Hi Everybody!
Wow! OK, so here I am again – I’m Dr. Nick Riviera, and I will perform any major operation for just 129.95!
So today I’m supposed to tell you about CDDS data and how, just like VAERS, you can use it to say anything really. And hey – if there’s any Autism Omnibus lawyers reading – You don’t have to make up stories here. Save that for court.
Now there’s this guy called David Kirby who once said that CDDS was the gold standard of autism epidemiology (long word friends – just means numbers) but it seems that now, after the numbers started to disagree with his hypothesis (long word friends – it just means any old thing you want to make up) that they’re suddenly not so important. That makes perfect sense to Dr Nick friends – who wants to be caught right? In fact, Mr Kirby – did you go to Hollywood Upstairs Medical College too?
So, I wanna show you some more number examinations from CDDS – see what you think of them friends.
OK, so, the autism epidemic is thought to be demonstrated by the ever-increasing number of entries to the 3 – 5 age group (side note: the sci-guys only had 1.9% of mercury containing vaccines available by Feb 2002 and the 3 – 5 year olds are still increasing….even Dr. Nick can make the obvious conclusion from _that_ fact friends).
Those people who think that there _isn’t_ an epidemic say that the increase is just due to diagnosis catching up to the actual rate.
Those who say there _is_ an epidemic (man this is tiring) say, if that’s true where are all the older autistics? Some say there can’t be any autistic people over 75 as Eli Lilly invented autism in 1931.
Dr. Nick presents his first graph – ta da (click for bigger version)!
This is 62 – 99 year old autistic people in CDDS from 1992 – 2005. First thing that seems pretty clear, even to Dr Nick, is that having a reporting category that goes up to 99 years old takes care of the claim that autism was invented by Eli Lilly in 1931.
But _man_ look at that graph – look at that rate climb! Just for your information friends, what you’re looking at there in the 62 – 99 category is a 16 times increase. Woah.
OK! Next graph friends – (click for bigger again, you get the drill right?)
So this one shows 52 – 61 year olds in CDDS. Another pretty impressive climb there friends! This one shows a 15 times increase. Phew!
So what about the 3 – 5 year old category? They key category? Well this is where Dr Nick gets a bit confused friends. Here’s the graphs (clicky!!)
So this one shows a climb too but – I dunno – what about the rate of increase? Well, unlike the 62 – 99 year olds which showed a 16 times increase (the biggest of all categories) and unlike the 52 – 61 year olds which showed a 15 times increase, the 3 – 5 year olds showed a 12 times increase.
So from what Dr Nick can _tell_ – it would seem that the age category that’s made the biggest gains since 1992 would be the 62 – 99 year old group.
Damn, Dr Nick just had a delivery of sun cream to put into medicinal looking bottles as well.
Left Brain Right Brain 
OOOOH NOOOOO! It must be the flu shots that older people are being given at the insistence of the evil CDC!! Think of all the 60 year olds suddenly regressing in the “hell that is autism.” (David Kirby, 2005)
Yeah – somehow they’ve got through their whole lives being ‘immune’ to the Evil Thiomersal but the dastardly CDC managed to get them at the last gasp…MWHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Sorry Kev but his pictures are better and I like big huge graphs for the bi-focals!
Cheers
Kev,
Don’t tell me you haven’t heard of the “toxic tipping point”?? For some susceptible individuals it takes a year or two of forest fires and plumes from China and Mongolia, next thing you know 59 year old Uncle Fred gets one of those HMO Flu shots from left over 1965 (saved in those really big refrigerators in Tijuana) and he starts flapping and toe-walking with the best of ’em…. calendar calculating, too and they enroll him in the Cal DDS, because what else could they do?
Be careful or some parties may declare the epidemic has spread and older people, never before autistic, are being contaminated……
Nice job (jab?).
It is as I have said elsewhere the natural geometry of the increase in diagnosis of any newly named phenomenon.
Caution it could be the sales curve of TV’s or snickers bars.
But wait they took thimerosal out of children’s vaccines in 1999 or was it 2002 or maybe 2003. I forget. But the CDC said they canvassed doctors and it was down to 5.6% of all vaccines or was it 56%. What was that math??? Dammit. That’s not what I want to hear so we’ll ignore it.
Well, maybe this little announcement today by GSK might shed a little light on the subject . . .
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/healthscience/stories/020107dnmedautism.100ac7e.html
OOOPS!!!
BTW, you can’t use the CDDS ages 3-5 data to PROVE OR DISPROVE anything regarding autism due to the severe undercounting. It only proves that Kirby is a dope. If that makes you feel good, so be it. But it doesn’t add any strength to your argument.
ANNOUNCED TODAY!!!
Glaxo removed trace amounts of the preservative in its new Pediarix formula and PLANS TO PHASE IN the new products “IN THE NEAR FUTURE,” said Jennifer Armstrong, a spokeswoman for the London-based company.
“Our re-formulation has been made in response to public concern,”
About 21 million doses of Pediarix have been given in the U.S. since 2003.
How many doses??? But wait. Thimerosal was phased out in 2002. I read it on the internet so it’s got to be true. How could 21 million doses have been given with thimerosal since 2003?????
Definitely time for snickers… lots of ’em. In fact, I’m snickering right now.
Good one Kev. 🙂
My dear 666sigma – please read up and understand the difference between a trace amount – which no one has ever argued is or isn’t in vaccines – and a full preservative amount, which is what caused all the furore and was measured at 1.9% of total vaccine population in Feb 2002.
