Stop Bashing Autism Speaks!

Post Reply New Topic

Pedantry. Just because the statistics put them in different groups, the fact is that they still can't talk according to the figures.



Pedantry. You're still asserting it because the CDC did.

Pedantry. it's still a high number, an unrealistically high number, and the fact is that when one includes the number who supposedly lose speech the number is in fact an underestimation.

No you are incorrect, the research linked on the CDC website clearly indicates that two different groups of children were measured in obtaining the statistics. It's linked there if you don't believe it look for yourself.

I am not asserting my own opinion of what the statistic is, I have suggested many times that the evidence is old and newer research might show a different statistic, because of improvements in therapy, when that research is available.

I provided the statistic from the CDC, and asserted that they are considered a reputable source of information for statistics in all health conditions in the US. They carefully source their information on their website.

This is widely understood in the US; since you don't live here, you may not fully understand that. I worked for the military and the CDC was the source the military used for health statistics for the decades that I worked there; it is the source that most organizations use for health statistics in the US, because it is commonly understood that they are a reputable source of information. Some of the CDC information may be old, but the CDC does not use information, unless it is from a reliable source.

No there is no underestimation because as per the link and research cited, the about 40 percent figure was taken from a different group of children than the separate statistic on 25 to 30 percent of children losing words at 12 to 18 months. Again, if you don't believe it, look for yourself, the link is there available on the CDC website.

*facepalms* I didn't say anything about two different groups being measured. I said the fact that there is a group that had no speech ever and those who had it but lost it still mean that both don't speak.


Yet they missed the caveats. You had to even clarify the wording.


You're misrepresenting what I said. You're trying to get away from the fact that 1 in 200 children not being able to speak is absurd. However the fact is that the added 25-30% who cannot speak still can't speak. In fact 1 out of 200 not speaking, not including non-0autistic mutes, is an underestimation. What is 65-70% of 1/110?

I'm hoping this will help you understand the logic in the statement. The 12 to 18 month old children are from another group of children studied. Hopefully you can see the math involved below:

1: Group(A) of X number of children studied and found to have about Y percentage of children that are do not speak, among the total number of children studied in group A.

Another Group of children:

2: Group(B) of Z number of children 12 to 18 months olds studied that lose words is shown to be between C percent and D percent, of the total number of children studied in group B.

The statistics derived from #1 Example are completely different than the statistic derived from the #2 example.

Adding the two statistics together is meaningless.

The statement as presented by the CDC is logical, but you are reading something into it that is not intended. That's the way written and spoken language is, people do that at times.

There is no need to provide further details on the statistics on the website to explain them, if one can't understand what is logically written on the website or wants to know more about the research and methodology that led to the statistics; the research is clearly linked there on the CDC website, for details one might want for clarification.

If someone doesn't understand that speech means the ability to functionally communicate they could either look it up in the dictionary or look at the reference provided on the CDC website.

[b]LIES[/u]
•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
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html
They were talking about the same test. They said another 25% to 30%. That means on top of the original 40%. That means overall about 65% to 70% cannot speak. It's just some could speak before losing the ability.

It's even clear that it's a lie. The fourty perfect statistic is for those who never spoke. The 25% statistic was for those who spoke yet lost the ability to speak later. They are part of the same statistic aghogday as they are two different things, but the fact is that they share one thing in common: the said children taken together apparently cannot speak. That means that over 1/200 children in the United States cannot speak, which is ludicrous.

If one doesn't seem to comprehend the fact that another 25% means on top of something else then they should probably brush up on their English grammar.

They were not talking about the same study with the 25-30 percent statistic and the 40 percent statistic.

The reference provided on the CDC website is a whole volume of research on autism; the statistic on 40 percent comes from a completely different study in that volume of research that provides the 25 to 30 percent statistic. They are in different chapters. Click on the link to the research and look it up if you don't believe it.

•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

They are talking about it as two fields as part of one set of data. That's why they said another 25%, not in another study 25%. It wouldn't make sense for them to be in two different studies. That would in fact then seem to concede the idea that the CDC is incompetent in statistics work because the two studies would reflect completely different results in the percentage of who can or who cannot talk and mroeover that the studies cannot agree on the circumstances.

But the fact is that saying they were from different studies is actually a lie. The extract at the top that sugest the insane conclusion that over 1 in 200 children in the USA can't speak are two fields from a set of results from this study as evidenced by the citation made on the page:

2.Johnson, C.P. Early Clinical Characteristics of Children with Autism. In: Gupta, V.B. ed: Autistic Spectrum Disorders in Children. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc., 2004:85-123.

http://pdf.edocr.com/6e4419981099379e9596dd41c0b600423886a13b.pdf

The resource cited is an entire volume of linked research. I thought you might look at it and read it, but here is the link and quotes, the first statistic 25 to 30 percent is referenced by research footnotes 73, 75, at the end of the paragraphs, that can be researched at the end of chapter 5.






