed by clinicians to provide a final diagnosis based on DSM-IV criteria. The total number of ASD cases was then compared to the population of 8-year-olds for each target community.

The average ASD estimate across all sites was 9 per 1,000 children (1 in 111 children), but there was significant variability between the states:

Alabama: 1 in 166

Arizona: 1 in 82

Colorado: 1 in 133

Florida: 1 in 238

Georgia: 1 in 98

Maryland: 1 in 108

Missouri: 1 in 82

North Carolina: 1 in 96

Pennsylvania: 1 in 119

South Carolina: 1 in 116

Wisconsin: 1 in 131

Those sites that included a review of educational records had higher prevalence than those that relied only on health records:

Sites that included health and educational records: 1 in 98 children

Sites that included only health records: 1 in 133 children

Prevalence for boys alone



Alabama: 1 in 110

Arizona: 1 in 53

Colorado: 1 in 87

Florida: 1 in 137

Georgia: 1 in 60

Maryland: 1 in 64

Missouri: 1 in 52

North Carolina: 1 in 59

Pennsylvania: 1 in 89

South Carolina: 1 in 70

Wisconsin: 1 in 79

The picture is much better for girls.

Prevalence for girls alone



Alabama: 1 in 345

Arizona: 1 in 204

Colorado: 1 in 294

Florida: 1 in 1000

Georgia: 1 in 294

Maryland: 1 in 417

Missouri: 1 in 213

North Carolina: 1 in 294

Pennsylvania: 1 in 303

South Carolina: 1 in 385

Wisconsin: 1 in 435

Increases in ASD diagnoses from 2002 to 2006 among 8-year-old children

Alabama: 82%

Arizona: 95%

Colorado: 27% (not statistically significant)

Florida: No 2002 data

Georgia: 34%

Maryland: 37%

Missouri: 66%

North Carolina: 60%

Pennsylvania: 58%

South Carolina: 43%

Wisconsin: 46%

AVERAGE: 57% increase.

Budget Reductions

The issue: Numbers of special-ed students grow as number of dollars shrink.

Race, morale, paperwork. For many districts, these issues pale compared with the daunting reality of smaller budgets and larger numbers of special-needs kids. "Autism is growing exponentially," says Baldwin County's Carpenter, which now has four center-based programs for elementary, middle and high school kids with autism. In her district of 26,000 students, 4,000 or about one in six students receives special services. "About 25 to 30 of our kids require a licensed nurse at all times, for things like catheterization. That means there's always an LPN on campus with the child, and an LPN must travel on the school bus, too," she adds. For some kids, that requires two shifts per day. And these kids also require a paraprofessional, which means the school gets hit up for another salary. Dual certification is one solution Carpenter's exploring.

In the old days, a district might simply have said we can't handle it and sent a child with severe needs out of district. But out-of-district placements are not an option for lots of schools. Susan Kelch in El Paso says that the Texas School for the Blind is 400 miles away, making outplacement a moot point. And states don't much like outplacement, anyway. "We were sanctioned for sending too many kids out of district," explains Elaine Dykeman, CSE-CPSE supervisor for Ravina-Coeymans Selkirk School District in upstate N.Y. "We had to bring our numbers down." Dykeman says 65 of the district's 430 special ed students are outsourced. The majority of children who are going out of district are students with behavior problems.

Dykeman says the district has experienced a paradigm shift in the way it educates special-needs students. General ed teachers are being told that a student is a student is a student, and if you're the content specialist, you're going to teach them all. "That caused quite a hoopla," she says. To help teachers through the change, Dykeman created several programs. First, the district got a $40,000 grant to study the kind of professional development needed to move special education forward. Now teachers are being trained in functional behavioral management, developing co-teaching programs and working on RTI models. The district is also testing a variety of six- to 10-week reading programs to see which strategies work best for different students. And Dykeman's team has put Instructional Support Teams in place in every school to identify at-risk students earlier.