_”BTW, you can’t use the CDDS ages 3-5 data to PROVE OR DISPROVE anything regarding autism due to the severe undercounting. It only proves that Kirby is a dope. If that makes you feel good, so be it. But it doesn’t add any strength to your argument.”_
Methinks you failed to grasp the point of this post.
Cowabunga, Larry! There’s no such thing as a geometric epidemic!
If one wants to argue that trace amounts of thimerosal so small that they’re not able to do ANYTHING biologically can cause autism, that is a clear sign your argument is completely and utterly bankrupt. Not that it wasn’t before, mind you.
The mercury-autism discussion has gone from something with a marginal amount of biological plausibility that merited investigation to the last bastion of desperate parents and corrupt “activist groups”/quacks/lawyers looking to score a quick buck.
666sigma,
Please read the prescribing information here.
“Thimerosal is used at the early stages of manufacture and is removed by subsequent purification steps to below the analytical limit of detection ( < 25 ng of mercury/20 mcg HBsAg) which upon calculation is < 12.5 ng mercury per dose."
So, that's what they mean by "a trace amount." 12.5 nanograms of mercury is the same as 0.0125 micrograms of mercury. So this trace amount is more than 2000 times smaller than the amount that was in an older thimerosal containing vaccine.
Good job, Kev. One thing that would be very interesting is to see what trends exist over the same period of time for other, “competing” diagnoses. In other words, as has been discussed in the past with the 3-5 cohort, are other diagnoses dropping as autism increases, suggesting that some re-categorization is occurring.
Sneaky sneaky, homeopathic mercury now is it?
How low can big pharma sink 🙂
are other diagnoses dropping as autism increases, suggesting that some re-categorization is occurring.
In IDEA it’s possible to see that. In CDDS, no, probably because the report shows all categories the client is labeled with. For example, if an autistic client is evaluated as having mental retardation, he’ll be counted in both the autism and MR categories. (Also, California seems to be a bit special even in IDEA – but don’t tell David Kirby 🙂
Dr. Riviera – but don’t you *see* how your graph PROVES that autism is caused by the thimerosal in vaccines? Look at the 62 to 99 year old graph – see how the numbers are low in 1992? Now do the math: 1992 – 62 (the youngest in that bin in 1992) = 1930. None of the patients in that age group in 1992 had received thimerosal containing vaccines (TCVs)…see how the numbers increase after 1994? That is caused by the intake of those 62 year olds, who were born after 1931 and had received TCVs – it is all so clear from the graph – how could you have missed it?!
…takes a deep breath…..
(sarcasm off)
Kevin:
Help me out, I really do not get something.
Shouldn’t the Y axis value for each of these graphs be proportional?
Meaning:
First chart covers 37 years, but Y axis value is 60.
Second chart covers 9 years, but Y axis is 300.
Third chart covers 2 years, but Y axis is 6,000.
If autism was always with us, shouldn’t these graphs be proportional?
If proportional, shouldn’t the y-axis for the first chart be around 111,000? (3,000 x 37 to be the same as third chart)
Wouldn’t this support the position that the number of CHILDREN with autism far exceeds the number of ADULTS with autism.
Oh wait, I know, you are going to say that all these people with full-spectrum autism are crusing around undiagnosed in the adult population. Yup, that’s all you have left on this topic so you have to say that.
Thanks for showing me this, I’m going to use it in my next presentation to support our position.
Mr. Mercury
While I have your rapt attention, please, feel free to critique Mr. Rollen’s comments below.
From Calfornia autism advocate Rick Rollens.
I for one am really sick and tired of the current stock of “the world
is flat” thinkers who continue to spew the notion that there has been
no real increase in autism, that the prevalence and incidence of
autism has remained the same all these years, and in years past we
simply over looked thousands of persons with autism, and today we
finally found them. Bottom line: they have always been here.
I believe that applying a little common sense and facts provided by
our California Department of Developmental Services (DDS) we can once
and for all drive the spike of fact and truth into the heart of these
modern day flat earth society members who may be living in our world,
but seem to be far removed from it’s obvious realities.
Premise : If there has not been a true, dramatic increase in the
incidence of autism creating an autism epidemic, then we should have
among us a proportional and sizeable number of adults with autism.
Since DDS’s data only includes those persons with autism who have a
professional diagnoses of full syndrome (i.e. worst form) of autism,
we can assume that hiding, misplacing, loosing or not recognizing
thousands of adults with moderate to severe behavioral issues,
extremely apparent bazaar social behaviors, and moderate to severe
language deficits would be impossible. We are not talking about a
person here who melds into society and is not noticed and/or is not in
need of major supports and assistance. They would have to be
somewhere, and somewhere for adults likes these in California would
either be in the community or in an institution. Now I guess it is
possible that some could be homeless, but as far as I know there has
never been reports of large numbers of persons with moderate to severe
autism running amok through homeless shelters and soup kitchens, if
they were there, Iam sure we would have heard about it by now.
California’s developmental services system has been in place since
1969…38 years for adults with autism and their families to find
their way into the system.
Facts: According to the latest data from DDS, there are 32,809 persons
with autism in California’s DD system…16% or 5125 are adults over 22
years old. That means for the autism population that 84% are under the
age of 22, with 78% under the age of 18. It is a remarkable fact that
adults with autism make up only 16% of the autism population, while in
the same DD system 55% of the cerebral palsy population, 61% of the
mental retardation population, and 63% of the epilepsy population are
adults over the age of 22 years old. Using an average of the CP, MR,
and epilepsy populations, it is safe to assume that adults over the
age of 22 with moderate to severe autism should constitute roughly 60%
of the total autism population, not 16% as they do and have for many
years.
