Stop Bashing Autism Speaks!

Post Reply New Topic

Aghogday wrote:
Your codswallop example is based on an opinion poll, where the references of the study are not sourced to the customer. In the case of the CDC the caveats of the scientific peer reviewed research are identified in the links to these references on their website, that I provided a link to.

It is common acceptable practice within the scientific field to present statistics backed up by research that one can peruse, to understand any caveats that may be associated with that research.

I would appreciate if you would not personally attack my moral standards, that has nothing to do with the statistics that I have quoted from a government source that I have provided an official link for, or the caveats of that research that I have provided from my perusal and understanding of the research.

Some children that are non-verbal at age 4 that have autism do definitely gain the ability to speak later in childhood. The quote from the CDC statistic that I provided clearly stated that some others develop the ability to speak later in childhood. Are you suggesting that this is not possible from your understanding of psycho-linguistics?

You are the only one I have ever heard that has come up with the conclusion that 1 in 200 children in the US cannot speak from this information on the CDC site. There is no statistic on the CDC website that states that, although if one wanted to determine that specific statistic one could do a study to determine it, provide the research for a link, so one could see any potential caveats involved.

One may already be available, I suggest you research it if you like, if you want to provide evidence that 1 in 200 children not speaking in the US, is too high of an estimate for any age group of children.

Perhaps 1 in 200, 4 year old children with autism cannot speak but that does not mean that 1 in 200, 17 year old adolescent children cannot speak. If such research exists, it's likely that that caveat would be listed under the demographics section of the research.

The caveats associated with statistics, are clearly identified in the research that supports those statistics; if one questions the statistics they can look at the research to see those caveats.

The CDC could provide a full text of the research, instead of a link to it, to show all the caveats of the research methods, but it would be rather silly to do that, when a reference link can be provided instead.

It is the same procedure used to reference all types of other statistics world wide that are reported on websites. If the CDC did not list the references there might be reason to question them on the validity, and ethics of their methods of providing information, but they are careful to provide those references, just as the autism speaks website is careful to provide references for their statistics gathered from third party sources.

If one wants to understand which demographics were tested in the data one can look at the references provided to research. If one wants to come up with a conclusion of their own beyond what the statistics state, they can do that as well.

It is no different than the 1 in 110 statistic, you accept that statistic, but it doesn't mean that 1 in 110, 17 year olds have autism it means that 1 in 110, 8 year olds mostly from developmentally delayed classes in the schools system have autism. Without looking at the research or me explaining it from my understanding of the research, there would be no way to understand this caveat.

It's a caveat clearly identified in the research link they provide on their site, so it is not information that is being hidden, all one has to do is look at the reference if they want to know the caveats of the research. And as stated before it is a necessary caveat to provide consistent data for increases in prevalence rates.

I've exerted the effort to look at the research and provide the caveats that I have seen in the research here. Perhaps, if you look at the research you may see something applicable that I didn't notice, that might be a caveat of interest. No one is hiding it from anyone, if one wants to take the time to find it and read it.

From strictly an anecdotal perspective, I see the potential statistic of 1 in 200 children identified as not being able to speak at a young age, not that unusual. In grammar school there were several children that I went to with in a school of less that 200 children that could not speak and were in speech therapy to learn to speak. Even when I graduated from highschool one of the top ten members of the class could not speak. This was in the 70's.

PDD NOS was not identified at that time, it is now, and many of those children diagnosed have problems with speech as well as children diagnosed with Autism, Rhetts, and Childhood disintegrative disorder. As well as other developmental disorders associated with problems in speech.

I did see a statistic recently that suggested that 3 to 6 million children are diagnosed with speech orders of some kind. It wasn't a site that provided a reference to this statistic, however if it is supported by reputable research, that's from 1 in 100 to 2 in 100 children in the US with some type of speech disorder, within the demographic of the children measured that have that problem in the research.

The specific demographic within the childhood population is one that would need to be understood by finding and looking at that research. Did I see the statistic as alarmist, not for one second? I already understand from my own experience that there are many children that have problems speaking at a young age. I didn't speak until age 4, so I've personally experienced issues as a non-verbal child with autism, and issues with verbal language that continued through my life. Back in those days not speaking at age 4 was no big deal, now it is measured as a developmental delay in speech.

You've made it clear that you think that the CDC is misrepresenting facts and being alarmist, even when the research is provided that explains every potential caveat. That is you opinion that you have a right to, but there is nothing out of the ordinary that I can see as to how the facts along with references were presented in a professional scientific manner on the CDC website that I provided a link to.

