ways they hope to detect autism early

[sesley]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/health-fitness/health/New-method-to-detect-autism-in-kids/articleshow/9370888.cms

 

by mri scans on babies,they think they can detect the difference in brain development.Early detection i think is best,because then the parents can learn and the professionals on how best to support the baby in to a child into adulthood,so that they get the care they need through the education and health systems.

[philipo]

Then again parents should be wary about exposing their children to a powerfull oscillating magnetic feild that is stronger than a small local power supply transformer .The risks outway the pluses.

[KezT]

Then again parents should be wary about exposing their children to a powerfull oscillating magnetic feild that is stronger than a small local power supply transformer .The risks outway the pluses.

 

in the 40 years since they started using mri scans, there has been no evidence that they are harmful to adults or children,or even foetus'. Some people have had dozens of scans and there is still no eveidence of any detrimental effects. The only harm that has ever been documented to have befallen people due to mri's is due to projectile injury when metal objects are pulled into the magnetic field.

 

MRI scans are probably the least risky form of technology medical science has ever come up with! Certainly safer than X-rays, vaccinations, or dental extractions, all of which we consider "safe".

 

I would (and have) happily put my 6 month old into the mri scanner if it came up with a definitive answer!

[Karen A]

Hi.

 

Whilst early detection of ASD could make a difference to long term outcomes for people with ASD I don't think it should ever replace a detailed assessment of what individual needs are.A diagnosis could be just that.It does not gaurentee that any provision is put in place in education or the health system.

 

Karen.

[philipo]

An anaylasis of dna from both parents may be a better method in the future.The idea of having every hydrogen atom 'polarised' is'nt appealing to me .i have had one and apart from the discomfort of the procedure,i developed 'chillblains' for a few months after,its never returned ,despite living outdoors alot,last winter it was minus15 outside my tent.That was ten years ago.

due to to the technology and expense no large scale research over a long time period has been conducted.they are a marvellus diagnostic tool and saved many lives but having a powerfull high energy pulsed radio signal blasted at sensetive tissue while your atoms are being pulled in a magnetic feild thats more reminiscent of a massive powerstation generator ,cant be good for young tissue.

 

Now if they said 'we've tested ten thousand babies and followed their health history for 30 yaers' that would be a different matter.

 

Theres a silly beleif that 'non ionising radiation' is harmless.Mri scans cause tissue heating as the 'energy' is partialy absorbed as the human body in an mri scanner acts as a resonating ariel to reflect the signal back for data collection/pc digital information.

[Mumble]

Theres a silly beleif that 'non ionising radiation' is harmless.

And there's a silly amount of scare-mongering about by people who read a few books/websites/articles and think they are suddenly qualified nuclear physicists. In my opinion it is that ignorant spouting of nonsense containing long words which causes a lot more harm than any medical intervention.

[philipo]

Quite right Mumble,

i spent 7 years building mono/stereo FM pirate radio stations,tuning ariels and learning about ionising radiation,and worked making corona discharge high voltage equipment for industry.In the ealry days I learnt about climatic/geographic problems with radio wave propogation and blew hundreds of light bulbs.Its a case of technology running ahead of empirical research/mass studies.like the new phone frequencies and new wireless broadband standards.MRI saves thousands of lives but as for exposeing babies to em?

[KezT]

Quite right Mumble,

i spent 7 years building mono/stereo FM pirate radio stations,tuning ariels and learning about ionising radiation,and worked making corona discharge high voltage equipment for industry.In the ealry days I learnt about climatic/geographic problems with radio wave propogation and blew hundreds of light bulbs.Its a case of technology running ahead of empirical research/mass studies.like the new phone frequencies and new wireless broadband standards.MRI saves thousands of lives but as for exposeing babies to em?

 

well good for you - doesn't change the fact that in 40 years, no detrimenal side effects of MRI scans have been documented anywhere on the world

[philipo]

Not true ,heating of body tissue and dangers of hypothermia are some that are listed,these are rare .ASD?AS?AUTISIM seem strongly associated with the fine nerves/wiring in the brain and their 'different sensitivity.While physical visible science has made up the main bulk of medicine ,its only in recent times through atomic medical imaging methods that it has become apparent that human beings are an electrical phenomena.messing about with the bodies bioelectric feilds can be dangerous ,particulary with cells containing Keratin which is electrically polarised.

 

MRI technology will greatly aid the research into many ailments/disorders etc as well as mental health and the functioning of the brain,as well as many normal well known forms of disease, but I do feel that due to the lack of long term /large sample health research,combined with the sensitivity of new growing tissue may present dangers.

Just been on Wikipedia and read about my 'chilblains'!!!!