The statistic on "about 40 percent of children do not speak" is in Chapter 9 and referenced by footnote 2, in completely different research as noted below.





Will you please stop accusing me of lying until you find out the facts. I already told you that the reference was a whole volume of referenced autism research. And, that the statistics were derived from two different studies, in two different chapters.

unfortunatley aghogday is so far ahead of me in information i cant say if he is right one way or another.i did read every book on autism at the U mass library which btw is the worlds bigest library,you can get the gueness book of world records.but that was a long time ago and ive gotten rusty in my old age.but i dont believe aghogday is a liar

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

Despite this the fact remains that they say another 25% have words then lose them, which means that they assert on top of the 40% who don't talk at all.

To say othrwise is a lie.

Furthermore one of your 'examples' of the studies reference the point in a way that shows they did not actually do the work themselves, so they may be referencing the same study:

Also here's a contradiction with your assesment. On page 117 it says that in older studies apparently 50% of children were unable to speak. However this may have been due to echolalia masking the true number. In effect the idea that the number is less than 50% can't speak is disregarded by the report that talks about the added 25%.

as far as i know only 20% are totaly non verbal

The reference I provided is the specific reference quoted by the CDC. Within that reference is information that is referenced by other research.

If one follows the references one finds the research they are looking for, all that is necessary is to follow the information and footnotes. This isn't my assessment it is simply following footnotes and finding the destination of those footnotes and the research specifically identified by those footnotes.

There is only one map for this, and it was provided by the CDC and the researchers that the CDC used for their quoted statistics.

I provided the footnotes that correspond to the information in the research volume. It is clear that the research for each statistic, the 25-30 % statistic and the 40 percent statistic are referenced by different research from different researchers in a different year.

The 50 percent statistic was an older one that an author in an entirely different chapter in the research volume quoted. This was not the statistic that the CDC used, however if you do a quick search on the internet you will find there are a few sources that continue to use that outdated statistic.

The 25-30% statistic was provided by Weatherby in Chapter 5, and the 40 percent statistic by Strand in Chapter 9. Strand is a professor at MIT, and highly respected in the field of speech pathology. You can look her up with a google search on the internet if you don't believe it.

You are reading something into the statement that does not exist. The reference proves that the 25 to 30 percent statistic and the 40 percent statistic are not related to the same actual study. No one anywhere on the CDC site is suggesting that 65 to 70 percent of autistic children do not speak.

Just because you are reading something into the statement that the CDC was not intending to communicate does not make everyone else in the world that reads the statement as it was intended is telling a lie. If you ignore the evidence that proves your interpretation wrong, that is your perogative.

Obviously the research that provided the total statistic of 40 percent was inclusive of all children studied with ASD's that do not speak, including those that might have lost words and not regained speech.

In the case of the research about ASD's where the children lost words, it was specific to 12 to 18 month old children that have some words and then lose them.

It's two separately reported statistics by two different researchers.

I can see where you might be confused, but the referenced information, makes it clear that the statistics are not related to each other.

im totaly confused.in one post aghogday says more people dont talk,then in the next post adrian the great emporer of greece says 40% dont talk.who is argueing what position.both of you have me lost

My personal opinion is if a full cross section of children were sceened for ASD's in an entire school it would probably be less than 25%, however that's pure speculation on my part. The statistics are only as good as the research that produce them, and there aren't any up to date statistics based on new referenced research that I am aware of.

We are just having another semantic argument over what a phrase in the English language actually means. The English language is one that does lead to confusion in communication and can be intrepreted in more than one way. It's why we have lawyers, to determine what the wording of laws to properly interpret them. Research is often required to come to these determinations.

I can see where Gedrene is confused by the statement, on the CDC website, that says about 40 percent of children with Autism do not speak at all, and another 25 to 30 percent have some words at 12 to 18 months and then lose them, and has intrepreted that to mean that 65 to 70 percent of autistic children do not speak.

Fortunately the CDC has provided a reference that makes it clear that those are two completely separate statistics done on different groups of children separated by 5 years in time, so that clarifies that it's not one study intending to suggest that a total of 65 to 70 percent of children with ASD's do not speak.

It's kind of a common sense thing too. 40 percent sounded a little high to me, I was a bit suprised when I saw it, but I understand that the numbers of diagnosed cases have increased since the research was published, and there appears to be no new research to back up new statistics.

