I was 22/23 when I conceived my son, his day was 32/33.

We have seen the articles and wondered ourselves.

The findings are never consistent, as is the case with so much of this kind of thing, some say the chances are only slightly greater, or the fact that the chance is greater has only 5% to do with the age of parents.

If your sons's dad was 32/33, I'm not sure if that would qualify as the typical "older father" statistic, but my dad was significantly younger than my mom, though there are often times I doubt I have an ASD for various reasons.

I did know of someone whose father was 28 and their mother was 40 when they were born...possibly 41, and there's definitely something wrong with them, though I don't know if its autism, despite them saying it is day in and day out...lol.

40 year olds are often stigmatized as giving birth to DS babies, but its actually supposed to increase the risk for all chromosomal disorders, autism has recently (to my knowledge) been included in that list.

I had never heard that age could be a factor in having a child with autism.. I had my son who has Asperger's when I was 38 and his dad was 26. I had my son who has Down syndrom when I was 41.

That definitely goes against the grain of older father=autism. I think it really all depends on the person: first you consider genetics, then you consider the circumstances of the birth, then you research those circumstances and, well, all you can really do is theorize how the person's individual body composition will react to those situations, and what effect they will have on them long term.

I see what your discussion is trying to determine, why were you born autistic? Thats a really good question, one with no clear answer. My psychiatrist was talking to me about why I am autistic and what she thinks were the factors. I will give you the reasons/causes/risk factors she discussed with me, perhaps they may give you some insight.

The initial factor is that many close relatives have an Autism Spectrum Disorder; I have a niece (my sisters daughter) with very severe autism who was non-verbal and still has trouble communicating at 6 years old; my cousin (my aunts son) was diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome and has severe symptoms and was in special schools his entire life; my uncle (fathers brother) has what was referred to as High Functioning Autism; and my father fits most of the criteria for a diagnosis and he shows very strong symptoms that caused extreme difficulties thru his entire life, and still do (my psychiatrist said it is common for fathers of autistic boys to be very symptomatic of the sons disorder ). Autism runs in the family in a very obvious way, that is a suspected link to my diagnosis, but it takes more than that alone

She thinks autism is likely genetic in my case, but with environmental triggers. One factor could be the age of your parents like you think - that could be the trigger to cause a genetic predisposition of autism to result in the disorder I live in NJ, this state has the highest rate of autism in the country based on well documented CDC studies, my psychiatrist informed me of that, and explained that it is possible that the widespread pollution and illegal toxic waste disposal disasters that are very common in northeast NJ could be a strong factor. She did admit that NJ just might have families with more resources and the state is more aware of autism and that is the cause for us having the highest rate in the country or it could literally be the environmental pollutants and toxic waste problems prevalent in this part of the state that triggered my supposed genetic predisposition to autism. NJ is called The Garden State but us residents of northeast NJ know it as The Toxic Waste State.

There is about 1200 Superfund (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980) toxic waste cleanup sites in the country; about 10% of them are in NJ. NJ is the 6th smallest state in land area and we have 1/10th of the countries toxic waste cleanup sites we are by far the most polluted state (I think, I didnt do the math, but the statistics seem very clear), that leads me to believe that environmental factors like our pollution could be a strong trigger for autism.

I believe that causes of autism are very complex and varied. Your age question could be one type of trigger for autism, it could have genetic causes for some and environmental causes for others (or both). BTW, environmental doesnt specifically mean nature and the outdoors, it means the conditions and influences that affect your growth, development or progress in life. Being born of older parents can be an environmental cause, growing up in The Toxic State could be an environmental cause, being deprived of oxygen during birth can be an environmental cause, I think there is countless factors and having some of the many can trigger it.. The reason each of us is autistic could be as varied as our specific traits are.

The simple answer to your question, my father was 31 and my mother 30, and no I dont think my parents age was a factor for me - I dont think that makes age more or less valid though due to the countless possible causes/triggers.

Thank you, Whyamaistillalive, it is indeed a complicated and multifaceted issue. I've read before that there are probable multiple causes of autism (on here, actually) and very difficult to determine why, if not impossible. We probably shouldn't focus so much on the cuase as the condition, though, in light of the "multiple, difficultly determined causes" theory . This is no doubt why the establsihing factors are seen in behavior, not in genetics or birth circumstances; I'm often inclined to associate a certain string of information with a presecribed set of causes, part of black and white thinking,--its jsut easier for me--but the fact is some people have oxygen deprivation and become autistic, and some people have oxygen deprivation and become psychopaths. So Its really a bad habit.

Think of it like Cancer; there are countless suspected causes for the countless types of cancer, which have countless symptoms and countless treatment options (overuse of the word countless?)

As I am writing this, I am seeing that Autism is similar to cancer in its classification structure (imo). We use a blanket term for all "Autism Spectrum Disorders" just as we use the term "Cancer" to cover all of the varying types of uncontrollable malignancies. Us autistic people are as varied from each other as much as the different types of cancer very, and the causes of our autism are likely as varied as the causes of the different types of cancer.

In general: If you get Cancer, you get sick and can die; If you are autistic, you might be seen by others as being very different - like me, and you wont die (although many of us sometimes wish we would).

