observers and eye contact

I haven't posted in a while ... I wound up with so many posts saved up in my head that I couldn't get them all down. But this I had to post, in case anyone ever reads it. In this study involving bonobos (a kind of primate considered by many to be the most similar to humans), the authors state that a bonobo was far more likely to make eye contact if there was no third individual observing. That is, if a third bonobo was looking at them, the first bonobo was likely to turn away from a second bonobo, and not make eye contact. I find a lot of interesting things to think about in that.

Meltdowns and a funny meltdown story

I've been reading and thinking a lot about meltdowns lately. T was being evaluated by the county the other day when he had a huge meltdown. The school psychologist wanted me to ignore him. That's not my way. Not that I have solved the Meltdown Problem, for anyone out there who is searching for a solution. But I don't believe in ignoring it.

I mean ... let's think about this for a minute. We have an autistic individual with a severe deficit in the domains of language and communication. He is communicating wants and desires and feelings ... so I should just ignore him?? This is one of the most absurd pieces of advice I have received since my son's diagnosis, in my opinion.

But this is apparently a widely shared view. I got the same piece of advice, I now recall, from some other county employee when he was 20 months old. I thought it was ridiculous then and I am really glad I didn't take it.

As it happens, T is doing GREAT despite his challenges. He makes terrific eye contact, hugs me and has even on occasion been known to tell me he loves me. Well, I can't take all the credit for that, but I personally think that if I had taken these people's ridiculous advice, he would probably want very little to do with me.

Anyhow, the point is that I HAVE been re-thinking this topic lately, and meditating on what causes these things which are so much more than temper tantrums. One thing I think is that T has the ego of an adult. According to this entry from the Eides, it may even be that autistic children wind up with difficulties acquiring language because the prefrontal cortex has matured too early. Apparently, an immature prefrontal cortex may (some people theorize) make it easier to learn some kinds of information. It seems that the prefrontal cortex is where a person develops their will and volition. See this, for example.

And this explains a lot. T's ego is very easily insulted. A lot of little kids get upset when you take their toys away, but for T it's more than the loss of the toy. I can tell that. It's the powerlessness of being at the whim and mercy of someone else that he finds galling and he just can't take it. If he wants something and it's not in the house, he wants to just go to the store and get it. Well, how can I blame him? I would too, but of course he's not old enough to drive. So there is the crux of it.

I'm still not sure what to do with this information, but these musings of the last couple of days made the following story much funnier.

T is very taken these days with a scene from Dora the Explorer in which Benny the Bull carries around an armfull of stuffed animals which he refers to as "my guys." At the dollar store, T grabs all these little Halloween characters and calls them "my guys" (which was very cute and funny), but then naturally he wanted to take them all home. My husband tells him he can only have one and buys him the bat. [insert meltdown here .. ok, the meltdown itself was not that funny.] But in the aftermath:

T (repeatedly): "I want the witch and the ghost and the pumpkin and the bear AND the bat, TOO."

Me: "You can't have everything you want."

T says : "I want to have EVERYTHING I want."

Truer words, never spoken.

Quick update re. prednisone

I just never seem to have time for blogging anymore, but I wanted to provide an update to my earlier posts about prednisone. T had another respiratory episode recently and had to do another 5-day course of prednisone. However, I did not see any obvious changes to his language abilities this time. I don't know if this is because my previous observations were a fluke, or perhaps because this time he received pills rather than liquid. That shouldn't matter, except that he chewed the pills instead of swallowing them, which means he didn't get quite as much of it. Perhaps my previous observations were coincidental, then, or had another cause. One other thing is that because of the timing of his first two doses of prednisone last time, there was a period of time in which he had much more prednisone in his system. Also, I still to this date have not had a single instance of the kind of joint attention he exhibited on that one occasion (where he pointed to an object and then alternated his gaze with me and the object, most remarkable).