 

MRI is one of many technological spinoffs that started with early radar and physics.Many imaging technologies are spinoffs from military projects/contracts.The electric coils used to create a strong magnetic feild found their first applications in 'Cyclotrons' used to seperate radioactive isotopes for nuclear bombs.many technologies have multipul crossovers.

 

The human body is not atomically transparent and the different electrical ccharacteristics of different cells and the elements that make them up is by no means mostly understood.

 

but its just an observation and an opinion.

 

there does exist the possibility that in the future the uses of atomic technologies may have the ability to 'cure' any organic brain 'defects',but before that happens there would have to be a 'consensus' on whats 'normal' biology.

 

OPINION is there any radiologists out there who could help?

[KezT]

Not true ,heating of body tissue and dangers of hypothermia are some that are listed,these are rare .ASD?AS?AUTISIM seem strongly associated with the fine nerves/wiring in the brain and their 'different sensitivity.While physical visible science has made up the main bulk of medicine ,its only in recent times through atomic medical imaging methods that it has become apparent that human beings are an electrical phenomena.messing about with the bodies bioelectric feilds can be dangerous ,particulary with cells containing Keratin which is electrically polarised.

 

MRI technology will greatly aid the research into many ailments/disorders etc as well as mental health and the functioning of the brain,as well as many normal well known forms of disease, but I do feel that due to the lack of long term /large sample health research,combined with the sensitivity of new growing tissue may present dangers.

Just been on Wikipedia and read about my 'chilblains'!!!!

 

MRI is one of many technological spinoffs that started with early radar and physics.Many imaging technologies are spinoffs from military projects/contracts.The electric coils used to create a strong magnetic feild found their first applications in 'Cyclotrons' used to seperate radioactive isotopes for nuclear bombs.many technologies have multipul crossovers.

 

The human body is not atomically transparent and the different electrical ccharacteristics of different cells and the elements that make them up is by no means mostly understood.

 

but its just an observation and an opinion.

 

there does exist the possibility that in the future the uses of atomic technologies may have the ability to 'cure' any organic brain 'defects',but before that happens there would have to be a 'consensus' on whats 'normal' biology.

 

OPINION is there any radiologists out there who could help?

 

 

but the article was not about using mri's to "change" brain physiology or "cure" anything - it is about it being a diagnostic tool - and early definitive diagnosis with no known risks sounds good to me! (not that we're there yet)

[Mumble]

but the article was not about using mri's to "change" brain physiology or "cure" anything - it is about it being a diagnostic tool - and early definitive diagnosis with no known risks sounds good to me! (not that we're there yet)

No, no no Kez, you don't understand. They say it's just diagnostic, but actually it's part of a huge Government conspiracy to magnetically and electronically align the future populations of the world. All babies will undergo 'diagnostic' scanning which will actually be used to re-programme every human baby to a set Government blueprint. The 'diagnostic' use being pushed is just a front for a massive agenda by a few to create a population of uniform robotic individuals to continue their work... Or something like that. I read about it on Wikipedia so I know it's true.

[darkshine]

No, no no Kez, you don't understand. They say it's just diagnostic, but actually it's part of a huge Government conspiracy to magnetically and electronically align the future populations of the world. All babies will undergo 'diagnostic' scanning which will actually be used to re-programme every human baby to a set Government blueprint. The 'diagnostic' use being pushed is just a front for a massive agenda by a few to create a population of uniform robotic individuals to continue their work... Or something like that. I read about it on Wikipedia so I know it's true.

Three cheers for wikipedia the fountain of all knowledge (it can be useful sometimes to a degree)

 

The only question I had was this: They got a high percentage rate of finding which babies have ASD (about 70 if memory accurate) but I didn't see anywhere how many babies they tested could just be being blind... I agree with Karen A - this type of thing can be so so useful, as long as individual needs are still assessed (and why wouldn't they be?).

 

There's a lot of things out there that would benefit from early dx but that doesn't mean that existing methods will be replaced plus these things are costly!!

 

I lied - I have another question - what if the behaviours changed? What if whatever they are looking for changes in the brain? Children have very changeable brains that are far better at adults' at change, repair, development etc - so yeah, what if whatever they are looking at changes?

[Karen A]

The only question I had was this: They got a high percentage rate of finding which babies have ASD (about 70 if memory accurate) but I didn't see anywhere how many babies they tested could just be being blind... I agree with Karen A - this type of thing can be so so useful, as long as individual needs are still assessed (and why wouldn't they be?).

 

 

...because it is expensive to involve physiotherapists,EPs,OTs,SALT etc etc who would be required to assess what individual needs are as opposed to a blanket diagnosis.

 

....because if needs were investigated people might have an expectation that programmes be put in place to meet those needs.

