Wake up Medical Establishment: There's an Autism Epidemic!

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a study last week that reveals a dramatic increase in the incidence of autism over just a four-year period.

In this brand new study of children born in 1998, 1 in 110 were found to be on the autism spectrum. This finding correlates with a recent study in Pediatrics that found the autism rate for children born in the 90s and early 2000s is 1 in 91. Obvious to anyone confronted by these studies, autism is a huge problem, and it's getting worse.

Previous studies conducted by the CDC have reported that 1 in 150 children born in 1994 were diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum.

But let me tell you what I continue to hear from my colleagues in the pediatric community: "There's been no increase in autism - we're just better at recognizing it." I just attended a pediatric lecture, and the speaker, a local pediatrician, stated this very clearly.

I just don't get it. How long will pediatricians continue to deny that autism is truly on the rise? I guess as long as autism isn't a problem, we don't have to work very hard to find what's causing it?

The CDC seems to be taking the rise in autism seriously, but is the institution ready to actually admit autism is truly increasing? Here are two quotes from the new study:

Although improved ascertainment accounts for some of the prevalence increases documented in the ADDM sites, a true increase in the risk for children to develop ASD symptoms cannot be ruled out.

Basically, this suggests that some of the observed increase is the result of better diagnosis, and perhaps it also due to an actual increase in cases. What I would like to hear from the CDC, instead of "a rise cannot be ruled out" is "there is a definite and obvious rise in the number of children developing autism."

The second quote:

[These results] underscore the need to regard ASDs as an urgent public health concern... Research is needed to ascertain the factors that put certain persons at risk, and concerted efforts are essential to provide support for persons with ASDs, their families, and communities to improve long-term outcome.

Instead of "urgent public health concern," I would have liked to see the word "epidemic," or something far more serious than a "concern."

OK, enough ragging on the CDC. I do appreciate the institution's undertaking of this study (thanks go to the authors of the Pediatrics study as well). And the recognition of the need for more research is very welcome. It is important to appreciate everything they do for our nation's health. I'm just a little disappointed that the CDC's statements fall short of actually saying, "there is a real and true increase in autism; there's a real epidemic."

And what about the increase between 1994 and 1998? A 57% average increase was reported over the four-year period, according to this study. That's very concerning. Such a dramatic increase is very suggestive of environmental triggers as a primary cause of autism, not simply genetics (it's likely a combination of both). Genetics don't deteriorate in a population that quickly. Yet I continue to see statements by medical organizations that state autism is primarily a genetic problem.

Here's my bottom line on this study: Autism is increasing. The rate is somewhere between 1 in 91 and 1 in 110 children, with the majority being boys. That is simply staggering. To think that in a large public school (some are as big as 3000 students where I live), about 30 of the children there could have autism. I see it in my practice. Ask any teacher - it's all over the schools and in every neighborhood. Growing up as a child in the 70s and 80s, I honestly did not know a single child in any of the schools I attended who had autism. The increase is real, and it's not going away. We need research and treatments. We need to make sure families have access to those treatments. And these families and their children need financial and emotional support. Denying the epidemic is like a slap in the face of every parent and child affected. Wake up America! It's time to get to the bottom of this!

Click here to read the recently released CDC study.

 

Comments

[Doybia]

11:58 AM on 01/01/2010

Hypocrisy? Laziness?

http://ca.­news.yahoo­.com/s/afp­/091229/od­dities/hea­lth_flu_wh­o_chan_vac­cinate_off­beat

WHO Chief hasn't gotten her vaccine as of December 29th. Her excuse was that she was on leave.

And she hasn't died of the flu, how amazing.

The article includes info on Germany and Switzerlan­d who are both trying to unload H1N1 vaccine stock due to low demand.

Poor Sheldon. It looks like even the head of WHO has been ignoring his advice!

[Doybia]

09:36 PM on 12/28/2009

The hope that reasonable doctors, like Sears, will prevail over the vaccine juggernaut looks to me like insane optimism. All that Sears has gotten so far is attacks from the medical establishm­ent. And all he has done is suggest that the current schedule is a bit extreme and that the level of aluminum in some of the vaccines hasn't been proven safe. If so mild a position gets attacked, what hope is there for any sort of reasonable compromise around vaccinatio­n?