About hormones and orchid children

One of my most recent (and yet also oldest) worries has been the hormones. So many autistic children have hormonal imbalances it seems, so we are not alone. But since he was an infant, T has had near constant erections. The pediatrician consistently discounted this as being of any significance, but I have a NT child also, so I know this is abnormal. Given the number of other kids with excess testosterone, I feel confident this is a problem although I have not bothered to have T tested.

I haven't had him tested, because it is expensive and will, I believe, lead nowhere unless I'm prepared to give him lupron, which some parents do. It is extremely controversial, of course, although I think it is very shocking the extent to which these parents are villified and mocked by others. There are several parents in my autism support group whose children hit puberty at the ripe old age of 8, and I think about this a lot as T gets older.

Am I possibly making a mistake by not addressing the excess testosterone? I don't know. It seems risky to me, there is just so much we don't understand. Although I understand that testosterone and other androgens can cause damage, it seems to me that for all we know, they might also be elevated for a reason. Maybe they have some other effect that is beneficial -- how do we know?

After hours of reading, I still don't really understand much, but I have come away with one fact that I found very interesting: According to Allan Mazur, although testosterone has been linked to problems like aggression, excessive risk-taking, delinquent behaviors, and the like, it turns out that these outcomes are all context-dependent. They are influenced by things like:

1) the quality of the child's relationship with his parents; and
2) the behaviors of his peers.

Dr. Mazur speculates that higher testosterone might confer social benefits under the right conditions, and I find that very interesting indeed.

(See this article, this article, and this book for more.)

Maybe this extra testosterone is just more proof that my son is an "orchid child," who just requires that extra care to bloom. In case you haven't read this article, an "orchid child" is not some weird new age thing, it means that some children have unique attributes that make them extra-sensitive to their environment -- they need a "SuperMom" -- without one they will not succeed, but with one, they may flourish even more than their peers (called "dandelion children" by the author).

Here's another interesting fact: although we tend to focus on testosterone as a cause of behavior, it appears that testosterone levels are also influenced by experience. Dr. Mazur calls it "reciprocal causation."

It's probably obvious why the "orchid child" premise is a favorite theory of mine.

At any rate, there certain seems to be a fairly wide consensus that autistic children are more vulnerable to environment than others, and a lot of researchers (like these) are busy trying to find that environmental trigger. I have read suggestions that there are links to stress in the mother, infections, vaccines of course (by some), autoimmune disorders, even cable television. But I wonder if they are focusing too much on looking for a physical trigger.

Dare I wonder aloud (so to speak) whether parenting matters? I know this is kind of taboo to bring up. If anyone is reading this, I'm sure you are saying, "but that refrigerator mother theory was discredited long ago." But I am not in any way suggesting that a lack of affection by mothers causes autism. But I DO wonder whether we don't have fewer REAL "supermoms" than we used to a few decades ago. Surely we do.

How many of our children are in daycare and preschools that are not top notch? How many mothers can afford to stay home or afford to put their children in really top notch centers with very low teacher to student ratios? We were advised by the "experts" to interact with T at least once EVERY 5 MINUTES. And even now that he is 3-1/2, not to leave him anywhere with a ratio of less than 3-to-1. Who can do that? Who can afford that?

30 years ago, were there more mothers living at home, with help? I'm not sure, but I wonder. Is it possible that more mothers had mothers, sisters, even older daughters? Is it possible that life was just radically different?

I have to wonder whether there aren't some children -- NOT all of them, they are clearly not all the same -- but SOME children, who require never-ceasing, endless, copious, exhausting superhuman amounts of attention. OK, I don't have to wonder, I KNOW it, because that is my son. He requires it or he will not develop. Were there times when I couldn't do it? You betcha. I'm not a refrigerator mom, but I am human, and I have limited resources.

When I get tired and I give myself a break it takes the blink of an eye for T to start "checking out." I don't know why. But the point is that he does. Less and less now, but he does.