So, rather then having just 5125 adults currently in our system with
full syndrome autism, we should have somewhere around 19,685 adults
with full syndrome autism if you believe the flat earth folks that
there has been no real change in the incidence of autism. We do know
that there are a very small number of adults with autism in
California’s five remaining state institutions… 358 to be precise.
So doing the math leads me to these conclusions:
Based on the fact that roughly 60% of adults with the three other
conditions served by California’s DD system (MR, CP, and Epilepsy) are
over the age of 22 years old, and recognizing that we have only 5125
(16%) of the autism population over the age 22, add in the 358 who
currently reside in state run institutions, we are short 14,202 adults
with autism in our system that should be there! That number represents
43% of the entire current autism population in California’s DD system.
43% of the population missing? Over 14,000 adults in California
suffering with full syndrome autism and no one has seen or heard from
them? Is this possible, or is it that they simply do not or ever
existed. Is it also a fact that DDS has documented, in two separate
Reports, that California’s autism epidemic began roughly 22 plus years
ago.
Believe me when I say….The world is round.
-Rick Rollens
Mr Mercury – what is “full spectrum autism” and what has that to do with the graphs?
Spoken as a true $cion of Stanford Mr. Merc. Dad. Been having fun over there on wikipedia’s GR entry, eh? U R teh funny. So R Mr. Brian Hooker. Teh funny.
Dr. Irva Hertz-Piciotto explained something that to me shows how all those “worst case” “full syndrome” California DDS autistics are in fact NOT all “full syndrome” “classic” “Kanner” whatever autistics, BUT in fact they are PDD,nos kids mixed in with the autistic kids.
She said in her reviewing the autistic little kid case load through the CHARGE study they found one kid who was not at all autistic, and one deaf kid (I have to go check on that it’s published), all of the kids in the CHARGE study had had a “professional diagnosis.” All were considered “full syndrome autistic” but, in fact, they weren’t. Further, only the kids whose parents agreed to enrolling them in the CHARGE study were looked at in the CHARGE study so the parents whose kids were more marginal wouldn’t have signed up in case their kid was outed as not really autistic, right?
Ron Huff of the DDS sat next to me at a meeting at the MIND and said that the majority of kids referred to the DDS come in with a PDD,nos dx. That is then converted (rightly or wrongly) to an autism dx before the kid can get services.
Dr. H-P used the following criteria to decide whether a kid in the DDS was REALLY full syndrome autism, or if he was in there by mistake as autistic.
They put all the kids in the CHARGE through the pretty accurate ADOS testing (it’s a bunch of sort of scripted interactions between the tester and the kid, using a set of toys, mostly). Then they interviewed a parent using the ADI-R, which is a set of questions.
At this point the parents are savvy enough they must know which answers would tend to make their kid sound more or less autistic. One would guess that they would tend to slant their answers in a way that would ensure their kid didn’t get kicked from the system for being PDD,nos instead of “autistic.” At any rate, Dr. H-P set up her criteria so that if the child failed the cut-off for “autism” on either instrument (the ADI-R or the ADOS) the kid was considered autistic.
So if the researchers watched and interacted with the child for a few hours, and in the end the result was that the kid WASN’T “autistic” but something else, and the ADI-R results from mom’s report said the kid WAS autistic. He was labelled autistic. And vice versa, if mom’s reports said that the kid wasn’t autistic, and the researchers interacting with the kid said he was, he was considered autistic.
I don’t know how many of these kids were on the edge like that, but I’m thinking it was a lot, because if lots of them were easily placed in the “autistic” bin by both measures, she wouldn’t have needed the ones who were borderline to keep the numbers for the study up. That’s just a guess. At any rate, we know that a PDD,nos kid could need services and we know the responsible doctors give the dx that will get the services, even in mental illness a psych will give the dx (bipolar or schizophrenia or whatever) that will get the services even if it’s not true and not accurate.
Dr. Margaret Bauman agreed (when she spoke at the MIND) that the fact that services of all kinds are not provided for free in California as they are in Massachusetts for developmentally delayed kids tended to inflate the official numbers of “autistic” kids, since the milder the dx the harder it is to get services (and it’s hard enough with the “fully syndrome autism” dx).
_Help me out, I really do not get something_
Never been in doubt Brad. Really.
Here’s the absolute bottom line Bradford. If you believe the CDDS figures can tell you anything about the epidemiology of autism you are stupid. Mr Rollens is stupid. Mr Kirby is stupid.
What the CDDS numbers _do_ reveal is that the three of you numbskulls are perfectly happy to use them when they ‘support’ your position and quick to deny them when they don’t.
The only reason I (and I hasten to suggest Do’C, Joseph, Diva and Jonathon) ever picked up on them is your idiotic notion they supported your belief. We’re mirroring your idea right back at you Brad.
Now, lets take Mr Rollens epidemiology (and believe me, that is far too grand a word for what he’s doing). You cannot prove an epidemic on those numbers as you have no point of comparison. No starting point. Likewise and for the exact same reason we cannot prove there has not been.
Only one thing is absolutely true. There is no evidence to suggest there has been an epidemic.
I cannot provide you with numbers of 30+, 40+, 50+, 60+ etc etc autistic people – not because they don’t exist but because there is no science. No study has ever looked.
So what _do_ we have to go on?
First, the CDDS can rule out thiomersal as a causative agent. Its ridiculous to suggest thiomersal causes autism when numbers are rising and thiomersal use stood at 1.9% in Feb 2002.
Second, we have to look at what non-science surveys can tell us. What they tell us is that when we look at adults we see that there are very substantial amounts of undiagnosed autistic people. In Scotland for example, 45% of local councils reported gross underestimation of adults: Here’s the report from Lanarkshire:
That’s just one example Brad.