And beyond that, you have provided no evidence or research that disproves the deduction you made, of 1 in 200 children not being able to speak in the US, by comparing the results from the two studies. All you have provided is a statement that you think the deduction you have provided is absurd because of your anecdotal personal experience. I accept that as your personal opinion, but not objective evidence provided by research.

No need to debate me anymore if you don't want to. I'm willing to look at any evidence you may be able to provide in support of your opinion.

Part and Parcel!

I would be if it was clear that all I was trying to do was making some assiduously obtuse waffle in order to hide a direct answer. So yes or no?

I didn't agree with Merig's point of view on the subject, and wanted to make that clear. Given all available evidence I believe that the CDC is acting in a completely professional manner in the way they provide their statistics for autism on their website, Merig didn't see it that way. Merig felt the way they were presented the statistics was misleading and alarmist.

I gave a direct answer with my reasoning per my post above in direct response to the question. That's my final answer on Merig's question. I believe it is perfectly acceptable to present any autism statistic on that webpage from the CDC, because it is the most reliable information available in the US, and in my opinion it is provided in a professional manner; neither a misleading or an alarmist one. My direct answer is based on my reasoning not Merig's reasoning.

Do you think that the lack of caveats in the above message is incorrect? Yes or no?

In my opinion your suggestion that there is a lack of caveats is incorrect, no one has provided evidence that the statistic on the percentage of children with ASD's that cannot speak, presented on the CDC website, is not factual, per the peer reviewed research referenced as a footnote by the statistic on the website.

And, no one has provided any research that backs up any statistic different from that of which the CDC presents on the percentage of children with ASD's that cannot speak, in the US, to refute the statistic provided by peer reviewed research on the CDC website.

As stated before the US government statistics on autism, are accepted and published by many sources as a reliable source of information, including the specific statistic in question. If you question the governments statistics as flawed and lacking caveats to explain the flaws, I suggest you provide evidence to refute the statistic, otherwise you are entitled to your opinion, whatever it may be.

That isn't saying that there is not a lack of caveats.

That's just you saying that the statistics are correct because noone has challenged them.

The fact is though is that there are no caveats that say anything like this:


Any more logical fallacy?

Merig's whole point was based on a logical fallacy.

Merig suggested that a caveat on the site was needed because anyone that reads the statistic that "about 40 percent of autistic children to do speak" and the completely separate statistic that "1 in 110 children have autism", will come to the absurd conclusion that 1 in 200 children cannot speak.

The conclusion that Merig derived is incorrect, if Merig did the actual math to determine the numbers, based on the statistics she was complaining about it would be 1 in 275, so Merig's concern that people would come to the absurd conclusion that 1 in 200 people do not speak, makes no mathematical sense, and there is no reason to believe that someone will come up with the same inaccurate conclusion that merig did, or that there needs to be a caveat because of the potential of someone gaining an absurd conclusion, when the absurd conclusion doesn't exist in the real world.

Merig suggested there was something wrong with the research. That's her opinion, but Merig never provided any evidence that there was something wrong with the methods used in the research, or any statistics to refute it.

Therefore, no proof of anything wrong with the research methods has been presented, and so there is no evidence that any caveats are needed. The reference to the research on the CDC website is sufficient as it is with any other source of information that provides a statistic backed up by peer reviewed research.

No it wasn't. It was based on pointing out your logical fallacy, that of hidden caveats.

You accuse her of making a logical fallacy when she made a mathematical error, and moreover a mathematical error that when we look at the point she makes isn't really that important. She said it would be mad to say 1 in 200 would be unable to speak in the USA. It would still be mad to say it even if it was only 1 in 27, and even then it's over that because we must also include non-autistic mutes.

High redefinition. She said that there is something wrong with research that doesn't include caveats and morever she had reason to say that the whole enterprise had links to a group that might want to change the numbers in their favour.

That's a massive double-barreled lie. Caveats must always be provided in results. Furthermore you say that the research is perfect because merig is wrong, and on false premises too. That is argumentum ad verecundiam and false attribution of characteristics. Hilarious.

Everything that Merig suggested was based on Merig's opinion and logic; while Merig didn't like the government statistic that about 40% of children with ASD's don't speak, Merig, using Merig's logic came up with a fallacious conclusion that was close to 40% inaccurate, and using that same logic to suggest that everyone else that read the statistic would come up with the same absurd conclusion, which was Merig's own fallacious conclusion derived from Merig's own personal process of logic that provided that personal inaccurate conclusion.

