comment: >
  
  This worries me, as an autistic person who had to deal with a lot of 'experts' who were absolutely sure what support I required without bothering to ask me.
  This test doesn't adequately show what support a child will need, because (to use a non-medical but widely understood term) it doesn't go any way towards showing the level of 'functioning' that the child will later go on to exhibit. It tests for exposure to environmental factors that are known to contribute to the development of autism, and does so with a reasonably high success rate. Autism, as many people will know, is a spectrum: there are people who will go on to live completely 'normal' lives (get a job, start a family etc) and then there are people who will need continuous ongoing support for the rest of their lives. Obviously, the steps that need to be taken for these two very different cases (and anything inbetween) are extremely different, and before symptoms start to show parents and medical professionals may begin taking completely incorrect steps that later go on to damage the child.
  That's not the reason I'm worried however. What this test does, so early on in a child's life, is to provide them with a label that they'll either be carrying throughout their life or at least until they take a more reliable test. With an 81 % reliability rate, this could be incredibly damaging to a child if worried parents begin treating that child differently in the most critical years for development. Similarly, autism is something that parents are worried about: this isn't particularly surprising given that the leading autism charity in the US (autismspeaks) continues to tell parents that they should 'grieve' for their autistic child. With the amount of pseudoscientific nonsense about autism that's currently out there, what we could really do without is making parents feel stressed and desperate about something that they have absolutely no idea about.
context: So according to the article, the test measures exposures to metals that are associated with the development of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and is 81% accurate. It can help children receive early therapy, medication, and intervention.
  There are some potential problems with this.
  
  ASD has significant environmental components - the mother’s exposure to certain air pollution while pregnant seems to be a significant factor - but also genetic components, and we’re still not completely sure how each component contributes.
  81% accuracy as opposed to a high 90s accuracy rate may provide enough wiggle room that insurance companies may not be willing to cover interventions without a more accurate test that can be performed later in life.
  ASD is a spectrum and a very wide one at that. You don’t know how symptoms will manifest in a particular individual, how they will impact that individual’s life, or what therapies will be appropriate until symptoms appear, and whatever you do before symptoms show up may not be appropriate to what is actually going to happen and may harm both you and your child. >
  
  I agree so much with point 3. The best way to treat autism is to help develop healthy mechanisms to deal with it. ie if you stim in a way that's physically harmful to yourself, help develop a new way of dealing with overstimulation.
  Sticking kids into some sort of standardized "treatment" program for autism where you're basically just teaching kids to mask or else they will be punished is harmful, we already know that. I'm worried treating kids for autism before they have any autistic traits will push more parents down that path to think if they start early their kid can be "cured". 
  We need to fix how autism is treated in this country (and many others) regardless of this testing. But I know we won't so I fear the worst for these kids. >
  
  The way they're testing has me worried. Trying to diagnose autism via heavy metal exposure might contribute to anti-vaxx conspiracies about vaccines and heavy metals. 
  I think it might also cause autistic children that don't have these markers to be missed and have any future diagnosis prospects made more difficult.
  I know the makers say that the test itself shouldn't be relied upon completely, but having been through the system shitty doctors and exhausted parents are probably gonna rely upon this if it gets approved by the feds. 
  It's a simple, easy, and most of all "physically provable" marker for autism. It's way easier than waiting for your baby to miss a milestone and then having to go to multiple psychologists/psychiatrists to get an official diagnosis.
  Idk, it just really doesn't sit well with me.
  Edit: I, not It >
  
  There isn't really any heavy metals in vaccines. This comes from a misunderstanding of what Thimerosal is because people who are anti-vax aren't smart and actually don't know what's in vaccines. Thimerosal is not a heavy metal it's a preservative.
  There's no way to stop people who are dumb from just making things up and pretending they're true. >
  
  I agree the anti-vax nonsense is nonsense, but Thimerosal contains Mercury, which is a heavy metal.
  The molecule has entirely different properties to mercury in its poisonous bioavailable forms, but it’s also inaccurate to say ‘there isn’t really heavy metal in vaccines’ if mercury is a component in the preservative.
  I’m all for accurate and nuanced understanding of how medicines work, but that includes ‘accurate’. >
  
  Containing mercury does not make something a heavy metal a heavy metal is something lead. Mercury is only an element in thimerosal which is not a heavy metal it's a preservative. Mercury is not in its heavy metal or elemental form when it is thimerosal.
  Yes I know all of this because I actually have a degree in biology and I studied microbiology so yeah. And no there is absolutely no heavy metals in vaccines. Heavy metals are literally poisonous and thimerosal is not. It's a preservative and again not a heavy metal. 
  This is just an ignorance of what chemistry is and how it works. Once something is bound and in a compound it does not work the same and therefore it does not have the same classification. Mercury if it was actually in its heavy metal form would literally kill you within a few hours or less.
  What I said was 100% accurate and what you're saying is absolutely not. >
  
  I hope this works out. It will help so many people if they can start support earlier in their lives. >
  
  In Japan, they routinely screen all children, not just children who are presenting with certain symptoms, for autism around the age of 2. Supports start prior to schooling. I wish we could see something like this implemented in the US.
  I worry the reliance on testing looking for ASD markers could contribute to misdiagnosis, and then leave children who don’t have biological markers without adequate supports. So much change could happen if pediatricians and adults were more educated about ASD symptoms in infants. My child clearly had ASD as an infant and wasn’t referred to testing because of the general lack of education about ASD in the providers we were seeing. As a baby, they screamed the majority of the time they were awake, they didn’t smile back at people, had feeding issues, didn’t begin to use gestures, clearly wasn’t developing similar to other children and it was brushed off consistently. I feel most parents with an autistic child see signs in their infants behavior that suggest there is an issue. >
  
  My pediatrician had every parent fill out the mchat-r form at 18 months. We already suspected our son might be a little autistic already so he recommended us to the local support agencies for further evaluation. Your mileage may vary, but I definitely think pediatricians are more educated on the subject than ever before. >
  
  That’s great to hear!