Stop Bashing Autism Speaks!

Post Reply New Topic

The statistics are provided by scientific research, that is peer reviewed. Perhaps those numbers are absurd where you live, but the government here does not consider them absurd.

It likely has something to do with differences in statistical measurement and/or diagnosis.

The way the government measures prevalence of autism here is specifically through 8 year old children, mostly though data provided in the school system for the developmentally delayed.

It's no more Autism Speaks problem than all the other organizations that quote the same 1 in 110 statistic provided by the government, and the same 40% statistic provided by the government on the number of children with ASD's that cannot speak.
Do a google search if you like and you will find the same statistics quoted by dozens of sources other than Autism Speaks.

I haven't seen the 40% statistic on children with ASD's that cannot speak, as a reference on the autism speaks website, but other organizations do cite this government statistic.

Yet even more evasion from Aghogday.
There is nothing wrong with the way the US measures incidences of ASD.
There was probably nothing wrong with the survey data collected by the CDC in 2004 on children with documented developmental disorders.
But what is obviously incorrect is the statement put out in 2009 (3 years after Autism Speaks went into partnership with the CDC) using the 2004 data to claim that half of all children with an ASD do not talk.

Quote:
•A report published by CDC in 2009, shows that 30-51% (41% on average) of the children who had an ASD also had an Intellectual Disability (intelligence quotient <=70).
•About 40% of children with an ASD do not talk at all. Another 25%–30% of children with autism have some words at 12 to 18 months of age and then lose them. Others may speak, but not until later in childhood.

Inferring?

He was making a rhetorical question Aghogday. I don't need you to try some apologetics on me just because your parent of an autistic worldview might be shattered by my rightly criticizing a parent of an autistics.


Which is a convenient response since everyone who read that quote read it for what it was, a damned slighting implication, and not the backpedalling response he made out afterwards.

Peer reviewed by an organisation linked with an organisation that you are extremely enthusiastically supportive of because you had an autistic child. It suggests a rate of children unable to speak over 1 in 200. What other assurances you can make are highly suspect and I'd rather have proof than you just report proof.


Telling whether a child cannot speak is not that hard Aghogday.


Which instantaneously makes it less reliable in a number of ways.

One person asked him to clarify whether or not it was an implication that all autistic people were low functioning, and he made it clear that was not the implication. I think he understands what he meant better than what you can infer that you think he meant.

You are asserting that he meant something that he clarified he didn't, suggesting it was a backpedalling response. The facts are the facts, as evidenced in the quotes. You are welcome to your opinion but there are no actual words in the text to back it up.

You aren't rightly criticizing a parent of an autistic child, you are making a false assertion, which is only your opinion, based on an inference of the statement "was autism good to you", to mean that applied to all autistics, even though the individual that made that statement clarified it was not an implication that all autistic people are low functioning, and a genuine question.

Yet even more evasion from Aghogday.

There is nothing wrong with the way the US measures incidences of ASD.

There was probably nothing wrong with the survey data collected by the CDC in 2004 on children with documented developmental disorders.

But what is obviously incorrect is the statement put out in 2009 (3 years after Autism Speaks went into partnership with the CDC) using the 2004 data to claim that half of all children with an ASD do not talk.

Quote:
•A report published by CDC in 2009, shows that 30-51% (41% on average) of the children who had an ASD also had an Intellectual Disability (intelligence quotient <=70).
•About 40% of children with an ASD do not talk at all. Another 25%–30% of children with autism have some words at 12 to 18 months of age and then lose them. Others may speak, but not until later in childhood.


This is a clear misrepresentation of the data collected by the CDC by implying that over 1 in 200 US children can't talk. The evidence to show that that is false is all around you and you don't need a multi million dollar research project to see it. Just look in the schools.

The only question open to debate here is whether that statement was put out by an innocent employee of the CDC who knew a lot about diseases and knew nothing about the autism spectrum so they used the ASD term by mistake
OR
It was deliberately put out to frighten the public so that the CDC's partners could benefit from millions of dollars from donations and grants from the government to wipe out this apparant non-verbal epidemic sweeping through the children of the USA.

I think you already know what I believe.
Other people reading this will make their own opinion.
I do hope that you will reconsider your blind faith in the infalability of government produced statistics.

Symptoms of Autism and Autism Spectrum Disorderswww.justmommies.com/articles/autism-symptoms.shtmlCached - Similar
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
May 14, 2005 - There are several different disorders in the Autism Spectrum Disorders including classical autism, ... (About 40% of children with ASD do not talk at all).

One person asked him to clarify whether or not it was an implication that all autistic people were low functioning, and he made it clear that was not the implication. I think he understands what he meant better than what you can infer that you think he meant.

Implying we're all low functioning.

The facts are the facts, as evidenced in the quotes.

You are welcome to your opinion but there are no actual words in the text to back it up.

You aren't rightly criticizing a parent of an autistic child, you are making a false assertion, which is only your opinion, based on an inference of the statement "was autism good to you", to mean that applied to all autistics, even though the individual that made that statement clarified it was not an implication that all autistic people are low functioning, and a genuine question.

It appears you misread the quote, the report put out in 2009 was regarding intellectual disability not the 40 percent statistic on speaking referenced in 2004. You were reading the first bullet in the quote, not the correct second bullet for the speaking statistic.

This 40% statistic has been reported and listed as sourced as a statistic from the CDC as early as May of 2005, per the webpage quoted from Google below:

Quote from google search on the statistic "About 40% of children with ASD do not talk at all":

If you do a search on the statistic you will find hundreds of sources that have quoted this statistic from the CDC since 2005. This speaking statistic has nothing to do with Autism Speaks. As far as I know, it's not a statistic quoted on the Autism Speaks website.

My sister actually just pointed out a program sponsored by Autism Speaks to me. Here is a little info...

Advancing Futures for Adults with Autism (AFAA) is a national consortium seeking to create meaningful futures for adults with autism that include homes, jobs, recreation, friends and supportive communities.

President Obama’s Federal Budget for the Fiscal Year 2012 allocated funding to various programs and initiatives designed to help “Win the Future for People with Disabilities." These proposals include: expanding autism research, increasing support for workers with disabilities, and expanding funding for the education of children with disabilities. Click here to read more.

On July 15th, 2010, AFAA hosted a Congressional briefing in Washington, DC that brought together federal legislators, national policymakers and advocates for adults with autism – including individuals who have autism – to discuss priorities for action in the public and private sectors that address the increasing and unmet demand for effective services for adolescents and adults with the disorder.

I do not understand why you deliberately chose to misrepresent the facts by lumping together 2 statistics from 2 different studies created 5 years apart into one quote as you originally did on page 23. It was very misleading but then those stats are misleading for the reasons I have already explained.

Yeah, it would have been nice if this information was provided earlier, otherwise it's clearly an act of skewing statistics from selective sources to deceive people.