With Cancer (and in my opinion with Autism), you see widespread use of "risk factors" to determine if you should be screened for any specific type of cancer. What is not realized by people is that risk factors are correlational, not causal. We are not sure what the exact "causes" are of cancer/autism, but we are aware of what precursors are related to cancer/autism.

We can predict who might turn out to be autistic, but the actual cause cannot specifically be attributed to those risk factors that we derived the prediction from......

Statistics and Probabilities covers this topic; you need to take that into account when dealing with variations in the variables - variations in the possible causes leading to variations in the types of autism. Its all about the math at this point, isn't it? Or am I putting too much thought into this and I need to limit my caffeine consumption?

I blame some of my son's problems from a night or two of heavy drinking before finding out that I was pregnant. A lot of development goes on in the first weeks of gestation and drinking isn't the best thing for it but when accidents happen you don't know your pregnant so why change your lifestyle

Angeleyes, I wouldnt think drinking like that before conception would have anything to do with autism.

It is strongly believed that autism is caused by abnormal brain development in the fetus. Some studies noted fetal brains of children who become autistic as having up to 20% more cells compared to NT children's brains - both at 10-20 weeks.

The region of the brain that is most closely related to autism (according to research I did) is the prefrontal cortex - which is the area responsible for executive functioning. That region of the brain is one of the last parts to develop - so drinking in early pregnancy may not even affect development of that brain region.

Aspin, a few times you have mentioned oxygen deprivation during childbirth was suspected to be the cause of your autism. Remember from my last post about statisics and probabilities.. Oxygen deprivation is associated with autism, but it is clearly stated that it is not a "causal" factor of Autism. It could be that developmental differences in the autistic fetus are the cause of the oxygen deprivation itself... The relationship is most likely backwards from what you think - autism causes the abnormal birth, not the other way around.

Autistic brains are thought to be physically different during gestation, so a single event at birth cannot be a cause (if those studies are correct). But it is very important to remember that if you think A causes B, it is just as likely that B caused A (in situations like Hypoxia at birth). In environmental issues, you cannot say that my being autistic caused the state of NJ to be polluted with toxic substances, but other risk factors like hypoxia can be caused by autism itself and not the other way around.

When dealing with unknowns like this, you always have to take a step back and look at the fundamental logic in your thinking. What if Angeleyes had a "hypothetical brain abnormality" that led to her desire to occasionally drink a lot of alcohol, and that same brain abnormality she had also lead to her child being autistic. That scenario would mean the heavy drinking had no causal relationship to autism, but heavy drinking would still an associated factor or a risk factor.

I was 26 and 30 when I conceived my sons; their father was 30 and 35. Not old.

I think sometimes the researchers take peripheral information out of context in these studies. You would probably find that a huge preponderance of the parents of those on the spectrum also bought Sunday newspapers, but that doesn't mean reading the Sunday paper had anything to do with their kids being on the spectrum. I just give that as an off-the-wall example. I think the 'older Dads' theory is BS, as in the past, typically all Dads were older (you couldn't get married until you had a viable career - usually in your 30's, so fatherhood was often a later life experience). Despite Dads being older in previous generations, the incidence of Autism/Asperger's has been skyrocketing in current generations. I have met people with kids on the spectrum who had their kids when they were teens, so that also seems to negate the older father premise.

I would dearly love to know the 'why' of it. There is no history in the families. We suspect my late husband was an undiagnosed Aspie, but even that does not feel like a certainty some days. Both my sons are definitely diagnosed (one Aspie, one Autie).

I remain skeptical of the 'single cause theories' - I think it will turn out to be either caused by an array of factors, or it will turn out to be an array of disorders that should not have been lumped together in the first place.

Just my two cents......

Hugs...

"an array of disorders that should not have been lumped together in the first place", that is Brilliant! I never thought about it on that level...

Thanks for the Newspaper analogy, I think that makes the "associated factor vs causal factor" issue much more clear...

Human beings, both on and off the spectrum, like to classify and categorize things. The problem arises if things are grouped together for the wrong reasons or on the wrong bases. And we are also dependent upon who is doing the research and what their particular focus is, and oftentimes who is funding the research as well.

For instance, I wasn't terribly surprised when government-funded research determined that there was no link between mercury containing vaccines or the MMR vaccines and autism. Why? Because it was not in their best interest to do so, as the federal government partially funds state provided education, and the states all require mandatory vaccinations in order to attend public school. If you don't have the shots, then you can't get in. If they had found evidence to support the mercury or MMR theory, then they would have been held responsible for it.

At the same time, the government's research was disproving the mercury/MMR theories, research was being conducted elsewhere that was proving the connection. I believe it was a Northwestern University study that had been done on brain development and exposure to heavy metals that I read. The Northwestern study was aimed first at lead exposure, but they also included mercy and aluminum. That study showed the metals deposited in brain pathways creating malfunctions in the development of further pathways, and also a decreased ability to utilize vitamin B12 which is essential for a number of neurological functions. That study also built on earlier mercury studies after disasters (the one in Japan and the one in Libya I think).

So who was right? Who was telling the truth? Maybe they both were. Maybe neither of them. I don't know. No one does, at least not yet.

There are a hundred ways to break your leg. Whatever causes it, you still wind up with a broken leg. It would be nice to know what to do to avoid it happening again though.

I have my own theories about it all. I hope I live long enough to see the answers to our questions, and see who got it right.

Hugs....