There are various other actors that come into play with elderly people as well Brad. The average death age for both the US and UK is 73 for males and 76 for females for example. That will play a part.
Now, the point you made about the number of people in the system per cohort is to some extent true. But we are talking about the rate of increase, right? That’s what Mr Kirby and Mr Rollens used to make a big deal about.
Do you understand the limitations of these numbers? Can you comprehend why its not a good idea to manipulate them? I just ‘proved’ that the fastest growing cohort in the CDDS numbers is the 62 – 99 group.
Bad source data can be used to prove anything you want Brad. That was the point of this post. It surprises me not one jot you needed that spelling out to you.
Ms. Clark:
The Y-axis of the first chart was 60. To support your position that autism has always been with us, it should have been 110,000 to be consistent with the idea that the rate of autism has always been the same.
So, your argument is that difference is solely explained by widening diagnosis for the younger children. You know, if the difference was, say, 30-40%, I’d probably agree. But, it’s not. The difference is 60 versus 110,000. You always critique my use of percentages, so I’ll let you crunch that one.
I believe thse charts fully support the notion that the prevalence of autism amongst younger children is FAR higher than the adult poulation, which means we have an epidemic or, at least, a rise that cannot be explained by genes.
M to the M
Mercury Sad,
Why don’t you apply your circular reasoning and illogic skills to your floundering venture capital firm, and stop trying to talk about subjects (autism epidemiology) that you clearly know nothing about? And tell Mark Blaxill to step feeding you talking points – he’s almost as stupid as you are.
Bottom line – what those graphs show is that the number of 3-5 year olds (like the number of older people) with an autism diagnosis in the CDDS is climbing despite elimination of nearly all thimerosal from childhood vaccines in California and a law prohibiting use of said vaccines on a going-forward basis. How in the world can you possibly dispute that fact?
Rollens’ comments are irrelevant to that point. Whether autism incidence is truly climbing or is being better diagnosed is one thing. Whether autism rates are increasing due to mercury exposure (from vaccines, most notably) is quite another and has been the crux of your organization’s stance since its inception.
Kevin:
I don’t blame you for feeling stupid that you put three charts up that fully support our position, best to say all the CDDS data is all rubbish and run for the hills.
60 versus 110,000, yeah it’s probably all just diagnosis. Ho-hum.
And. Ms. Clark, if you are not in the DDS system, can you please explain:
WHAT IS YOUR BASIS FOR REFERRING TO YOURSELF AS AUTISTIC? Self-diagnosis? If so, not the most reliable metric I have encountered.
Mr. MaQRee
Kev: “Methinks you failed to grasp the point of this post.”
666sigma fails to grasp anything.
Probably a professional troll.
Anonimouse:
I shudder to imagine what you do for a living, but I know it ain’t pretty.
The “ND” postion is solely based on the notion that autism has always been with us. If the prevalence rate is climbing, there is an external cause. If there is an external cause, it can be addressed. If it can be addressed, then kids can (gasp!) recover (gasp!).
Kevin posted three charts that clearly support the position that there is far less autism in the older populations. 60 versus 110,000!!!
So, you can’t be blamed for trying to splice the argument down to what is or is not causing the rise. If we could all agree that the rise is real, then we could all focus on finding cause. For now, if you are like Kevin, you have no idea what MIGHT actually be the environmental cause, you just think you know what it is NOT.
By the way, Anonimouse, loved your post where you started to speculate about whether or not my son is all that bad off and that I MUST have some sort of economic motivation for doing this. Two things:
– Show the economic motivation or shut up
– You must be lurking on the parent boards where I post updates about my son’s progress. It must scare you to think that he may recover fully, so time to start saying he was never bad off to begin with.
You guys would bug me more if you weren’t all so pathetic. Keep up the great work jacking each other off, and perhaps if you scrape the nickels together of all 6 people who post here (and Diva’s twenty or so psuedonyms) you can buy an ad in the UC Davis express to tell the world that autism is a gift from God.
Mr. M.
_”The Y-axis of the first chart was 60. To support your position that autism has always been with us, it should have been 110,000 to be consistent with the idea that the rate of autism has always been the same.”_
Come on Brad, I want to try and attribute a modicum of intelligence to you but you make it very,very difficult.
Let’s try and make it even clearer.
When it comes to adults, no one has counted. Yours and Mr Rollens opinion that they ‘couldn’t be missed’ is just that – opinion. As the Sottish Census highlights, a lot of these folks are simply sitting undiagnosed and uncounted. As I recall, even in Kanner’s first ever paper he noted that some of his kids were misdiagnosed.
Why do kids get more representation in things like CDDS? Because they have parents to fight for them. Pensioners mostly don’t. Its not right but its a fact.
Be honest about this Brad. You can’t make a silk purse from a sows ear so why try?
Mercury Dad (in a quoted passage from Prick Rollens): “… full syndrome autism …”
Um…
Non-existent ‘dx’ made up to create a distance between the rest of us autistics and those that GR and the mercuty militia think should be ‘more special’ than the rest of us… ‘more special’ meaning ‘one hell of a cash cow’.
I make diagnoses on the autistic spectrum, and am trained in this matter (to the extent that I’ve been asked to train others on the issue). ‘Full syndrome autism’ is not in the professional literature.
In fact… the categories listed in ICD 10 and in DSM IV-TR are the categories used in diagnosis. Nothing else.
Rollens needs to wake up to the fact that he is no advocate and no autism-cognate professional. The rest of us have figured that one out way back.
Mercury Dad… you need some help.
Right, Kevin, right.
So we’re back to the same old argument.