However, if anyone was actually reading the statistics to actually mean that 65 to 70 percent of autistic children do not speak, without checking the references, somebody somewhere would have published that number, but in doing a google search it doesn't appear anyone has done this, that is providing statistics on autism.

Instead, there are about 100 different resources that are using the 40 percent number, referenced as a CDC statistic as a measure of the number of autistic children that do not speak. That in itself, without even looking at the referenced research is a good indication that the CDC wasn't suggesting that 65 to 70 percent of children with autism do not speak.

If the 50 percent number is confusing, that's just a historical reference that was listed in the same volume of referenced research that the CDC used, that is even older than the 40 percent statistic. The 50 percent figure may have come before the autism spectrum was put into the DSM in 1980.

It's time for someone to do some more research on this, with a large cross section of the population, but I guess there are more pressing research issues than this at the current time.

Untrue. All it proves is that the CDC says that the 25% statistic is taken on top of the 40% statistic. That's why they said another 25%. You even say how it might have been misread to vermontsavant. it's clear that there's manipulation here. You just argue what helps you case with each person.


http://www.emaxhealth.com/1002/119/2711 ... ation.html

Yes, derived from only this. Argumentum ad numerum. It only shows how blindly they aped the CDC without remembering the fact that the study said the 50% was an underestimation.

Exactly and the study called the 50% statistic an understimination, which must mean that 40% is an underestimation. It shows that the 40% statistic is only one component of those who cannot speak. Its wording clearly states that 40% is a underestimation of autistics who cannot speak. To say otherwise brings the whole thing in to disrepute. Thus the logical explanation is either there is a statistic over 50% or the CDC printed 40% and 25% together because they were supposed to be related.

As one can clearly see when they talk about the 25%-30% statistic they are talking about a test that was not written about themselves. It is not in their test. Furthermore when they talk about 40% not talking they say something along the lines of It is reported that. So claiming that just because they are said by different people it can't be related doesn't mean anything because they are referring to results reported by another, and thus probably of a similar test. The CDC then interprets it that way.

Or it could mean that they reported it wrong, because according to the report 50% not speaking is a clear underestimation, which brings us clearly near to the 1 in 200 insanity statistic.

In short: 50% was an old statistic, and the report said it was an underestimation. So to say under 50% contradicts the report. Also when they talk about 40% never talking and 25%-30% losing the ability the scientists are referring not to tests they have done, but likelt the same data set. The CDC interpreted them as part of the same percenage chart. That's why they said another 25%. Not in another test 25%.

Chapter 5 in the reference did not report that 50% was an understimation. They were not including Aspergers in ASD's when referring to the two decade older 50% statistic. That statistic was from the 1980's; at that time there was no diagnosis of Aspergers; it didn't exist.

They acknowledge in the quote that as milder cases are diagnosed that the numbers of those with speech are growing in proportion. This means that the 50%, two decade old statistic is an overestimate of the percentage of individuals with ASD's that have no speech, not an understimate.

They referred to children that had some speech and speech that appeared advanced because of echolalia, but all of these children have at least some speech so they are not considered non-verbal, for statistical purposes.

You are arguing they are reporting the 50% statistic was an underestimate, when they are clearly acknowledging, in Chapter 5 that the proportion of children with speech are growing with the diagnoses of milder forms of ASD's

This is the obvious reason why the CDC could not use the 50 percent statistic; in chapter 5 they clearly indicate that it is an outdated statistic that is an overestimation, because it is two decades old, before Aspergers was even in existence, and now with diagnosed cases of Aspergers the proportion of children with speech that have ASD's is increasing.

The statistic that the CDC used was from Chapter 9, that specifically stated that it has been reported that about 40 percent of children with ASD's do not speak, was referenced to researcher Strand per footnote 2 of that chapter.

Here is the actual quote from chapter 5 that you seem to be confused on, it is a statement that 50 percent is an overestimate instead of an understimate.




I said in my previous post to Vermont Savage, in response to you, that I can see where you might be confused by the CDC statement, so my response to him was close to the same response to you, in how you might be confused by it. However, it appears you were confused again by the 50 percent statistic in Chapter five in thinking it was an underestimate so it appears that is adding to your overall confusion on the issue.

The 40 percent statistic is clearly referenced in Chapter 9, to footnote 2 by researcher Strand. This is an entirely different researcher and research referenced than Weatherby in footnote 73 in Chapter 5 regarding the 25 to 30 percent statistic. The two separate pieces of research are spread within 5 years time, so there is no way that the research that generated the 25 to 30 percent statistic and the 40 percent statistic are the same research. It's clear if one looks at the information in each chapter, and look at each footnote that references the information reported in each of those chapters.

.