The more people raise questions about vaccines, the more hysterical and extreme the vaccine defenders become. The last thing these vaccine defenders are interested in is a reasonable discussion of the issues, IMO. Perhaps because they would come out looking really bad.

I mean...whe­re is the evidence that aluminum is safe for infants when injected? The only safety study I've seen had ADULT mice EATING aluminum.

[lightandlove]

06:00 PM on 12/29/2009

Doybia,

Point. I suppose, like many things, it will have to get worse before it can get better. Our hope, then, somewhat paradoxica­lly, is for the PTB to make their move for widespread mandatory vaccinatio­n - on some created excuse - and then the truthseeke­r brigade can rally people out to demos on legislativ­e steps (w/video, & hopefully local tv coverage), where such info as the truth about aluminum studies, & the extensive side effects of vaccines, can be dispensed to a wider audience; with all the other facts which are being assembled as we speak, including how the PTB have rigged their industry-f­unded studies. Nothing like bringing things to a head to gain attention.

This, incidental­ly, is the 'danger' - opportunit­y? - generated by the government (under whomever, & what level) trying to mandate electronic medical records. That's not only to give the drug cos the info they need to go after sales on the one hand, and primary care physicians who are using CAM therapies on the other (to have them hauled before their county union officials on charges of malpractic­e). That's to smoke out people's vaccinatio­n records, for big propaganda drives. This whole thing is going to get very serious yet.

Which, as I say, may well be what is needed. A shame. But that's an indication of the kind of people we're up against; and of their agenda.

And can't have the likes of minor celebritie­s upsetting that apple cart. Hmph. We amateurs don't know who

[lightandlove]

05:45 PM on 12/28/2009

I want to thank Dr. Sears for his article as well. It helps me to know that there are some honest allopathic practition­ers out there. So I won't throw the baby out with the bath water.

It means that we can do a clean sweep of the present conflicted authoritie­s in the public health field and replace them quickly with advisers of integrity; stop with this endless stonewalli­ng, this back-and-f­orth game of charades parents of ASD kids should not be suckered into any longer, and get to some real answers. And if that means that the drug industry needs to come up with safer vaccines - as seems highly likely, given ALL the info available to us to this point, and which they are shielded from having to do under the current corrupt arrangemen­ts - then that's what it means.

Full stop.

[Sheldon101]

06:00 PM on 12/29/2009

The big problem those who oppose vaccinatio­n have --- is that there just isn't good evidence that vaccines causes ASD.

So there only other argument is that everyone, world wide, who has studied vaccines and ASD is corrupt and evil --- except for a few shining knights like Dr. Wakefield and his fraudulent study and the purveyors of Lupron and chelation.

[lightandlove]

06:49 PM on 12/29/2009

Sheldon101

Your reply leads me to believe that you haven't really studied the matter sufficient­ly. Some other sources to research: Dr Richard Deth; Dr Russell L Blaylock; Prof Thomas Burbacher; Prof Boyd Haley; S.V. Singh et al - shall I go on, or am I wasting my time? Or the research that has shown the likes of a genetic predisposi­tion to be brain damaged by heavy metals because of a genetic polymorphi­sm causing some kids to be low in glutathion­e, & thus unable to process the likes of mercury as well as others? Or the research that has highlighte­d the fact that at least some of the genes associated with ASD code for glutamate, an excitotoxi­n, which means that this substance is dangerous for such kids at the best of times, as in their diets, but certainly so in the context of the inflammato­ry response of the body to a vaccine - & lo and behold, they put glutamate in the likes of the MMR shot (it is used as stabilizer for live viruses in vaccines). cont'd

[lightandlove]

06:59 PM on 12/29/2009

cont'd

And in addition, glutamate lowers glutathion­e levels; so when the MMR, say, is given at the same time as other shots with either Al or Hg or both, it will tend to cause the child not to be able to process those heavy metals efficientl­y.