Fortunately, I have been blessed enough with the ability to earn a true livable salary working only 15 hours per week, with an amazing husband who also works part-time and is a full-time, second primary caregiver the rest of the time. But where would we be without those things? I truly don't know, but in my heart I suspect very much that our T would be on the severe end of the spectrum.

Well, that's sort of an aside, and I'm sure that to some degree, I just want to believe that what I does matters. That it's in my power to just grab him and hoist him on up into high-functioning adulthood. I just do want to believe that, and I won't lie about that.

And I don't really know how severe T is or would be. I will say that Jayden, the star of "Bye" (which I really recommend if you haven't seen it, it is only 10 minutes long), whose mother says he was diagnosed as "severe," reminds me very much of T when he was that age. Not every minute of the day, maybe, but there is nothing about Jayden that is unfamiliar to me, although T was diagnosed with PDD-NOS instead of classic autism, and he was labeled "moderate" instead of "severe." A few months ago some county therapists expressed the idea that he seemed more "mild" to them than "moderate," so maybe I'd like to take some credit for that, but I don't know. I didn't have that much respect for the therapists in other respects, so I guess like everyone else I just believe what I want to believe.

So ... what does this have to do with testosterone? I don't remember anymore, except that I'm clinging to some way of looking at things that gives me the power to influence the outcome without giving my son drugs.

Maybe being a supermom could mean that his extra testosterone won't get him into trouble. Maybe if I could just do everything just right (OK, I know I can't be perfect) -- it will all turn out okay, or even better than okay.

On the other hand, I'll be singing a different tune if he starts sprouting body hair next month.

Maybe it WAS just chance ...

So after obsessing for a couple of weeks whether some fairly remarkable developments were due to fever or prednisone or chance, I must report that one of the 3 events has been at least partially duplicated without fever (I don't think) or prednisone. A couple of days ago, T began asking "What is that [sound]?" There's still something odd about the way he asks it, and it's really not clear that he is always really trying to find out the answer, but I'll take it. I'll take it.

As for the other 2 incidents, though, I have not seen either again. The one of course that stands out so clearly in my mind is him standing there, catching my eye and turning his head to direct my gaze to the object he was pointing out. Not once, but twice. In a row. It was simply breathtaking.

Although he points out objects a lot, I have never seen this before or since. Before Autism, it would never have even occurred to me that there was such a thing as joint attention, that it can be lacking. What a simple thing it seems to do, to meet eyes, to turn the head ... And even when it is missing, how subtle it is at first. You know something is not quite right, but you don't know what. And then you know, and it is so puzzling that someone can lack in this most basic of abilities. How can it be?

And it is so beautiful when you see it at last, after so long. And it is so painful to think that you might never see it again. It's kind of a cruel hope, maybe.

But clearly, there is no giving up now, because I have seen it. It is THERE, waiting to be unlocked. If only I could find the key.

PS about prednisone

T's regular pediatrician had something very interesting to say about my prednisone incident, which I don't think I've mentioned here yet. My husband is actually the one who spoke with her, but I think I've gotten all the major details correct.

According to my husband, when he brought up "the incident" with her (discussed previously in these posts), she was completely unsurprised. In fact, she told him that she had had another patient some time back who tried prednisone, and that it had worked marvels. However, there had been side effects, and she did not necessarily think it was worth it. She said that due to the side effects, they wouldn't use the prednisone at Emory, but she thought her patient had traveled somewhere else.

I'm a little unclear as to whether this patient was forced to discontinue due to the side effects, but the pediatrician says that the patient did retain some of the gains after stopping the prednisone.

I wish I knew more, but I'm not sure if our pediatrician really knows much more than that. If it's true, of course, I'm wondering why she never mentioned it before??

Also, what is it that might make it work, if it does? The folks at Johns Hopkins I thought were very certain that it wouldn't affect the inflammation that they saw in the tissue samples, although maybe I need to go back and read that more closely. I find it so striking, though, that elsewhere I read that prednisone is supposedly helpful for the kind of inflammation involved in asthma because it actually turns off the genes that trigger the release of the inflammatory chemicals.

