Michael fits many of the definitions of Aspergers, and when I asked, Barb said no because he has communication delays. Huge delays. In fact a year ago Michael had a vocabulary of less than twenty words. I think he used maybe 5. Now he can say nearly anything, but just does not. He can name people, he finds words to describe what he wants... It does not always make sense but he tries.

Holly are you sure Michaels isnt aspergers?

Within my family, though, a TV/autism connection simply does not hold up very well. Although I have ASD tendencies, mine never really held me back. Growing up, my son was far more obviously disabled by his autism than I ever was - even scoring in the MR range when he was young. Our experiences in the first 5 years were very different. I was at home (no daycare or playschool) and my mom was guilty of using the TV as her primary babysitter. I would watch it almost all morning every morning and on many afternoons. By six, I was even "right up" on many of the Soaps. My mom was a fussy housekeeper, didn't drive, and we couldn't afford to buy a lot of different games and toys. There were no other children around, so the TV became the natural thing to keep me occupied and out of harm's way.

Conversely, my mom watched my son for only about two years after I went back to work. She was driving by then so she spent much more time doing things with him - like trying to take him to the park, swimming lessions, skating, and taking him to drop in play schools. He was difficult to manage even then, but she was a patient and attentive grandmother. After he was diagnosed (at about 3 1/2), the hospital insisted, however, that he be enrolled in a structured playschool associated with his therapy at the hospital. This took up most of his day and effectively ruled out almost all TV by demanding that we continue his therapy at home and play various learning games with him in the evenings.

All in all, he spent way less time in front of the TV during those first 5 years than I ever did. So if TV causes autism, he should have been less affected than I instead of the other way around.

The point here is that numerical correlation studies are next to useless when it comes to proposing causes for something as complex as autism. They prove nothing. With imaginative manipulation of the data and ignoring the anecdotal evidence, almost anything can be correlated to almost anything else. The results can be "shot down" almost as quickly. I think Cindy makes a good point - the vaccine studies are also, in part, based on an observation that autism has increased even as the number of vaccines administered have increased and the parents' anecdotal observations are usually discounted as bunk by the researchers. If these studies find a correlation, the pharma companies are quick to shoot them down, so why don't they shoot down equally faulty studies like this one?

(I know, I know - this is a long post - sorry.)

PS: It also just clicked that this study is not even linking to too much TV in general, but trying to correlate the increase to watching cable TV starting in 1980 (see paragraph 1). What on earth I wonder do they think the difference is between watching TV and watching cable TV?

Cindy, you go girl. Give 'em H***. I'm with you 100%.... and, of course, WHAT they put on the TV has nothing to do with it, either, eh? ANYTHING that has increased in our society since the 1950s can be shown to "correlate" numerically with the increase in autism (DUH). Why not - riding in a car causes autism? Some of these studies must be correlated to the increase in the number of PHD students scrambling to find a thesis topic.