You guys believe these adults are all walking around living normal lives, in no need of services.
Will your daughter be in that category as an adult? Will most of the kids today with the label be so fine when they are adults that they will slip right through the system?
If the Y-axis difference was 60 vs 90 or even 60 vs 600, so be it. But, it’s not. It’s 60 vs. 110,000.
Quick, everyone, yell as loud as you can how stupid I must be!!
But, Kevin posted three charts that clearly support our position and the only people who actually look “stupid” (your word, not mine) to the outside world are the people posting here who think autism is a gift from God, and the people somehow trying to argue that 60 vs 110,000 is not supportive of Mr. Rollens argument when it so clearly is.
Mr. Andrews, do you have an official diagnosis? Seems Ms. Clark doesn’t, still waiting to hear her explain the basis for her claim (because it’s nothing more than that from what I gather) that she is autistic. Perhaps this is the first group that accepted her, because she lied and told them she was something she isn’t? Not sure, I’ll let her explain.
MM
“You guys believe these adults are all walking around living normal lives, in no need of services.”
????
No – who said that? I actually said the opposite a couple of times already. Not _in need_ of services and not _receiving_ services are two different things. I read lots of reports on EoH from parents who say their kids aren’t getting the services they need. Does that make them high functioning? No. It makes the system a bureaucratic bunfight.
“If the Y-axis difference was 60 vs 90 or even 60 vs 600, so be it. But, it’s not. It’s 60 vs. 110,000.”
Do you want to explain that again? 60 vs 110,000? How exactly do you reach that figure?
So, OK, lets pretend that you’re right for a minute – this would mean that CDDS data is meaningful and carries weight as a reliable epidemiological tool, yes?
Oh, right, Kevin, I get it. You are about to trap me into saying “yes” and then you are going to slam me on the whole Thimerosal thing, right? Brilliant. It’s no wonder you are such a successful..ummm…errr….uhhh…wait, I’m thinking. Blogger?
The Thimerosal thesis will be “dead” when they remove thimerosal from vaccines. In the meantime, because there are so many competing data points:
– Reduction in thimerosal in main vaccines as more preganant women get flu shot
– Wide-ranging reports on when hg-vax really came off the shelf
The only clean data points are wholly unvaccinated kids. It’s the right place to start. Despite your unfounded assertion that there would be too many other possible explanations if we compare the two. We are comparing them. I’m sure you will be commenting on that soon enough – your denial knows few boundaries.
Have you ever validated Diva’s diagnosis? I think she’s lying…but I’m not sure.
Math:
37 years X 3,000 gets you 110,000. It’s a way to try to make the first chart and the third chart show the same number of cases, per year. The first chart should be 110,000. And, it’s 60. Like I said, I will be using this data amyself – thanks again.
MM
Good grief, Brad. I’m still waiting for you to answer several questions. It seems that as soon as I ask (or anyone else does) you a question you don’t want to answer you disappear from Kev’s blog.
You are one to talk about pseudonyms with what you’ve been doing on wikipedia lately (never mind the Ashley Anderson incidents.) 🙂 You ready to admit that you haven’t read, “Unstrange Minds”? Ready to admit that you are “Frist Stratton”?
I have an official Asperger’s syndrome dx. I call myself autistic because autistic describes my issues with eye-contact, mental organization, perseveration, my ability to disembed figures, acute hearing, general stress level… and I married an ASD guy and produced an ASD kid and one normal kid… The DSM may trash the AS dx and call us all autistics with the next DSM edition, that’s another reason I call myself autistic (besides clarifying that I have an Asperger’s dx).
I don’t fit the qualifications to get help from the DDS. I probably fit the qualifications to get help from the dept. of rehab for getting help in getting jobs, if I thought I needed it I’d go get that, too, but I’m employed (by my uncounted in California DDS system) Asperger’s dx’d boss (who is older than I am and we all know that that IS OLD!!)
The thing about autism is that you can’t always tell by how the person acts at 3 if they are going to be like an Asperger’s adult at age 40. So lots of the kids in the system now may sort of morph into people like me, especially if they are loved and not abused. They may end up in college and may end up like all the uncounted, undx’d Asperger’s (childhood PDD,nos? autistic?) professors and professionals. My boss is a genius in engineering, and he has Asperger’s syndrome as I said. Both of his kids do, his wife’s brother is undx’d AS according to the wife and that brother’s son is an undx’d autistic/PDD,nos teen (they live in Montana). My boss’s father also has an ASD according to my boss who should know. My boss says there are lots of ASD adults running around (but not amok) without official dx’s. He works with a professor in engineering at UCD who is undx’d ASD and I know that professor’s son from a class I took at community college. The 20-something son is supposed to have an “asperger’s” dx, but it appears to me that docs gave him that dx because it sounded nicer than “autism”.
If you read “Unstrange Minds” you can see where the societal pressure has been not to dx “autism” until recently. Rollens of the grande-sized cranium may have had some ASD traits as a child. I wouldn’t be surprised if he did. The UCD paper is called the “Aggie.”
If I took out an ad in the Aggie it would point the finger at the MIND for promoting an epidemic that NEVER happened.
So, are you going to answer the question? Have you read “Unstrange Minds”?
It’s clear the true believers will never be convinced that autism is something other than mercury poisoning (never mind David Kirby’s own admission that if the rate of increase didn’t start to drop off by this year, the mercury hypothesis would be in deep trouble).
I have my own reasons for not believing in the mercury hysteria, and here’s the most powerful one to me: 2 kids, one born before thimerosal was phased out, one after. Both got all their vaccines. One has autism. The younger one. (Yeah, I know, he’s more “susceptible,” right?)
