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.
Loading comments…
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/091229/oddities/health_flu
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
equianimi complains about the fraud of vaccine makers in relation to the study. That can only be the Polish study where they "test vaccines."
But this isn't a study where they tested vaccines. This is a case-control study where they match up patients to see if there is an association between vaccination and MMR vaccination.
What's funny is that a case-control study is easier to cook the books on than a vaccine trial. One way to make this harder is to specify, in detail, in advance, the rules to be used in selecting patients to be included.
And while Dr. Wakefield's infamous study wasn't a case control study, it demonstrates how easy it is to hide crucial information. Wakefield's paper made it appear that the patients came to their attention in the normal course of referrals to the hospital. This was false. If Wakefield had explained how patients came to be included in the study then everything would have unravelled and the paper would never have been published. And some UK and Irish children would probably still be alive today.
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?
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.
"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.
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.
Want to see how knowledgeable a vaccine true believer actually is...
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
(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...
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?
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.)
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.
(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