Stop Bashing Autism Speaks!

Post Reply New Topic

You're ignoring the point aghogday. They are talking about the 50% statistic like it is an outdated underestimation. They are saying that it is an underestimation. Furthermore it is pedantry to assume that they are talking about any specific part of autism.

You are trying to bind the 50% statistic to me when what I am saying is that it is outdated AND they refer to it as an old statistic, an underestimation.

Where? Give me the page. Reporting evidence isn't evidence.

That would contradict with this statement where you point out that people who did not make nion-functional speech would be said to be not talking.
And echolalia is non-functional speech. So yeah, hypocrisy.

False conclusion. They said the 1980's statistic was an underestimation due to the prevalence of echolalia. This means that asserting only forty percent cannot talk is untrue. Not that we didn't have that evidence already, but their comment on asperger's and 'mild' autism was nothing more than speculation.


Excellent! So it only happens to be that 40% never talked and 25% don't talk but lost words and this was protrayed all across the web as if they were part of the same field. So is this a c*ck up?

Last edited by Gedrene on 20 Nov 2011, 4:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Where? Give me the page. Reporting evidence isn't evidence.

That would contradict with this statement where you point out that people who did not make nion-functional speech would be said to be not talking.
And echolalia is non-functional speech. So yeah, hypocrisy.

False conclusion. They said the 1980's statistic was an underestimation due to the prevalence of echolalia. This means that asserting only forty percent cannot talk is untrue. Not that we didn't have that evidence already, but their comment on asperger's and 'mild' autism was nothing more than speculation.


Gedrene wrote:
Excellent! So it only happens to be that 40% never talked and 25% don't talk but lost words and this was protrayed all across the web as if they were part of the same field. So is this a c*ck up?[/quote]

Aghogday wrote:
The children with some speech evidenced echolalia which made their speech sound more advanced than it was. They didn't say the children were non-verbal they said the childrens speech appeared more advanced than it was because of echolalia. The reference made that clear. Echolalia is common in Autistic Children who are verbal. The referenced quote from the research did not suggest these children where non verbal they clearly stated that they had some speech.

http://autism.about.com/od/childrenandautism/f/echolalia.htm



Here is the quote again from the CDC reference:



"The remainder have some degree of speech, and in a few speech may appear to be advanced due to echolalia." This means that echolalia makes the speech seem more advanced in some, this doesn't mean an abscence of speech it means the appearance of more advanced speech. How are you determining that statement means that the other 50 percent are non-verbal? They didn't suggest that in any way in the quote.

Some degree of speech specifically means some degree of speech, it doesn't mean non-verbal, or children that do no speak at all. And beyond that it has nothing to do with the statistic that the CDC used from Chapter 9, referenced from a different researcher, Strand, that reported that about 40 percent of children with ASD's do not speak.



I bolded this in the text from the quote from Chapter 5 in the reference from the CDC, in the last post to the very paragraph that you appeared confused on. Here it is again. You are asking for evidence of it, but I already presented it for you.

It seems that you keep confusing chapter five with chapter nine. The information about the 50 percent statistic is not associated with the information about the 40 percent statistic in chapter 9. The footnotes and researchers are two different researchers. It is evidenced in the reference that the CDC provided. There is no way to get around that fact.

If the CDC statement stated that 65 to 70 percent of ASD's do not speak, we would have a problem, but that is not what it stated.

It talks to two separate statistics that describe conditions related to ASD's.

One condition is the overall condition of not being able to speak, another condition is losing words at 18 months, which is evidence of regressive autism. Not all children that do not speak with ASD's have regressive autism or lose words.

While the two things are related to not speaking one is describing the overall incidence of children not speaking and one is describing the specific incidence of children with ASD's that have words and lose them at the age of 18 months. This means regression, and it's not evident in all cases of children with autism that do not speak. Some never gain words.

Again, sorry if you are confused by the statement, but it's common sense if one takes the time to consider that they are talking about the general proportion of children that do not speak, and referencing another statistic about the number of children with ASD's that do have words and lose those words at 18 months as evidenced by the reference that the CDC has provided.

It appears that you may be misreading the statement in a literal way and not seeing the full meaning of the statement. Fortunately the CDC reference is available to clear up any misunderstandings that an individual might have when they read the statement.

Contradictory. You said that the CDC referred to non-functional speech as not speaking. And echolalia is not speech for what they say is good reason. You even say so yourself about non-functional speech:


Excellent, yet still the CDC refers to it as masking the actual number of people with actual functional speech in orginal tests, meaning that THEY do not refer to it as actual functional speech, and although it may be a great starting ppoint the fact remains that echolalia is still not functional speech so if they only do have cholalia they still aren't speaking. CDC's opinion, not mine.

How does it not suggest it? I think it says that fifty percent are non verbal although this may be masked in echolalia. The fact remains is that to them only a few words are used.

False. i say what the CDC says on the front. It said 40% and another 25%.

No, they said that according tot he CDC front that 40% don't speak at all, whilst others speak a few words and then lose them, which means that they don't speak any more. So they are talking about losing speech altogether after speaking a few words.

