Rise in autism cases may not be real

Post Reply New Topic

Rise in autism cases may not be real
Study suggests schools diagnosing more children, but no actual increase

A rise in autism cases is not evidence of a feared epidemic but reflects that schools are diagnosing autism more frequently, a study said Monday. Children classified by school special education programs as mentally ret*d or learning disabled have declined in tandem with the rise in autism cases between 1994 and 2003, the author of the study said, suggesting a switch of diagnoses.

Government health authorities have been trying to allay widely publicized concerns that vaccines containing the mercury-containing preservative therimerosal, which is no longer used, were behind an autism epidemic. There may be as yet unknown environmental triggers behind autism, study author Paul Shattuck of the University of Wisconsin at Madison said, but his research suggested the past decade’s rise in autism cases was more of a labeling issue.

Autism was fully recognized in 1994 by all states as a behavioral classification for school children, who receive individualized attention whatever their diagnosis, he wrote in the journal Pediatrics. Subsequent increases in the number of autism cases have varied widely by state but the average prevalence among 6- to 11-year-olds enrolled in special education programs increased from 0.6 per 1,000 pupils in 1994 to 3.1 per 1,000 in 2003. During the same period, diagnoses of mental retardation fell by 2.8 per 1,000 students and diagnoses of learning disabilities dropped by 8.3 per 1,000 students.

Autism is a spectrum of disorders caused by abnormal brain development that can lead to diminished social skills, as well as unusual ways of learning and reactions to sensations. As many as 6 in 1,000 children are ultimately diagnosed with it to some degree, according to the Autism Society of America.

Shattuck’s analysis was challenged in an accompanying commentary by autism researcher Craig Newschaffer of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. “We do not know whether individual children have switched classifications, and of course we can never know whether a given child in a particular birth cohort would have been classified differently had they been born either earlier or later. At best, analyses of this type are merely trying to determine if trends in one classification have the potential to offset those in another,” he wrote. There was a clear need for definitive studies into the roles played by genetic susceptibility and environmental triggers in autism, Newschaffer wrote.

Full story... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12131958/

It doesn't really take some scientist to realize that.
If you have any common sence, you realize a disease like this only becomes more common because it becomes more wel known.
Take me for example, i found out about it at 19.
Who knows how many people have not found out about it yet.
If they more people start realizing it than the figures wil rise.

Diseases like HIV aids they can rise because they go round because of re-using needles and sex without condoms.
But i just wouldn't believe in a disease you inheret though your genes "just rising" in numbers.

Pardon? A disease? Very flattering, thank you for the unpleasantness. Autism is not a disease, it is a set of traits, it's more like nerdiness than HIV/AIDS, not something you can catch, not something you can cure. I think anyone frequenting these forums should remember this.

In the danger of sounding a bit shrewd, aren't there a lot of people who are quick to give themselves labels to compensate for what they're not good at?

Another thing, being wrongly diagnosed would hurt. Imagine living your life thinking you were autistic, to discover you were 'normal'?

I went from Specific Learning Difficulty - related to dyslexia - to Aspergers Syndrome, and i went through about 17 years of wondering why I was very unlike other people who were dylsexic.

I think I contradicted myself, but oh well.

Mr Pink Panther is quite a Jeremy Paxman by the look of things, always biting into meaty topics. That avatar of him lying down, hands behind the head conveys journalese wisdom!

LOL i'm sorry i offended you mr AS set of traits person
Who cares what you call it.
It's certainly not gonna make a difference.

Actually it makes a big difference what you call it and how you classify it.

A "disease" is something that needs to be fixed, needs to be cured.

A personality trait simply is.

I don't feel that I need to be fixed, cured or changed. I just am. And I found out the reason why I am what I am (popeye?) at the age of 45. So better late than never. It's a relief to make sense out of it all finally.

:> earthmom

I agree that more public awareness may increase the numbers of autistic people. It could be that this many people have always had some degree of autism in the world, but the world didn't diagnose all of them for their lack of awareness due to the fact that back decades ago people weren't studying ASD's as much as some other things. People back a couple of decades ago almost only gave special attention to people mainly on the low functioning side, but now people (mainly schools) must be more aware of people on either side of the spectrum (low or high functioning), making the numbers increase some.

"A rise in autism cases is not evidence of a feared epidemic but reflects that schools are diagnosing autism more frequently." -- What kind of statement is that?

If schools are diagnosing autism more frequently, then there is clearly evidence of a growing number of cases. The above statement is kind of ridiculous, and it follows conventional thinking regarding autism. A feared epidemic? What is so frightening about us to the real world?