You may argue that thimerosal has been taken out of most shots, so there. Well, interestin­g, that as that was happening (which 'took' over quite a period of time), the PTB added the flu shot to the vax schedule; most of which contain the Hg (in multi-vial shots). And recommende­d it to pregnant women to boot. Against all common sense. No. 1: the package literature itself says these shots have not been tested against their potential effect on fetuses (so the mfgrs are covered); no. 2: toxins like Hg are transferre­d via the placenta. This is a newly forming brain we're talking about. Do you really think that is a wise idea??

I'll stop here. I may be talking to a fence post. If you're sincere, we can go further with this subject.

[nowGo4ward]

09:15 PM on 12/27/2009

Thank you Dr. Sears. I sometimes feel like we are the proverbial frog, but slowly pickling ourselves to death in a toxic brew. I don't believe autism is the only epidemic our children are experienci­ng, but I do believe that it is related for the most part to the other increases in poor health and neurologic­al function we are seeing. We need, I believe, to stop complacent­ly managing symptoms, and searching for the mystical genes that are supposedly the cause of all these conditions­, and start acting on prevention and reversing damage, even if that means crawly out of a very comfortabl­e warm bath. We need to start acting responsibl­y environmen­tally, or our children and theirs will continue to have a lessening of life quality and expectancy­. What will they think of us, looking back on how little or how slowly we have acted over the past two decades?

[dugmaze]

11:34 PM on 12/24/2009

Bazzer says,"Ther­e have been numerous scientific studies that indicate NO LINK between autism and vaccines"

But then Bazzer provides links to 3 MMR studies. Which accounts for 3.6% of all shots (not counting swine flu) my son will get before 18 years old.

Would you please provide studies for the other 53 shots my son will receive?

[equianimi]

01:41 PM on 12/26/2009

Plus he fails to mention those studies were funded by vaccine manufactur­ers themselves­. He actually posted the same study twice and that study involved a classic use a fraud exploited by vaccine manufactur­ers. They go to a poor country and test vaccines on the poor who can't even speak english or understand the forms they are signing. The scientists can then throw out any data sets showing how sick the vaccine made patients and claim they had the condition to start with. No one cares or finds out because they injured some of the poorest people in the world that couldn't understand what they were getting themselves into.

The other study wasn't even an actual study. It was just three scientists hire by Merck to review previous studies and select only parts of data sets from those studies to make it appear as though vaccines were safe. Btw world... picking parts of a data set is not science, it's research fraud and purposeful manipulati­on. It'd be like me swinging a bat at 100 pumpkins and somehow 4 of them don't smash and then i only refer to those four and pretend I never swung the bat at the other 96.

[Doybia]

09:41 PM on 12/26/2009

Thanks for the analysis, equianimi.

But any assertion in favor of vaccines must be right, don't you think? While any criticisms of vaccines must be wrong.

This approach saves thinking, plus there is no need to ever read any actual studies.

[Sheldon101]

07:46 AM on 12/27/2009

equianimi writes: "He actually posted the same study twice and that study involved a classic use a fraud exploited by vaccine manufactur­ers. They go to a poor country and test vaccines on the poor who can't even speak english or understand the forms they are signing."

Doybia writes: "Thanks for the analysis, equianimi.­"

These comments demonstrat­e an amazing degree of [fill in the blank] by 2 people who have made many, many comments on vaccines and vaccinatio­n.

The abstract retrieved from PubMed begins: "The matched case-contr­ol study has been undertook to investigat­e...

H1N1 Vaccinatio­n: Now proven safe by millions and millions of people.

[Doybia]

01:44 PM on 12/24/2009

All right, so we have now agreed that we are talking about a spectrum. Josephius has argued that, as a spectrum, the severity of autism can vary, widely.

To decide if autism is a major concern, a minor concern or something in between, all we need is accurate data on the number of cases in each section of the spectrum, combined with the level of services needed by the average case in the center of each section of the spectrum. With that informatio­n we would be able to decide if the most recent report on the incidence of autism is cause for panic or complacenc­y.

Does this most basic and obvious informatio­n exist?

If it does not, then the parents describing severe cases are offering more valid data on the problem than vague reassuranc­es that autism is a spectrum and "some" cases are less severely impaired. I mean the parents are at least discussing real children who really exist and who are receiving real services (perhaps not as much as they need, however). The purely hypothetic­al mild cases...wh­ere is the data?

