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*