 

........because some professionals still believe that ASD is not a condition that can be treated and so would diagnose but offer no follow up.

 

.....because it would be too expensive to do both an MRI scan and detailed assessment.

 

 

Karen.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Karen A

[Karen A]

Hi.

 

I should add.

A similar lengthy debate took place here last year.

I will try and find a link later.

But one major issue is being missed that I waffled about last time.

Babies are fairly easy to MRI scan because they will sleep for a while once fed and settled.

Children of over a year are a different matter.They frequently require sedation and sometimes need a general anaesthetic.

Children who might be considered as needing assessment for ASD are even more of a difficult group.

 

A friend has a son who has ASD.He required an MRI scan to exclude other possible medical problems.

Two attempts at sedation which just made him agitated and drunk like with ever increasing amounts of sedation.

Finally ended up having a general anaesthetic.

I don't believe that MRI scans carry any degree of risk.However the reality is that there would need to be a very clear case to justify a GA in order to perform an MRI scan on a young child.It would not be a cheep option.

 

It is not going to happen very often unless perhaps where there is a clear family history of ASD.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Karen A

[darkshine]

...because it is expensive to involve physiotherapists,EPs,OTs,SALT etc etc who would be required to assess what individual needs are as opposed to a blanket diagnosis.

 

....because if needs were investigated people might have an expectation that programmes be put in place to meet those needs.

 

........because some professionals still believe that ASD is not a condition that can be treated and so would diagnose but offer no follow up.

 

.....because it would be too expensive to do both an MRI scan and detailed assessment.

 

 

Karen.

Well that told me

(I'm sure I mentioned the expense bit earlier though....)

 

In my experience your 2nd and 3rd point apply to my own situation and have pretty much made me feel everything negative about the whole thing. And not just for myself, it makes me really angry that there are people out there who experience this (themselves or for a loved one) as I believe that there are many things can be done to help - they just aren't offered.

 

Another thing is whenever you read things about autism there's always that single sentence standing out - there is no cure - and some just leave it at that! Like, there's no cure so sod it we won't even try to give you advice or help etc.

 

Whenever I see these articles I always think that the chances of them doing these "tests" on a mass scale is very very unlikely, I also think that the people who aren't even getting help on a basic level from their GP are hardly likely to have access to such tests either...

[KezT]

but, to be fair, there is no cure for an AWFUL lot of things - most of which people are still offered management treatments, many of which are very expensibve.

 

we have a`lad at school who has an insulin pump to help manage his diabetes - at £7k per pump (plus the insulin, and peripheries) this is not the cheapest treatment option for him, but it is the best for his individual circumstanstanes.

 

my husband has severe psoriasis and psoratic arthritis - they could just say "its not curable and it won't kill you so tough", but they don't - they pay a lo f oney or ome quite complcated anti-tnf drugs and treatments.

 

there us no evidence tht early dx leads to less support- rather the opposite has been proven many times.

[darkshine]

Hi

 

Since I'm the last person to use the word "cure" I'm gonna take a risk and assume your point is at least partially directed my way

 

All I meant was that the experience I have had is that the help for adults is minimal - not trying to start a war on that cuz I have seen that there are parents who are struggling to get help for their children too - all I meant is that if dx was earlier then that would hopefully increase the chances of help. Or at the very least there would be more time to try to get help cuz an awful lot of things that are very hard to do by yourself, for yourself once your an adult and when in category of adult dx.

 

There are a lot of management and treatments out there for other things and they also are very expensive and they aren't always readily available to everyone who needs them.

 

From what I've seen adults are most definitely not a priority for some health services in the case of AS at least.

 

I just don't see MRI scanning being done on children on a wide scale especially when money seems to be being cut left right and centre in the NHS.

 

Regards

 

Darkshine

[KezT]

I don't think they will (or should) be offered to every child - that's just silly - we don't screen every child for every thing! But if an mri can pick up ASD as soon as any evidence appears, or in "high risk" kids then that has got to be a good thing IMO - and wil mean that they can access better support quicker.

 

We all know how difficult it is to access any support if dx'd as an adult, and how many children strugle for years before a dx and then require more support because they have got themselves a whole load of problems associated with the stress of unsupported ASD. A very early dx would ensure that needs could be monitored all the way through the person's life, and the best support/management put in place.

[Karen A]

but the article was not about using mri's to "change" brain physiology or "cure" anything - it is about it being a diagnostic tool - and early definitive diagnosis with no known risks sounds good to me! (not that we're there yet)

 

I found the link I was thinking about yesterday.

I decided not to post it as I realise I could just repeat a previous debate however in the words of the Dragons I'm

out.

 

Karen.