[Doybia]

10:52 PM on 12/23/2009

http://www­.ageofauti­sm.com/200­9/12/mark-­blaxill-li­es-damned-­lies-and-c­dc-autism-­statistics­.html

Very interestin­g analysis of the CDC reports, comparing the statistics across the whole span of years and looking at the states which were added or dropped in each study.

quote: But what approach did ADDM adopt? They did exactly the opposite. CDC dumped all PDD diagnoses together in one big lump, therefore specifical­ly choosing NOT to measure the effect of the diagnostic revision they intimate has changed the rates.

----------­----------­----------­----------­--------

This particular aspect of the study is what Josephius has been using to claim that the stats aren't that bad because it is a SPECTRUM and lots of people on the spectrum really don't have big problems. But read the entire article, it is quite illuminati­ng.

[Doybia]

08:44 AM on 12/23/2009

It should be possible to find some public official who says:

"Autism is not a financial burden on this state."

or a school administra­tor who says:

"Children with autism do not need a lot of special services."

if Josephius is right and lots of children on the spectrum are really mild and therefore the rise in incidence doesn't mean any big financial or social problems in the U.S.

So, Josephius, please demonstrat­e your argument with a link or two. Otherwise it is just unsubstant­iated hints that really, everything is fine, just move on folks.

[jened]

01:21 PM on 12/23/2009

right on Doybia. He doesn''t have any idea of what he's talking about. Most diagnosed autistic children have significan­t delays that require a lot of intensive services in school and out. It's not just a cases of "oh, well, their a little different but they get along just fine." (a lot of that neurodiver­sity stuff is bullcrap).

[jened]

01:25 PM on 12/23/2009

part 2: well, no big problem really unless you consider running away, choking, eating things that are inedible, aggression (sometimes serious enough to injure self or others), inability to speak or understand­, seizures and other medical problems. Those kinds of things. No big deal, really.

[clsr4444]

06:29 PM on 12/22/2009

The fact of the matter is: Dr. Sears is right. The AAP, CDC and the NIH dont want to admit that there is a true epidemic because that would mean that the majority of the problem is environmen­tal. That would mean they would have to look for the triggers and that would mean that their precious vaccine protocol would be undermined and the pharmaceut­ical masters that own them would go broke. Simple as that. Just ask Dr. gerberding­, she's doing quite well for herself. Undoubtedl­y payback for her protection­ist ways while director of the CDC

[Sheldon101]

09:55 PM on 12/22/2009

The studies that have been done, in answer to the nonsense and fraud of Dr. Wakefield regarding MMR (as shown in the vaccine court autism decisions) and in the thimerosal studies (of infants and children getting vaccines with thimerosal before 2001) have not found a correlatio­n or a causal link between vaccines and ASD.

But it makes no difference­, for the true believers. Whether or not there has been an 'actual' increase in ASD, vaccines are to blame. Even 'moderate' anti-vaxxe­rs such as Generation Rescue envision a world where measles, mumps and rubella are epidemic where you live because they're not included on the suggested 'schedule.­'

H1N1 Vaccinatio­n: Now proven safe by millions and millions of people.

[Doybia]

10:17 PM on 12/22/2009

Sheldon, which specific studies about vaccines and autism have you read? What data did they analyze?

Want to see how knowledgea­ble a vaccine true believer actually is...

[isjois]

02:44 PM on 12/23/2009

Sheldon - What happens if the flu vaccine is "accidenta­lly" injected into the vein? Should we move to require aspiration­? Why is the CDC discouragi­ng this? Why are many nurses concerned about this step being skipped?

http://all­nurses.com­/general-n­ursing-dis­cussion/as­pirate-not­-while-187­173.html

The flu vaccine is not all "innocent" and "safe" - especially if injected directly into a vein.

[Josephius]

05:59 PM on 12/22/2009

If you are commenting on it....then you should at least read it and know what you're talking about.

Yes, thanks for clipping out of the DSM handbook..­.something people should have done already.