Merig's idea of a caveat was to put a note by the statistic to suggest it was biased toward low functioning autistic children. There is no evidence that the methods were flawed, so it is not a reasonable idea to suggest that the CDC provide a caveat for Merig's own personal opinion, not backed up by any facts. No reputable organization would use a subjective opinion for a caveat to further define a statistic

The CDC already provides a reference to the research to back up the statistic, the research is peer reviewed and includes any limitations that may be applicable; it is the commonly completely accepted way that most publications use to back up statistics.

The research was done before any partnership with autism speaks and the CDC was established, in 2006, as evidenced by Merig, so that has nothing to do with any of this.

I never stated the research that backs up the statistic was perfect, several times I've indicated that the research referenced provides any applicable limitations. It's peer reviewed and accepted, from a scientific perspective, that's as good as it gets.

I wouldn't believe 1 in 27, but 1 in 275 isn't unreasonable. In any first grade class of school children comprised of 275 children it is not unreasonable to suggest that one of those children might be a autistic non-verbal child. The child might learn to speak later in life, but it's not an unreasonable statistic for a young child.

Statistics are limited one study might show 1 in 300, one study might show 1 in 350. That's why they say about 40 percent, it's obviously not a precise number. However somewhere in the 1 in 300 range is reasonable considering what is seen and measured in school age children.

You really think it's absurd to suggest that in a first grade class of 275 children, that one of those children is going to likely be a non-verbal autistic child? It's not hard to understand if one looks at it from this common sense point of view.

I think it is. I think 1 in 275 is too high in general. You button down on first-grade, and the caveat about the children being first grade isn't there. It's also imprecise as you show yourself.

That would include tens of thousands of children! That's a massive margin of error and it makes your assertion about 40% suspect. Yet even if you do not trust their veracity the fact is that you use them over actual evidence from many of us every time.

No, merig's idea of a caveat was how this was unethically said:
"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.[/quote]

Actually coming back when we talk about that 1 in 200 statistic I think you forgot the fact about those 25-30% that lose their words. So your attempt to say that it is 1 in 275 is wrong, because the fact is that the children who lost the ability to speak still can't talk. If anything according to the results of the CDC 1 in 200 is in fact an underestimation, which is hilarious.

Gedrene wrote:


Aghogday wrote:
My assertion isn't "about 40 percent", that is the US governments assertion that about 40 percent of autistic children do not speak. Twenty five to thirty percent that lose their speech are measured separately as "another" group of autistic children. The about 40 percent number is inclusive of every reason why a child may not speak with Autism, including regressive autism. If one has a problem understanding this the referenced research that supports the statistics clearly identifies that these are different groups of autistic children.

About 40 percent doesn't mean precisely 40 percent, the research is not suggesting they have a precise number, that caveat is built into the term "about" 40 percent.

About 40 percent could be 38 percent or 42 percent, they have already acknowledged this by using the term "about". However if one uses 40 percent statistic as Merig did to reference the 1 in 110 statistic, one comes up with 1 in 275 not 200.

I've seen ranges from other sources as high as 50 percent and as low as 30 percent. The study is 7 years old that the CDC quoted and advances in speech therapy likely have changed that number somewhat in the last 7 years. When the new data comes available it is likely they will publish it. Until then this is what they have as far as measured statistics that are available.

Last edited by aghogday on 18 Nov 2011, 8:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

My assertion isn't "about 40 percent", that is the US governments assertion that about 40 percent of autistic children do not speak. Twenty five to thirty percent that lose their speech are measured separately as "another" group of autistic children. The about 40 percent number is inclusive of every reason why a child may not speak with Autism, including regressive autism. If one has a problem understanding this the referenced research that supports the statistics clearly identifies that these are different groups of autistic children.

About 40 percent doesn't mean precisely 40 percent, the research is not suggesting they have a precise number, that caveat is built into the term "about" 40 percent.

About 40 percent could be 38 percent or 42 percent, they have already acknowledged this by using the term "about". However if one uses 40 percent statistic as Merig did to reference the 1 in 110 statistic, one comes up with 1 in 275 not 200.

i believe 20% of autistics use no verbal language.that would make about 1 in 540 people in general population.this would not include autistics with little functional language,just absolute mutes

Last edited by vermontsavant on 18 Nov 2011, 8:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

i believe 20% of autistics use no verbal language.that would make about 1 in 540 people in general population.this would not include autistics with little functional language,just absolute mutes[/quote]

[/quote]

My understanding is many autistic individuals that are non-verbal are vocal in the sense that they make sounds, that are not considered functional speaking. The actual research referenced from the article did refer to those not speaking as non-verbal individuals, so this would also include those that made sounds, that are not functional speech.