Why is there so much preoccupation with what the "causes" of autism might be amongst many professionals? Why not just accept us for who we are? These so-called professionals can't seem to come up with a reason, and maybe that's because there are more than one reason. Lumping Kanner's autism in with high-functioning cases is also somewhat misleading.

Think about it. What if some types of autistic disorders are related to the evolutionary process of the human brain? If that were true, then I doubt if the medical industry would start submitting reports. They want it seen as a major disorder, and will stop at nothing less.

- Ray M -

What they are saying is that the same amount of people have Autism Spectrum Disorders now as in the past, but that what happened is that before, many people with ASDs were being diagnosed as a case of the wrong condition (mental retardation, etc.), whereas now, since schools know more about ASDs, they are actually being diagnosed with a case of an Autism Spectrum Disorder.

I agree with you in that it really shouldn't be viewed at as a "Feared Epidemic" by society. There's so much more to it than that.

I'm sorry if I misconstrued the statement. I had to think about it for a minute. If more people were diagnosed, say with mental retardation, then that means that they are now being re-diagnosed with ASD. I didn't think it through enough, or more likely, I was focused on one meaning.

If they are using mental retardation as an example, the only form of autism that could feature that would be related to Kanner's Autism. And I don't know if that should be seen in the same light as HFA or AS. I just don't like to be placed in a statistic amongst these types, and not because I am against them by any means, but rather because I believe both sets feature entirely different problems. I've went to school with low-functioning autistics, and when I was first told that I had "slight autistic tendencies," I shrugged it off, because I didn't even know there were higher-functioning autistics. Then again, I am nothing like Rainman, either ...

- Ray M -

I have just had a really horrible thought. Could internet dating spread it? Internet dating tends to favor minds that are alike. An introvert probably will not get on all that well with and extrovert, consequently no date.
The internet has also made it much attractive for aspies to date each other through chat rooms and with the prospect of autism being present within both parents, it would be passed down to their offspring. There is evidence now that autism in genetic through the observation of identical twins.
If this terrifying theory is true then autism cases will increase as the children of the internet generation inherit it from their mutually autistic parents, say those born after 1995.

BTW I hope this theory is wrong. I wish it is wrong.

If it is right, it's not going to be limited to internet dating. The internet has made global communities for almost any community (including any "special interest" someone with AS might have), and some interests (computers, rail/transit, science fiction, etc.) are known to have more individuals with AS than others (early childhood development, etc.). The Aspie whose special interest is sci-fi now has many more opportunities to meet others of their desired gender who have that interest.

Internet dating HAS greatly improved life for people with AS I believe, because it allows people to get to know each other, and get comfortable with each other, though an electronic environment (which Aspies thrive at) before having to go out and meet in the real world environment. On an email, personal message or IM, you have time to go through what you want to say to make sure it doesn't come off the wrong way--unlike in the real world.

I think paulsinnerchild could be right.

I think its great - aspies and autistics take over the world - I'm sure we could do a better job of running it than megalomaniac neurotypicals.

I think AS_Interlocking is also right. Aspie and Autistic people have been meeting through common interest clubs – forever.

On the upside – as the world gets better educated about aspieness – maybe it will be easier for mixed marriages to happen and survive.

edit - can't spell.

Please also remember that there are those of us who do wish to be fixed, would wish to be "cured". There are those of us who would wish not to be living at home, looked after, for the rest of our lives. You say that because you don't wish those things, the people that DO shouldn't call it as they see it. That we should call it as YOU see it. That's a rather self-centered view of it. Just try and remember that we are entitled to our own opinion as you are your own. So long as we don't try and force you to call it a disease, you shouldn't try and force us not to.

Think about it, Aeturnus. Not every autistic is high functioning. There are many who will be in fulltime care for the rest of their lives. Yes, they are making a mistake by lumping the functional people along with the low-functional. But even the high-functional people take a drain on families, resources, time. What is frightening about you as a person? Nothing. What is frightening about having to raise one? A LOT. What is frightening about having lots and lots of them? Do the maths.
Also, you say that because it's a set of traits that it should be accepted. Did you know that brain injuries can often mimic autistic traits? Once normal people can, after a brain injury, for all intents and purposes become autistic. Should we stop enforcing people to wear seatbelts, or wear bike helmets? The common argument therefore becomes "autism is not brain injury; we were born like this". Who is to say where the damage occurs? If you were born like that, then probably it is occuring within the womb. We already know it's not entirely genetic and is a combination of genetics and environmental factors. If we remove the environmental factor, and you develop solely to your genetics, are you not still who you are?

Maybe we could do a better job of running the world, but then the NTs would be calling us megalomaniacal. Yet, I believe that we could create a world that is far better in many ways, rid of much injustice and so forth.

Common interests groups, though? I have yet to find any. I found a support group, but there's nothing common about our interests.

- Ray M -