My friend the infectious diseases doc also thought for that reason that it makes perfect sense that prednisone could have an immediate beneficial effect of this sort (not that she had any idea whether it did or not, you understand -- she is an HIV specialist, this is not her area) -- so it is hard for me to let go of this idea.

But still, assuming it's not that .... could prednisone have a hormonal effect rather than an anti-inflammatory effect (if those are even separate things)? Somehow, prednisone mimics cortisol in some sort of way. And I have read that autistic individuals appear to not experience the cortisol spike in the morning that others do.

I also read somewhere that cortisol has some sort of effect on calcium channels, which have also been implicated in autism, maybe that is relevant?

I think there's a lot of other stuff about cortisol and autism out there, and I just can't remember it all. But could there be some connection there?

I wish I understood all of these things so I could see how they all fit together ....

A follow up on febrile seizures

Anonymous pointed out in response to my last post that pediatricians by and large think febrile seizures are not a big deal, and that is certainly true. If you visit the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke at the National Institutes of Health, you will find this fact sheet on febrile seizures.

It is clearly designed to reassure the worried parent. Here's what it says:

"Are febrile seizures harmful?

Although they can be frightening to parents, the vast majority of febrile seizures are harmless. During a seizure, there is a small chance that the child may be injured by falling or may choke from food or saliva in the mouth. Using proper first aid for seizures can help avoid these hazards (see section entitled "What should be done for a child having a febrile seizure?").

There is no evidence that febrile seizures cause brain damage. Large studies have found that children with febrile seizures have normal school achievement and perform as well on intellectual tests as their siblings who don't have seizures. Even in the rare instances of very prolonged seizures (more than 1 hour), most children recover completely.

Between 95 and 98 percent of children who have experienced febrile seizures do not go on to develop epilepsy. However, although the absolute risk remains very small, certain children who have febrile seizures face an increased risk of developing epilepsy. These children include those who have febrile seizures that are lengthy, that affect only part of the body, or that recur within 24 hours, and children with cerebral palsy, delayed development, or other neurological abnormalities. Among children who don't have any of these risk factors, only one in 100 develops epilepsy after a febrile seizure."

Does this sound reassuring to you? I can see why it might. After all it prominently says that "the vast majority of febrile seizures are harmless." That would explain of course why a pediatrician will always be dismissive if your child has one. That's because doctors play by statistics. If they have seen 80 patients with X, and they all turned out fine, you can bet that when your child shows up with it they will not think there is a problem.

I, however, am not reassured by this discussion. You know why? 2 reasons: 1) I review and edit corporate disclosures for a living, and for that reason, I am less influenced by "spin" than other people. 2) My son has autism, which means 2 things: a) I have already learned that when there is a 1% chance of something, that means it really can happen to my child. b) my child is in the group that is clearly described in the last paragraph as being at increased risk of epilepsy.

So, just for fun, I have re-written the last paragraph in a way that highlights rather than downplays the risk. I feel pretty confident that I have not altered the actual content. See what you think:

"Between 2 and 5 percent of children who have experienced febrile seizures go on to develop epilepsy. Some children who have febrile seizures face an increased risk of developing epilepsy, althouh the risk is small. Children who are more likely to develop epilepsy include those who have febrile seizures that are lengthy, that affect only part of the body, or that recur within 24 hours. In addition, children with cerebral palsy, delayed development, or other neurological abnormalities are also more likely to develop epilepsy. Other children, who don't have any of the risk factors listed above -- have a one in 100 chance of developing epilepsy after a febrile seizure."

Still think that they're not a big deal? Then you might ask yourself why they are still researching ways to treat and prevent them:

The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), a part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), sponsors research on all forms of febrile seizures in medical centers throughout the country. NINDS-supported scientists are exploring what environmental and genetic risk factors make children susceptible to febrile seizures. Some studies suggest that women who smoke or drink alcohol during their pregnancies are more likely to have children with febrile seizures, but more research needs to be done before this link can be clearly established. Scientists are also working to pinpoint factors that can help predict which children are likely to have recurrent or long-lasting febrile seizures.

