I would never advocate a smear campaign, and although I won’t sign the letter (because I don’t support her ideas), I don’t think it’s a bad idea.

However, if you want to dismiss her comments as only media then the whole interview can be dismissed as media.

I’ll live with that.

Do you agree that there is an important ongoing debate as to whether there is actually an increase in the prevalance of Autism?

If you agree to that, then her comments certainly have importance.

Here is what is quoted from the article:

“And when people say they don’t remember seeing so many autistic children when they were growing up, or ask where all the adults with autism are, there are two possible explanations, Dr. Minshew said.

One is that many autistic children in the past were never sent to school. In what she called the “Forrest Gump era, you didn’t even go to school, or you went to a totally separate school.”

The other phenomenon was that some autistic children were labeled as schizophrenic, and many may have ended up in state hospitals or other institutions, she said.”

You’ll note that she does use the word “Many” (may have ended up in state hospitals).

She states very clearly that there are two possible reasons that we don’t remember seeing as many autistic children in the past.

Coming from her in the context of an Autism expert makes it far from a passing opinion. She has been studying Autism for a long time from a genetic perspective. I find it highly unlikely (and irresponsible) that she just decided to form an opinion the middle of an interview on the topic.

“As to why she mentioned it – I guess thats a question for her. ”

If you read the article, it is pretty clear why she mentionned it. Since she believes the cause is genetic, she was asked why we didn’t see so many autistic children in the past. She gave misdiagnosis of Schizophrenia as one of two reaons as her expert opinion (since she was being interviewed as an expert).

“To me its not even slightly important and I don’t really get why people are so mock-offended by it.”

I’m not offended by it. It is important, because 1) the increasing prevlance speaks directly to the possible causes 2) As an Autism expert she is proposing that the increase in prevalance is not real 3) She is offering misdiagnosed as Schizophrenia as one of two reasons to account for the lack of visible Autistic children in the past.

Those comments speak directly to her credibility.

Let me ask you then.

Do you believe misdiagnosis of Schizophrenia is one of two reaons to account for “many” cases of Autistic children being commited to institutions and therefore not being visible to the general public?

If you feel this is a credible argument from an Autism expert, then we can leave it as a difference of opinion.

As to why she mentioned it – I guess thats a question for her. To me its not even slightly important and I don’t really get why people are so mock-offended by it.

She’s offering it as one of two explanations for the reported increase in prevlance which happens to be a large increase implying “many”. If many were not mis-diagnosed, what is the point of even mentionning it to explain the increase in prevalence?

How else is one to interprete her hypothesis?

I’m also unsure why you’ve scare quoted the word ‘many’ and attributed it to Dr Minshew when – as your own comment clearly states – she said ‘some’. The ‘many’ she refers to quite clearly refers to those who may have been institutionalised.

She clearly stated:

“The other phenomenon was that some autistic children were labeled as schizophrenic, and many may have ended up in state hospitals or other institutions, she said.”

This was one of only two explanations she gives to explain why people don’t remember seeing autistic children in the past.

Given that childhood Schizophrenia is considered extremely rare in children (1 in 40,000), yet she proposes “many” autistic children were misdiagnosed and ended up in institutions? How does her statement lend any credibility to her reasoning?

Welcome Back! Wow! Tres Cool!