I never disputed that? That's why we are talking about percentages here. :/

No it's not. In fact from the wording on the CDC website it's common sense to think that they are talking about another 25%. They made no reference in the front area about different studies saying different types of language absence.
In fact that would be a stupid idea because if they were a part of different tests and thus a comparison wouldn't make sense.

No. It means that the CDC needs typists who actually have a grasp of english grammar. I am sorry but they elected to not include the detail of talking about another study and in fact there is no literal wayof reading it.

This reference to literal-mindedness on your part just seems like a cheap trick to try and fudge in a deficit associated with autism in order to say that I am wrong. Cowardly ad hominem.

The children with some speech evidenced echolalia which made their speech sound more advanced than it was. They didn't say the children were non-verbal they said the childrens speech appeared more advanced than it was because of echolalia. The reference made that clear. Echolalia is common in Autistic Children who are verbal. The referenced quote from the research did not suggest these children where non verbal they clearly stated that they had some speech.

This below is not from the CDC it is from a completely different resource, per the link:

http://autism.about.com/od/childrenanda ... olalia.htm




Here is the quote again from the CDC reference:



They clearly state that 50 percent are non-verbal and the remainder have some degree of speech. They are not saying that the children with advanced speech are non-verbal they are saying that these children with speech have echolalia, which makes the speech seem more enhanced that it actually has. This doesn't mean they are not verbal.

Some people with aspergers display echolalia, and they have no speech delays at all. Non-verbal individuals make non functional sounds, vowels, constanants, but they can't put words together to make complete sentences, not even by mimicking with ecolalia.

If the CDC statement stated that 65 to 70 percent of ASD's do not speak, we would have a problem, but that is not what it stated.

It talks to two separate statistics that describe conditions related to ASD's.

One condition is the overall condition of not being able to speak, another condition is losing words at 18 months, which is evidence of regressive autism. Not all children that do not speak with ASD's have regressive autism or lose words.

While the two things are related to not speaking one is describing the overall incidence of children not speaking and one is describing the specific incidence of children with ASD's that have words and lose them at the age of 18 months. This means regression, and it's not evident in all cases of children with autism that do not speak. Some never gain words.

The reference from the CDC in chapter 5 and chapter 9 of that reference prove that these statistics of 25 to 30 percent and 40 percent are not related. Regardless of how you may read the statement on the CDC webpage nothing changes that fact.

It is clearly evidenced in the reference provided for those two statistics. That part the analysis of the statement cannot be misread, it is like a math equation. Footnote 2 from the CDC webpage equals the volume of reseasrch that equals chapter 5 and referenced footnote 73 and chapter nine and referenced footnote 2. One for Wetherbys research for the 25 to 30 percent statistic and one for Strands research for the 40 percent statistic that was produced half a decade earlier.

I

I said that it didn't matter because of this reason:
You have mixed up the fact that I am not talking about the organisation you want me to when you want me to. All I am saying is that despite this site's claims of echolalia as being a good starting point, the fact is that it is still non-functional speech in the CDC's eyes.

Yes, two seperate stiatistics that refer to discrete things. Apparently 40% of autistics that never talked, and 25% do learn words but lose speech afterwards

*facepalms*

The reference that proves the statistics they were talking about were different studies, is the footnote on the website that references the autism research volume, if one has problems figuring out what is meant by the statement. It makes perfect sense to me and apparently most people that read the statistic, because the 40 percent figure from the CDC is used on many websites completely separate from the 25 to 30 percent statistic.

http://www.marchofdimes.com/baby/birthdefects_autism.html



They use the same reference noted as (1) above from the CDC, and specify that it comes from the Same "autism spectrum disorders" reference that includes chapter 9, and Strands research regarding the 40% statistic.


Unless one is confused by the statement on the CDC website or wants more information there is no reason to click on the reference and pursue it, however if one is confused they can follow the referenced links, that specify that the statistics are from two different studies.

The CDC's website would be twice as big and harder to navigate if they listed all the details of research behind each statistic. Nobody does this that provides,statistics, they provide references to the research, just as the CDC did and just as the March of Dimes did in the above example.

still debating how many people use verbal language.have either of you two ever considered moving to washington,dc and begin careers as political debate consultents

No, they just don't include the 25-30% statistic. They also specified do not speak at all, not not speaking. Since the 25-30% statistic involved so they aren't specifying about any sort of figure togeter.

Furthermore I can show you that quite a few sites publish both in the same manner as the CDc, saying that 25% as another part:
http://marbles.ucdavis.edu/aboutautism.html
http://www.emaxhealth.com/1002/119/2711 ... ation.html
http://autismsymptomschecklist.org/page/2/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ariane-zu ... 85397.html
http://www.easterseals.com/site/PageSer ... evaluation

So yeah.


Oh good heavens aghogday if they actually intended o make the results seperate all they needed to say was in another study. Not that the two fields don't complement each other. The fact is that the CDC put the data in a way that says they are comparable fields: those who don't talk and those who have words then lose them.
You are making the foolish assumption that the CDC doesn't intend them to be read as part of the same statistics vecause they come from different studies and aren't comparable. All that proves, as we look at the CDC's wording on the front page, is that the CDC can't pay attention to its own studies.

