possible cause of autism?

Paracetamol was not available in UK without a prescription until 1988, so it's highly unlikely the mothers of us older autists would have taken it while pregnant. So if it wasn't the cause of autism decades ago, how could it be increasing autism risk now?

There seems to be a lot of "clutching at straws" or trying to blame someone /something because autism rates are rising. Whereas the reason is that many of us were missed when we were kids because it wasn't understood then, and more kids now are being diagnosed due to better understanding.

Paracetamol was not available in UK without a prescription until 1988, so it's highly unlikely the mothers of us older autists would have taken it while pregnant. So if it wasn't the cause of autism decades ago, how could it be increasing autism risk now?

There seems to be a lot of "clutching at straws" or trying to blame someone /something because autism rates are rising. Whereas the reason is that many of us were missed when we were kids because it wasn't understood then, and more kids now are being diagnosed due to better understanding.

I’m not sure that’s true about paracetamol not being available off prescription in UK until 1988. I’ll research that now. 

ChatGPT is insisting that paracetamol was made available without prescription (i.e., over-the-counter (OTC) in pharmacies) in the UK in the 1963 and was placed on the general sales list in 1983 (e.g., available in supermarkets). Is that a hallucination?

Lotus said:

Paracetamol was not available in UK without a prescription until 1988

Who knew, sister?!  That is so cool to know!!  Thank you.........and yet......even as I type this response to you.......that weird "memory bank deposit" at the back of my mind is starting to fire!!!!?  I now think that I did know....but had just forgotten = not rare with me.....AT ALL!!

Paracetamol is so widely available and so commonly used that I really wonder if this isn't a false connection. I think that ND has been around as long as our species has roamed the planet. It was only in the 1970's that autism was starting to be recognised and then it was thought to be rare and was only really recognised in those most severly affected.

It wasn't until into the 2000's that it was started to be recognised in women.

I think there have been all sort of social conventions and prejudices in previous generations for ND not to be recognised. With regard to women things like shyness, even extreme shyness, not looking people in the eyes, being unable to utter more than a few words to a stranger were desirable. These women would of been good marriage prospects in a patriarchal society, they wouldn't talk back and would most likely agree with thier husbands edicts and choices, wouldn't be out gagging about and would probably be modest in their dress sense. 

Those of us who wouldn't or couldn't abide by these strictures probably ended up at the bottom of society.

But we know ND people have super concentration and perserverence with a chosen subject, I wonder how many things were invented or improved by ND people? How many ND's chose to work with animals, as grooms, hound keepers, dairy maids etc, there were probably more jobs that didn't require a great amount of education, but a lot of knowlege in a particular area, something autists are renowned for.

Lotus said:

if it wasn't the cause of autism decades ago, how could it be increasing autism risk now?

It may not be simply the chemical in Paracetamol but the family of chemicals - the fact there seems a statistically significant connection is at least a clue for them to work on.

Anything that brings us a step closer to understanding the cause is a good thing I feel.

Good info.

That is a good point Lotus.

There might be a response to the original research in Nature Magazine and other peer reviewed journals within the next few weeks. It would be interesting to learn what experts in the field think of this research.