And honestly, i wouldn’t care if anyone agreed with my point of view or not. Except: It seems to me that belief in the mercury “epidemic” pretty much requires parents to think of and talk about their children — and by extension, all autistic people — as damaged or as some kind of plague. “Train wrecks,” to quote the ever-thoughtful Mr. Rollens.
Now THAT, I object to. That kind of objection is, it seems to me, the whole basis of the “ND” perspective. Not to argue that people with autism shouldn’t get any and all help they might need, but that they should at least be treated with a little decency.
I never said autism was a gift from God. But my kid is a gift to me. And while you don’t always get the gift you expect, I believe in appreciating what you do have. It just seems to me at some point you’ve got to stop accusing and railing and castigating, and get on with the job of life.
(Advice I should follow myself, after this godawful long rant …)
Brad –
I am not an autistic person, I am the father of a son, age 5, with autism. If you have read any recent posts I have made on this site over the last 2 days, then you should have a pretty clear idea of my view on these topics, how my son is affected, my level of exposure to arguments from Generation Rescue, Evidence of Harm, etc.
I don’t really want to argue with you becuase I am generally non-confrontational, I tend to comport myself with some dignity (avoiding using statements such as “You guys would bug me more if you weren’t all so pathetic. Keep up the great work jacking each other off”), and because I honestly think you are so deep into this thing and have so much personal investment (be it time, money, emotion, other) that there is now absolutely nothing that could ever, ever convince you that you are incorrect in your conclusion that mercury causes autism. Even if, amazingly, an announcement were made tomorrow that conclusive evidence has been found and agreed upon by the worldwide scientific community that some exotic species of dust mites were the real cause of autism, you would be looking into whether this species was found in higher concentrations near mercury “hot spots” on the West Coast.
Considering that you must have reviewed all of the same analysis of existing research performed by people who are far more intellectually attuned to this type of analysis than either you or I are and still espouse this ridiculous argument is absolutely beyond my ability to understand. Look, you own and operate an investment firm (or something like that, based on my understanding) in Southern Cal, and I own and operate a large wholesale distribution firm in Southern Cal, which puts us on approximately the same level, most likely, in terms of educational background and career accomplishments. And yet I can easily see that I, and also obviously you, are out of our depth when it comes to the nuances of the scientific arguments.
What we can do, however, is to choose our sources carefully to whom we attribute the most credibility. And, I’m sorry guy, but the group of scientists who are repeatedly referred to by the GR-types are some of the most utterly discredited, lame-duck scientists imaginable. Further, the blogs that focus on this issue are run by some great analytical thinkers who have all come to the overwhelming conclusion that your “theory” is bogus. I am referring specifically to Dad of Cameron, Orac, and Not Mercury, among numerous others. Who, pray tell, is the prominent blogger on your side of the debate – Mr. Best? Who are the scientists to whose findings you so blindly cling – Bradstreet? Who are the treatment specialists who have played such important roles in your “cause” – Rashid Buttar? You, back during the highly emotional post-diagnosis stage, “bit” on a false premise and then invested so much into it that you can no longer be shaken from it. It is really kind of sad, but it is an easily recognizable pattern of behavior.
I am only jumping in here becuase your constant attacks on the ND people seemingly always revolve around the concept that they are a rag-tag bunch of over-diagnosed and under-diagnosed nobodies who believe “that autism is a gift from God.”
Additionally, while you may be great with financial numbers, you are still utterly missing the point Kevin is making by this post, and the more you argue, the worse you are making yourself look.
One last point, Brad. I have no idea what kind of progress (or, more to the point, how you define progress in this context) you see in your son after what I believe is now at least 2+ years of chelation, supplements, etc. I sincwerely hope that he is doing wondefully well and is destined to have a great life. But I can tell you that my own son, who is not receiving any of these treatments at all, is doing really well and we continue to enjoy watching him grow and progress daily. There is no “race to the finish line” with the finish line being defined as the absolute elimination of autistic behavior. We are just parenting to the best of our ability to make sure that, in spite of his obvious challenges, he can lead a happy, productive life. Why is this position so offensive to you?
Steve
“You are about to trap me into saying “yes†and then you are going to slam me on the whole Thimerosal thing, right? Brilliant. It’s no wonder you are such a successful..ummm…errr….uhhh…wait, I’m thinking. Blogger?”
Why thanks Brad :o) but its not a trap – its simply your two available options.
“The Thimerosal thesis will be “dead†when they remove thimerosal from vaccines. In the meantime, because there are so many competing data points:”
Oh Brad :o)
More schooling required I see.
“Reduction in thimerosal in main vaccines as more preganant women get flu shot”
Really? Where are these reports that more pregnant women are getting the flu shot? How many? And so what if they were? Isn’t it body burden that’s important here? That will have tumbled from 187 ug Hg to an _optional_ 25 ug Hg.
“Wide-ranging reports on when hg-vax really came off the shelf”
No – its quite clear. TCV accounted for 1.9% of the total vaccine population in Feb 2002. The ‘reports’ you are referring to are the hilarious conspiracy theories doing the rounds on EoH right now – did I really read one stating that ‘they’ were ‘hiding’ it? Yes I did :o)
“The only clean data points are wholly unvaccinated kids. It’s the right place to start. Despite your unfounded assertion that there would be too many other possible explanations if we compare the two. We are comparing them. I’m sure you will be commenting on that soon enough – your denial knows few boundaries.”
I’ll certainly comment when you have something worth commenting on. But you already know this is just another bit of GR PR. You can’t possibly eliminate enough confounders. Thats the same issue as with the Amish. And a _phone_ survey Brad? You are quite the scientist – I’m going to love reading the questions you asked these people ;o)
“Have you ever validated Diva’s diagnosis? I think she’s lying…but I’m not sure.”