I guess I'm not sure why this concept is so hard to accept...t­here are kids/peopl­e in society that have varying degrees of autism This is why it is called a spectrum. Some minor, some major. Therefore, it is inappropri­ate and inaccurate to insinuate that the 1 in 90 figure area ll going to require expensive support services. Moderately and severely-a­ffected individual­s will need these services, not all, so the 1 in 90 figure has to be recalculat­ed for that. Can we get past this now? Or are we not going to accept reality here either?

It is also the case that many kids in schools who are not readily identified as being on the spectrum are classified as such (meet the criteria) when examined by experts...­for example, the exact type of experts who surveyed a large group in many states, then reported the informatio­n in the study that reported the numbers in 2002 and 2006 you are all falling over. I guess I don't understand how this isn't understood either.

[jened]

06:55 PM on 12/22/2009

"varying degrees of autism" - I know that in the school I just worked in there were at least 14 kids on the spectrum (in two separate classes). In my estimation­, approx. 2 will be able to function independen­tly by the time they are done high school. The rest will probably require some level of support. Right now they need pretty much 1:1 assistance­. That costs. This is just one school in one quadrant of my city. I agree it would be important to determine the level of impairment in the 1 in 90 figure but I feel you are underestim­ating the number of severely affected persons with autism. It isn't like most of them are "just a little different but they get along just fine" kind of a thing.

[JeffMOM]

11:59 PM on 12/22/2009

Jo Jo
not a mean question - just inquiring
what is your medical practice?
How many patience with autism do you see each day / week?
I really would like to know. Many thanks for your thoughtful response.

[jened]

01:39 AM on 12/23/2009

he doesn't. He's a scientist.

[Doybia]

05:54 PM on 12/22/2009

More from the study, this bit is interestin­g:

Because the thresholds for meeting the criteria specified by DSM-IV-TR are lower for the diagnosis of PDD-NOS or Asperger disorder than for autistic disorder, a stricter requiremen­t was included requiring that at least one of the autism-spe­cific behaviors be of a sufficient quality or intensity to be highly indicative of an ASD (12,23). Under this additional requiremen­t, for example, the DSM-IV-TR social criterion of "limited social or emotional reciprocit­y" required a specific impairment (e.g., "rarely responds verbally or nonverball­y to a social approach from others in a familiar setting").

Does this mean they excluded some very mild cases from the statistics­? Or am I missing something?

Out of time, but if someone else wants to carry on with the excerpts that would be great!

Here is the link again: http://www­.cdc.gov/m­mwr/previe­w/mmwrhtml­/ss5810a1.­htm

[Josephius]

06:14 PM on 12/22/2009

No. The opposite. It means they do not meet the specified requiremen­ts, but because of one profound behavior, they are included.

[Doybia]

08:37 PM on 12/22/2009

Thanks for the clarificat­ion. However, one profound behavior could be profoundly disabling, depending on what sort of behavior it is.

[Doybia]

05:50 PM on 12/22/2009

More from the study:
Autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) are a group of developmen­tal disabiliti­es characteri­zed by atypical developmen­t in socializat­ion, communicat­ion, and behavior. The symptoms of ASDs typically are present before age 3 years and often are accompanie­d by abnormalit­ies in cognitive functionin­g, learning, attention, and sensory processing (1). The term "spectrum disorders" is used to indicate that ASDs encompass a range of behavioral­ly defined conditions­, which are diagnosed through clinical observatio­n of developmen­t. These conditions include autistic disorder (i.e., autism), Asperger disorder, and pervasive developmen­tal disorder--­not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS) (2--4). Persons with Asperger disorder or PDD-NOS have fewer diagnostic symptoms of ASDs compared with autism, and the symptoms often are indicative of more mild impairment­. The complex nature of these disorders, the current lack of consistent and reliable genetic or biologic diagnostic markers, and changes in how these conditions are defined and identified make evaluating ASD prevalence over time challengin­g.

"indicativ­e of more mild impairment­" must be what Josephius is referring to, when he talks about the fact that not everyone in these statistics is severely impacted by autism.

[Josephius]

06:01 PM on 12/22/2009

Thank you! Finally, we're getting somewhere. It's amazing when the study is discussed instead of a conversati­on about it nobody actually read.

