Comments on: Autism rate 1 in 100 in American Children?

By: guest

guest — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 22:11:22 +0000

there is a number increase since 1996 from 1-150 to 1-100. it is all related with the funding available. for example if a child is speech delayed at about 16 months to receive free service for speech therapy (weather or not is needed) it is usually diagnosed with PDD NOS as the funding is already available under this diagnosis. sad but 100% true.

By: David N. Brown

David N. Brown — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:13:51 +0000

Unfortunately, society seems quite willing to accept preposterous inflation of a “problem” where it reinforces existing prejudices. Witness the acceptance of the “yerkes-Army” study, which “showed” that the vast majority of eastern European immigrants were clinical morons.

By: Joseph

Joseph — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:29:51 +0000

Having every one in a hundred children being diagnosed somewhere on the autistic spectrum does seem a little frightening

It’s only frightening if you think it should’ve been a lot lower a figure. Of course, this is what people have been led to believe.

If I were to say that 3% of the population score in the mental retardation range of IQ tests, is that frightening? I guess if you didn’t know that’s what’s statistically expected, and a stable rate, you might think it is. No one is panicking about that, either way.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:14:10 +0000

Okay, I’ll bite: How do you diagnose a 3 month old infant with autism?

I am hoping it is a typo and you really meant 3 years of age.

By: guest

guest — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:29:16 +0000

there is a trend right now in US that lot of children since 3 months of age have been diagnosed with autism or PDD NOS, and the label sometimes is carried on as the child ages. if more children are misdiagnosed there will be a higher recovery rate, as they were not autistic to begin with. i personally find this as unethical practice and unfair to the children and parents.

By: Emily Wilkes

Emily Wilkes — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:35:13 +0000

I agree that the method of collecting data for this study may not have been the most reliable. They used a survey and asked parents, but I think that checks should be done to make the study more academically sound. Having every one in a hundred children being diagnosed somewhere on the autistic spectrum does seem a little frightening, especially since no explanations have stuck yet. My theory is that the cause is so different for every individual that one explanation won’t work for all cases.

By: Joseph

Joseph — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:09:51 +0000

@guest: It’s not that unusual that age 2 diagnoses are “unstable.” That seems to be particularly true of PDD-NOS.

By: guest

guest — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:34:42 +0000

my son was diagnosed with PDD NOS and mild autism at the age 2 years 10 months. once by the federally funded program and once by pediatric neurologists. both times he was diagnosed based on the answers i gave, not by carefully testing and observing his behavior. today 2 years latter he almost lost all of his “autistic treats”. he was two times misdiagnosed, although he is extremely social and looks everyone straight in their eyes. any explanations?
i also happen to know lot’s of other parents that have the same destiny as mine.

By: Sullivan

Sullivan — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:38:22 +0000

thanks Joseph.

I knew I must be misunderstanding something there—your depth of knowledge in the autism epidemiology studies is impressive.

They must know that there are various levels to the quality of the data/study. Do they really have the time to try to explain that in a short webpage or press release?

By: Joseph

Joseph — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 17:10:27 +0000

I meant like in this press report. This study is apparently just a formalization of what is usually referred to as the “CDC survey,” which is simply the NSCH.

Are there any indications that the CDC understands the methodological problems with these surveys, which are subsequently used by the David Kirbys of this world to scare the public?

I mean, they say “it is not entirely clear what (the) increase is due to,” but are they aware of just how unreliable the methodology is?