If by validated you mean she’s established herself as an honest and trustworthy person then yes. Unlike you, who lied to the readers of the NYT.
“37 years X 3,000 gets you 110,000. It’s a way to try to make the first chart and the third chart show the same number of cases, per year. The first chart should be 110,000. And, it’s 60. Like I said, I will be using this data amyself – thanks again.”
Oh Brad…really 🙂 I think you might want to get someone who knows math a bit better than that to look at this before you present it.
But you’re right – CDDS shows many more kids than adults.
But your choice here is Catch-22. If you want to laud CDDS as accurate enough for epidemiology then you’ve just dealt the thiomersal hypothesis ‘a severe blow’.
If you don’t then you’ve just been spouting off as usual for the last couple of hours. Take your pick son ;o)
Kev,
I hope that when Brad takes your graphs and shows them in his presentation to ???? (his kid’s ABA therapists?) he makes sure to cite them properly as coming from the LeftBrain/RightBrain blog entry by guest blogger Dr. Nick Riviera, titled, “Manipulating CDDS.” I really hope he includes the graphic of Dr. Nick waving to everyone, because they might notice the resemblance between Dr. Nick and Dr. Ayoub and get a chuckle out of it.
(edit)
A question for anyone, since Brad’s taken a powder, if the flu shot given to pregnant moms is what accounts for the more recent cases of autism, then wouldn’t those kids be quite different from the ones putatively born normal and then regressed (like Brad’s son was supposed to have) following a vaccine. Wouldn’t the “flu shot moms” have kids all born obviously autistic, while the kids who became autistic from childhood vaccines mostly be regressing at 16 mos or 18 mos? Also, all the younger kids would have to have had moms who got the flu shot, wouldn’t they? And moms who didn’t get the flu shot shouldn’t have autistic kids? I know we haven’t covaried for the Chinese forest fire Mongolian crematorium plumes… but these things are tough to figure out.
Steve:
I won’t comment on what “level” we are on as I do not know what that means.
I have no venom for parents who disagree with me politely, as you have done.
You note that:
“[You] still espouse this ridiculous argument is absolutely beyond my ability to understand”
Steve, I’m not in your head. We looked at the same set of facts and made very different conclusions. I personally think that far more parents of autistic children reside in our camp, rather than this camp. Is that beyond your ability to understand, too?
That doesn’t make us right just because we have numbers, but to portray me as somehow in the minority, I believe, is factually incorrect. You are now blogging on a site where most of the contributors are adults with ASD and, my guess, about a dozen parents. EOH, the site you felt did not represent your views, has many more who feel the way I do.
Proof of nothing indeed, but you will need to apply your utter amazement to the conclusions I have drawn to a lot of people who may also be on your level.
One other comment, all the “science” that has convinced you is largely written by people with a vested interest in the outcome of this debate. Namely: CDC.
My Dad was in the government for 30 years, I don’t trust CDC al all. If you do, your choice. I hope only for the best for you and your kids and your family. Both of us would rather be elsewhere than dealing with this topic.
MD
If there is an external cause, it can be addressed.
If medicine were that easy, there would be absolutely no diseases.
But back to the point. It seems that Brad is surprised that the 62-99 autism caseload is small compared to the 3-5 caseload. No kidding. What has the autism community been debating all this time if not this sort of change in administrative data and to a lesser extent in epidemiology?
The point of the graphs is that they show huge caseload increases from 1992 to 2005 in *all* cohorts, not just children. 62 year olds in 1992 would’ve been born in 1930. So if the ascertainment of cases were accurate, you’d have to assume that in any 13-year period starting in 1930 the caseload of any cohort increases anywhere from 10 to 16-fold. This is ridiculous (and known to be false).
In other words, these rather large increases in the last 14 years can only be explained by changing ascertainment. It’s not due to really late onset autism or anything of the sort. Therefore, Kev just showed that autism is administratively missed routinely. The overall numbers don’t change this fact. If these many cases were missed, it’s obvious that many more cases could have been missed. You don’t think there are many 62-99 year old autistics in CDDS who are not classified as autistic? I bet there are thousands. Why would anyone want to change their labeling at this point?
Hey Diva:
Time for a name change!!
I know Asperger’s Diva is harder to spell, but I think you have been misrepresnting your condition for long enough.
MD
_”…to portray me as somehow in the minority, I believe, is factually incorrect.”_
I really doubt that Brad. The *global* autism community are not into your anti-vaccine agenda.
_”You are now blogging on a site where most of the contributors are adults with ASD and, my guess, about a dozen parents. EOH, the site you felt did not represent your views, has many more who feel the way I do.”_
4,000 unique visitors per day here Brad. Nearly 1.5million in 2006. I believe Lenny Schafer posted today that the EoH Group gets…what…58 posts per day? Then we need to take into account the non-ND bloggers, the scientific community, such as those at ScienceBlogs who also get very large numbers of visitors.
As you say, proof of nothing but if you really think you guys are anything other than a minority than you are deluding yourself.
_”One other comment, all the “science†that has convinced you is largely written by people with a vested interest in the outcome of this debate. Namely: CDC.”_
Do you not have a vested interest in the outcome of this debate then? How about David Kirby? Part funded by the leadership of the NAA. How about Mady Hornig? Funded by SafeMinds.
Everyone has a vested interest in this Brad.
_”I know Asperger’s Diva is harder to spell, but I think you have been misrepresnting your condition for long enough.”_
Are you saying that Aspergers is no longer on the spectrum? When did that happen?