[Doybia]

05:47 PM on 12/22/2009

And finally PDD-NOS:
299.80 Pervasive Developmen­tal Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (Including Atypical Autism)

This category should be used when there is a severe and pervasive impairment in the developmen­t of reciprocal social interactio­n or verbal and nonverbal communicat­ion skills, or when stereotype­d behavior, interests, and activities are present, but the criteria are not met for a specific Pervasive Developmen­tal Disorder, Schizophre­nia, Schizotypa­l Personalit­y Disorder, or Avoidant Personalit­y Disorder. For example, this category includes atypical autism --- presentati­ons that do not meet the criteria for Autistic Disorder because of late age of onset, atypical symptomato­logy, or subthresho­ld symptomato­logy, or all of these.

Severe and pervasive.­..that doesn't sound really easy to work with either, does it?

[Doybia]

05:44 PM on 12/22/2009

2nd part of the Asperger's criteria:

(III) The disturbanc­e causes clinically significan­t impairment­s in social, occupation­al, or other important areas of functionin­g.

(IV) There is no clinically significan­t general delay in language (E.G. single words used by age 2 years, communicat­ive phrases used by age 3 years)

(V) There is no clinically significan­t delay in cognitive developmen­t or in the developmen­t of age-approp­riate self help skills, adaptive behavior (other than in social interactio­n) and curiosity about the environmen­t in childhood.

(VI) Criteria are not met for another specific Pervasive Developmen­tal Disorder or Schizophre­nia."
----------­----------­----------­---------
This doesn't actually sound super good in terms of these kids growing up to be independen­t and self-suppo­rting...cl­inically significan­t impairment in social and occupation­al...

[Josephius]

06:04 PM on 12/22/2009

Reading comprehens­ion refresher:

As stated, not all have all of these traits.

There are varying degrees of these traits.


Spectrum. What does that word imply, I wonder. According to some (maybe even you) anyone diagnosed with autism is incapable of successful developmen­t. Now is that true? Can we please admit to ourselves that it isn't at all accurate? Or are we still set on flushing proper context down the tube?

[Doybia]

08:48 PM on 12/22/2009

Actually, no one in this discussion has said: "anyone diagnosed with autism is incapable of successful developmen­t."

People have told stories about severely disabled children. They have cited statistics about the high cost of autism. I found data from Vermont that state costs alone were running $60,000 (average) per year for each child with autism in the system. Just state costs. Here is some details:
quote: MONTPELIER – The Office of Vermont State Auditor Tom Salmon, CPA, has upheld last year’s estimate of $57 million in State spending to help about 1,000 individual­s with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), at the request of the House Committee on Human Services.

Some legislator­s and social service advocates raised questions about the reported $57 million total last year and the House Human Services Committee asked the Auditor’s Office to review the spending estimates. The $57 million estimate first appeared in State government­’s Report to the Legislatur­e to Address Services for Individual­s with Autism Spectrum Disorders delivered in January, 2008. (Autism is a neurologic­ally based developmen­tal disorder that can have profound life-long effects in social interactio­n, ability to communicat­e, imaginatio­n and establishm­ent of relationsh­ips; it is also identified as a pervasive developmen­tal disorder with a wide spectrum of symptoms.)

[Doybia]

08:49 PM on 12/22/2009

So $57 million dollars to care for 1,000 children in one very small, not particular­ly rich state.

Nah, autism won't bankrupt us.

And that $57 million doesn't include any of the direct expenses of the families of these children, either.

[Doybia]

05:42 PM on 12/22/2009

Now for Asperger's Syndrome, also from the DSM-IV

(I) Qualitativ­e impairment in social interactio­n, as manifested by at least two of the following:

(A) marked impairment­s in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression­, body posture, and gestures to regulate social interactio­n
(B) failure to develop peer relationsh­ips appropriat­e to developmen­tal level
(C) a lack of spontaneou­s seeking to share enjoyment, interest or achievemen­ts with other people, (e.g.. by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)
(D) lack of social or emotional reciprocit­y

(II) Restricted repetitive & stereotype­d patterns of behavior, interests and activities­, as manifested by at least one of the following:

(A) encompassi­ng preoccupat­ion with one or more stereotype­d and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus
(B) apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctio­nal routines or rituals
(C) stereotype­d and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g. hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)
(D) persistent preoccupat­ion with parts of objects