I have a question...

[conuly]

Okay, so, apparently, autism rates a decade ago were something like 1/2,500, and now, as people keep saying, it's 1/166, right?

Well, if this is proof that the actual incidence of autism has increased, wouldn't we expect the number to keep rising? They've been saying 1/166 for years now, haven't they? Shouldn't they be up to 1/100 or 1/85 or something? What am I not seeing?

Comments

[atalantapendrag.livejournal.com]

Isn't at least part of this "increase" an increase in diagnoses?

[conuly]

That'd be my point - increase in diagnoses, loosening of the diagnostic criteria, not an actual increase in the incidence of autism. But shh!

[moggymania.livejournal.com]

Your point is right, IMHO... I don't have a copy of the book, but one good thing Paul Collins did in his "Not Even Wrong" book was provide an intricate analysis of the supposed increase of autistics that pretty much put the "epidemic" concept to rest.

(I don't like Paul Collins in general, especially having read his recent article on how he now has to drug his kid -- after, of course, the kid had been stuck in all kinds of stressful therapy outlined in his book that sure would piss me off -- but it was an informative book factually, at least.)

[conuly]

Of course, I suppose you could say that the lack of mercury in most vaccines now would cause the incidence to lower....

Either way, it sure wouldn't be standing still.

[atalantapendrag.livejournal.com]

Well, they need something to write on the insurance claims forms. *eyeroll*

[beccak1961.livejournal.com]

Has incidence increased, or diagnosis?

[beccak1961.livejournal.com]

Which was already said
Note to self: read other comments first.

[ladytalon.livejournal.com]

What if the incidence and/or diagnosis has simply increased to the point where it now reflects the actual proportion of the population? In that case, the number would stay the same.

I would guess, though, that diagnosis is still too low, so the number should be higher. Maybe you should do a study on that. *hums*

[conuly]

There's also the alternate problem, which is that it might be diagnosed in people who, properly speaking, don't fit the diagnostic criteria. They might need help which a diagnosis can provide, but really not fit the diagnosis, for example.

[maelorin]

in short, you've missed nothing.

if the incidence of autistic disorders had risen so dramatically, no one would be arguing about it.

it's pretty clear that changes in diagnostic criteria, and the fact that a decade ago practically no one knew about the spectrum disorders beyond classic kanner's autism.

again, there is no mystery. except for the poor sods who don't understand statistics as well as they think they do. but then, they don't understand a great many other things as well as they assume either ... [i worked hard not to paraphrase the emperor/darth sidious there]

if autism was increasing from 1:2500 to 1:166 over a decade or so, such exponential growth would have to be caused by somehting much more active than minute quantities of mercury in vaccines. and places with high levels of environmental mercury - such as industrial cities - would have been super hot spots ... afterall, if mercury is the culprit, surely our bodies would be oblivious to how it got in ...

unless, and until, factors such as resourcing of appropriate special/additional programs in schools and community health facilities are properly addressed, and consistent training in and application of diagnostic criteria, we cannot be sure how many people are actually in the spectrum - or are placed there so that they can get access to the assitance they need.

and lets not forget that adults are practically ignored in these figures. and in the diagnostic/assistance arenas as well. there are plenty of us out there fiinally getting diagnosed - and if we're added back into our cohort childhood statistics, i suspect the curve will flatten out significantly.

[prezzey.livejournal.com]

I'm of the same opinion as you, however, I'd just like to mention that I have heard 1/100 (1%) several times, referring to the whole spectrum. ("Which puts it on par with schizophrenia" -- Gy. M.)

[atalantapendrag.livejournal.com]

Isn't at least part of this "increase" an increase in diagnoses?

[conuly]

That'd be my point - increase in diagnoses, loosening of the diagnostic criteria, not an actual increase in the incidence of autism. But shh!

[moggymania.livejournal.com]

Your point is right, IMHO... I don't have a copy of the book, but one good thing Paul Collins did in his "Not Even Wrong" book was provide an intricate analysis of the supposed increase of autistics that pretty much put the "epidemic" concept to rest.

(I don't like Paul Collins in general, especially having read his recent article on how he now has to drug his kid -- after, of course, the kid had been stuck in all kinds of stressful therapy outlined in his book that sure would piss me off -- but it was an informative book factually, at least.)

[conuly]

Of course, I suppose you could say that the lack of mercury in most vaccines now would cause the incidence to lower....

Either way, it sure wouldn't be standing still.

[atalantapendrag.livejournal.com]

Well, they need something to write on the insurance claims forms. *eyeroll*

[beccak1961.livejournal.com]

Has incidence increased, or diagnosis?

[beccak1961.livejournal.com]

Which was already said
Note to self: read other comments first.

[ladytalon.livejournal.com]

What if the incidence and/or diagnosis has simply increased to the point where it now reflects the actual proportion of the population? In that case, the number would stay the same.

I would guess, though, that diagnosis is still too low, so the number should be higher. Maybe you should do a study on that. *hums*

[conuly]

There's also the alternate problem, which is that it might be diagnosed in people who, properly speaking, don't fit the diagnostic criteria. They might need help which a diagnosis can provide, but really not fit the diagnosis, for example.

[maelorin]

in short, you've missed nothing.

if the incidence of autistic disorders had risen so dramatically, no one would be arguing about it.

it's pretty clear that changes in diagnostic criteria, and the fact that a decade ago practically no one knew about the spectrum disorders beyond classic kanner's autism.

again, there is no mystery. except for the poor sods who don't understand statistics as well as they think they do. but then, they don't understand a great many other things as well as they assume either ... [i worked hard not to paraphrase the emperor/darth sidious there]

if autism was increasing from 1:2500 to 1:166 over a decade or so, such exponential growth would have to be caused by somehting much more active than minute quantities of mercury in vaccines. and places with high levels of environmental mercury - such as industrial cities - would have been super hot spots ... afterall, if mercury is the culprit, surely our bodies would be oblivious to how it got in ...

unless, and until, factors such as resourcing of appropriate special/additional programs in schools and community health facilities are properly addressed, and consistent training in and application of diagnostic criteria, we cannot be sure how many people are actually in the spectrum - or are placed there so that they can get access to the assitance they need.

and lets not forget that adults are practically ignored in these figures. and in the diagnostic/assistance arenas as well. there are plenty of us out there fiinally getting diagnosed - and if we're added back into our cohort childhood statistics, i suspect the curve will flatten out significantly.

[prezzey.livejournal.com]

I'm of the same opinion as you, however, I'd just like to mention that I have heard 1/100 (1%) several times, referring to the whole spectrum. ("Which puts it on par with schizophrenia" -- Gy. M.)