Oh, and Brad,
“It’s no wonder you are such a successful..ummm…errr….uhhh…wait, I’m thinking.”
The word you are grasping for here is …. Father. Such a successful father.
Steve
Brad:
“I know Asperger’s Diva is harder to spell, but I think you have been misrepresnting your condition for long enough.”
I see you have problem with spelling “misrepresenting.”
I know you’ll need to read this answer twice or thrice, but that’s ok. You can read it slowly and think about it and read it again, then answer my questions posed previously.
“Autism Diva” does not mean “Autistic Diva.”
You see there are various people (I assume they are mainly women) who blog under various kinds of “Diva” titles and they don’t claim to be the noun that precedes the word “Diva.” Like there’s a “Mac Diva,” is she saying she’s a Macintosh computer, or Macitosh-ish? There’s a “Tango Diva.” Is she a tango or tango-ic (that’s a Latin dance, in case you don’t know)? There’s a “retail design diva” and she’s probably not claiming to be a “retail design”. There’s a blog called “fog city divas,” the divas are probably not claiming to be fog city. There’s a “Film Diva” who probably isn’t claiming to be a film or film-ish. There’s a “wine diva” and a “NY PR” diva, and some “sewing divas”… get the picture?
Now I see there is a “Vegan Diva” and she’s probably vegan, but she’s using the phrase in a different manner, you see Vegan Diva put an AD-JEC-TVE (Vegan) http://www.answers.com/adjective&r=67
before DI-VA instead of a NOUN (Veganism). Maybe you need to go back to the Leland Stanford Jr. Farm for a refresher in English, Brad dear.
Have you read “Unstrange Minds”? I know, it doesn’t have any pictures, is that the problem? 🙂
I guess the questions are too difficult for Mercurial Dad (Mercuric Dad, Mercury-ish Dad) of Scientology.org.
Go Go “Friend in California”!! Way to put him in his place.
The Generation Rescue/EOH people are sort of conflicted in this CDDS stuff. They can’t resist the siren call of the epidemic. Leads to more urgent funding, don’t you know. But when it conflicts with another of their little silly hypotheses – the autism/mercury one, then we have all sorts of strange statements on EoH. They are practically falling over themselves to appear logical, but they really seem like the few Stooges.
Like the post from Rick Rollens which states: “Since DDS’s data only includes those persons with autism who have a professional diagnoses of full syndrome (i.e. worst form) of autism, we can assume that hiding, misplacing, loosing or not recognizing thousands of adults with moderate to severe behavioral issues, extremely apparent bazaar (sic) social behaviors, and moderate to severe language deficits would be impossible. We are not talking about a person here who melds into society and is not noticed and/or is not in need of major supports and assistance. They would have to be somewhere, and somewhere for adults likes (sic) these in California would either be in the community or in an institution.”.
But according to his OWN post, the number of 14-17 year olds, those impossible to miss kids, had an increase of 41% between 2002 and 2006. Even worse, the 14-17 year olds had an increase of 51%!
Then we have Krakow, with some brains in his head, saying “One possible explanation for the across the age group increase is that the greater diagnosis/ better awareness factor.”
H. Coleman: “You’re not seeing autism in the unvaccinated.”, when there have been three, count em three cases of unvaccinated children with autism referred to on EoH in the past week.
or Mark Connolly who said: “However, all this speculation will do us no good come June 11th when the autism master file is going to look at specifically “whether, thimerosol and the MMR Vaccine or a combination of the two, can cause neurological injuries in certain children”.
Truer words were never spoken!
“but if you really think you guys are anything other than a minority than you are deluding yourself.”
Kevin:
Set up an online survey. Keep people from voting more than once from the same ip address. Post the survey location here and on EOH – and anywhere else you want.
See how many believe autism is:
– Epidemic and caused by vaccines/mercury
– A neurological disorder that’s always been with us
I trust you’ll set it up and not game it, let’s see what it says if you are so damn sure, because I think you are in a very tiny minority of parents.
We get thousands of emails from parents who agree with us, and a few from those who don’t. Still waiting for all the parents who read your blog to chime in here, one should expect HUNDREDS to post if you’re right.
One other data point for you. When we did a survey of Americans and their understanding of the flu shot, we asked a question about autism which you can read here:
Click to access f.6.pdf
We asked people to comment on the statement:
“Mercury in childhood vaccines has played a role in the current autism epidemic.”
31% Agreed.
So, you assertion is that a much smaller number of autism parents (this was just American adults) agree with that statement than the general population?
I find that hard to believe, I think the number is far higher.
Guys, I hate to disappoint, because I know what my presence here does for Kev’s Nielsen numbers, but I’m gone. Not because I don’t welcome the verbal wrestling (unlike any of you, who never post on EOH but seem to be able to quote it), but because I have a beautiful boy who is now home from school, and he keeps me plenty busy. And, despite what many of you might wish, I love him to death for just who he is and I tell him how proud I am of him twenty times a day.
Kev, as I’m sure you do, you can track my ip, I’m going to be gone for a while, but I’ll look for that survey link at EOH and I look forward to the results.
60 vs. 110,000. Man, thanks for the data to support the “hidden horde” hypothesis!!
Mr. Hg
Set up the survey, I’m sure you know how. I’ll cast my one vote.
Brad, whatever happened to
“Late 2006 should be the first time that rates go down. If they don’t, our hypothesis will need to be reexamined.”
???
This is an amazing little exchange.
For those that hold the belief that mercury in vaccine was the cause of autism I have a single question. Now that mercury is out of vaccine when might we see a down turn in the number of cases of autism being reported in children 3 to 5? Just let me know the year.