Any site is free to choose how many statistics they display from the CDC website, some choose one, some choose two, etc.

It would be a foolish assumption to believe that the CDC intends the statistics to be added together, when one has looked at the references and they clearly point to two different statistics that are not related at all. Yes, both statistics are related to speech difficulties but they are not statistics to be added together to indicate that 65 to 70% of children with autism do not speak.

The group that was measured separately for 40%, in a completely different time frame, as referenced in the reserach, likely included some children that lost words that did not speak but the referenced research does not delineate those differences, instead another group of children referenced by another study, in a completely different time frame, as referenced in the research, specifies the percentage of children at 18 months that have words and then lose them.

The fact of the matter is you are reading something into the statement that was not intended by the CDC, I can understand why you might have misunderstood the statement, but the references clarify what was meant by the CDC, in case anyone misunderstands the statement and wants clarification.

If you want to continue to read the statement other than what was intended by the CDC, that is your perogative, but it doesn't change the facts of what the statement means, as proven by the references for the statistics. That is how one fully understands statistics by looking at the references that apply to the statistics.

And, if you believe that it would have been better if the CDC had phrased the statement differently because you see it as confusing, that is a reasonable position. If you see it as an injustice of somekind you could always email the CDC, and express your desire to see a change in how it is worded. Maybe they could explain the wording to you better than I can.

No, alot choose two. You made the false assertion that many websites say only the 40% statistic because they know the statistics don't go together supposedly. However that is wrong. They are treated them cumulatively.

No it wouldn't, unless you're blind, because that's exactly what they did. THey said 40% don't talk at all and another 25%-30% have words but lose them. What is foolish is thinking that the CDC is perfect, or that anything is perfect and can do no wrong.

baseless supposition about their motives that contradicts the facts. This is just grasping at straws.

I am sorry but unlike most people I don't actually take words on the internet like you and warp them in to saying what helps preserve my delusions.

If the websites that leave out the 25 to 30 percent statistic thought that the statement on the CDC website meant 65% or 70% of autistic children do not speak, they would state that as fact, but they don't, and there is no evidence that anyone on any site, is stating that 65 to 70% of autistic children do not speak, in reference to the CDC statistics.

Sorry but facts are not delusions. Scientific Research proves facts and clarifies misconceptions. The references presented on the website clearly identify the fact that the two statistics are not ones to be added together.

Like I said, if you don't want to accept the facts supported by the references for the statistics, and continue to read the statement as you are, that is your perogative, I accept the fact that the references clarify what the statement means, and it doesn't appear that there is evidence of anyone anywhere misinterpreting the statistics to mean they are ones to be added together, other than in the discussion in this thread.

Do a google search on percentage of children with autism that do not speak, if you like.

There are no percentages of children with Autism identified with a google search that are higher than 50 percent.

We already know that the 50 percent statistic is decades old, and an overestimation now that milder cases of autism have been identified with additional individuals that do speak, since Aspergers was identified as a diagnosis on the Spectrum in 1992 to 94, depending on which country one lives in, starting with the ICD10 and Gilberg Criteria.

Now who is being too literal minded? The fact is that when looks at the statement 40% of autistic children do not speak at all and another 25%-30% gain words but lose them later the implication is that 65% to 70% can't speak.

Claiming that it is fact that the CDC did not intend to say what it did say because it would seem absurd is not a fact.

if you want to try and caim that the CDC didn't make a mistake or is mistaken in either protraying the fact in this way or you are mistaken in thinking that the two studies were not comparable in some way then that is your right, but you aren't right.

Oh don't worry. The point is that I still do not trust the statistics because they are unreliably made and suggest that the level of non-speaking children in the USA is far higher than it actually is.

The facts in the references on the CDC website, that I clearly referenced, that explains the statistic on the CDC website are facts, and I do not appreciate your personal attack that I have delusions. If you want to refute the evidence I have presented I suggest you provide some third party references that refute the evidence I have presented, instead of the personal attacks.

I said it is your perogative if you want to continue to read the statement other than what was intended by the CDC; regardless of how one reads the statement, the references provided on the CDC website make it clear that the statistics are not meant to be added together. They couldn't possibly be, because they were referenced five years apart from each other.

Both statistics are fairly old, and in need of updated research and updated statistics. When it is provided, it is likely the statistics will be updated, as is normal in the reporting of all statistics that vary over time.

What personal attacks? Is saying that someone is mistaken a personal attack? Sounds like you have a thin skin

No, I have no problem with someone telling me I am mistaken, and have ignored many personal attacks. Attacks on opinions are allowed on this website, but personal attacks like telling someone they have delusions because they don't agree with facts they present are not allowed. If they are repeated I will eventually let the individual know I don't appreciate it.

Not sure, if you read the paragraph thoroughly, but I specifically pointed out what the personal attack was. It was in a previous post, a couple of posts back.

I suggest you read the site rules that are listed at the top of each page, if you haven't already done so. And, suggest you ask a moderator if you need any clarification of the rules.

You have a problem with being called wrong?

You talk a lot about personal attacks but don't give me anything. That some kind of aspie joke?