Investigators continue to monitor the long-term impact that febrile seizures might have on intelligence, behavior, school achievement, and the development of epilepsy. For example, scientists conducting studies in animals are assessing the effects of seizures and anticonvulsant drugs on brain development.

Investigators also continue to explore which drugs can effectively treat or prevent febrile seizures and to check for side effects of these medicines."

Now, of course this correlation between febrile seizures and epilepsy does not mean that the seizures "caused" epilepsy. It could be, I suppose, that these children already "have" epilepsy.

But I don't personally find this very reassuring, because as far as I can tell, all seizures are caused by a disturbance to the balance between excitatory and inhibitory neurons. See this discussion, for example, which states:

The Neurobiology of Seizures
Seizures can be caused by multiple mechanisms, and often they appear so diverse that one would suspect that no common theme applies. However, one principle that is often discussed is that seizures arise when there is a disruption of mechanisms that normally create a balance between excitation and inhibition. Thus, normally there are controls that keep neurons from excessive action potential discharge, but there are also mechanisms that facilitate neuronal firing so the nervous system can function appropriately. Disrupting the mechanisms that inhibit firing or promoting the mechanisms that facilitate excitation can lead to seizures. Conversely, disrupting the mechanisms that bring neurons close to their firing threshold, or enhancing the ways neurons are inhibited, usually prevents seizure activity.

And I think I have pretty good reason to find this disturbing, since there is material all over the place about how autism is also caused by a disturbance in this same balance. For example, this review from the Simons Foundation describes a couple of recent studies from last year:

"Together, the papers add heft to the hypothesis that an imbalance between excitatory and inhibitory neurons underpins autism. The high prevalence of seizures in individuals with autism is seen an indicator that the balance between excitatory and inhibitory circuits has gone awry in people with the disorder.

"The possibility is emerging that subtle changes in the numbers and proportions of this category of interneurons may result in a range of neurodevelopmental disorders, including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and autism," says Anthony-Samuel LaMantia, lead investigator on the PNAS study and a neuroscientist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The studies also emphasize the essential role inhibitory interneurons play in the development of proper circuitry in the cortex. Restoring circuit balance may therefore be a plausible way to reverse autism, suggests Hensch, a neurobiologist at Harvard."

Now, again, let me point out that what this suggests is that autistic individuals are more likely to have seizures. It doesn't mean that a febrile seizure made them autistic.

But it is a rather far leap from there to conclude that febrile seizures do not harm an autistic person, either.

And how many studies have been done to ascertain the impact of a febrile seizure on an autistic person? I haven't seen anyone mention any. How would you design such a thing, I wonder? Who is your control group? Autistic children who didn't have one? How would you even know for sure who had had a seizure, since so many of them are undetectable? And how would you match them, given that autistic children have so many different levels of functioning, comorbid conditions, etc.?

So for me, I am back to common sense. I already have some pretty good reason to think that there is something wrong in my son's brain. And it is clear that he is at increased risk for febrile seizures.

And I dig deeper, and I find this from the CDC (emphasis added):

The 5%-7% of children who have either a personal history of convulsions or a parent or sibling with history of convulsions may be at increased risk for febrile convulsions after MMR vaccination (184). The precise risk has not been measured, but appears to be minimal. On the other hand, febrile seizures occur commonly among children in whom measles disease develops, and the risk for acquiring measles is substantial. Therefore, the benefits of administering MMR vaccine to children with a personal or family history of convulsions substantially outweigh the risks and these children should be vaccinated following the recommendations for children who have no contraindications.

This doesn't sound unreasonable to me. But this is NOT the same thing as saying there are no risks to the vaccine, or that it is perfectly safe.

I just can't see leaving this decision up to some stranger in Washington DC, or group of strangers, no matter how many degrees they have. I just can't understand how anyone could take this stuff lightly, I really don't.