This study was released today, regarding the incidence of Autism in the population. According to the study, which is based on data from the 2007 National Survey of Children's Health, there is a prevalence rate of 1 in 91 American children with an Autism Spectrum Disorder, and even worse, 1 in 58 boys.
I can hear the people screaming.... "Autism Epidemic!!! Run for the hills!!! Don't vaccinate your children!!! It is a government conspiracy!!!"
I am on the lookout for Jenny McCarthy, but so far, her mug has not found its way to the big news stations yet.
Here are some take-home points:
(to save some time here, I will be short and to the point)
1. Widened diagnostic criteria that now defines a Spectrum of Autism, not just "Autism" or "Aspergers". Very mild cases are included in these statistics.
2. Earlier diagnosis methods and early intervention is becoming better and better. We are able to identify children on the spectrum much earlier, which means in a population total, the numbers will be higher.
3. The stigma of having an Autism Spectrum Disorder is much less than in the past, and there are a plethora of services offered by the government to treat these disorders, so parents are more willing to "allow" their child to have that label after evaluation. In the past, I knew of parents who had a child on the spectrum but did not want their child to have that label, so they settled on "Learning Disabled" instead.
4. To play Devil's Advocate.... if vaccines are the Big Bad Wolf, then why has the prevalence increased? Fewer people are vaccinating their children, and we no longer use thimerosal, the proposed evil substance (not since around 2000), so shouldn't the numbers be decreasing if vaccines were the cause?
Just food for thought....
Comments
Sylvie Mac | 10/05/09 | 20:31 PM
- Reply to This »
- Link
Although the final figure gives a population incidence rate of 1 in 91, 40% of the children in the study at one point had an ASD diagnosis that is no longer active. This could be due to misdiagnosis from some other form of PDD (pervasive developmental disorder) or any number of things. This was not expanded upon and is, I think, one of the more interesting notes in the article.
Incidence is much higher among non-hispanic white populations. About double, even. This, however, is not necessarily indicative of it being a "white disease", but more likely a result of the regrettably fewer available resources among minorities. We have a grant right now to work on fixing that situation. It would be interesting for a similar study to be run again in 3-5 years to see if there has been any change with increased resources. A genetic link common to those of European ancestry would be equally interesting.
The CDC will be putting out their report on autism incidence within the next month or three, and while preliminary results also show a finding of around ~1%, it will be interesting to see how the results there compare with those of this study.
Tor Solli-Nowlan | 10/05/09 | 21:03 PM
Does the U.S. have the highest rate of autism in the developed countries?
Have any studies narrowed down the cause(es) of autism?
J Q | 10/05/09 | 21:26 PM
As a member of the transgender community myself, many of my sisters insist that proving a neurological cause would silence critics and win acceptance. The experience of autistic people, who are neurologically atypical from birth, should prove that wrong.
As for this study it alines with my own personal observations. People in my family exhibit some of the behaviors associated with high functioning autism or aspergers. I'll bet that on some level many people have a touch of autism.
Hontas Farmer | 10/05/09 | 21:54 PM
My son is severely autistic and "I take personal umbrage" with every attempt to dismiss discussion of possible causes of autism, and now apparently of autism rate increases, by silly name calling. There is nothing scientific about this blog . It should not be posted on a forum which bills itself as "scientific" blogging. Closed-minded, small-minded, bigoted blogging maybe.
Harold L Doherty (not verified) | 10/06/09 | 04:43 AM
However, there is no name-calling here, and the vaccine theory of Autism has long been shown to be invalid. I also believe that those arguments have been presented on this blog (although not by myself) quite a few times in the past. Holding onto a false theory only hinders the progress that can be made on the real causes of Autism and future treatments. I know that when you read a story that attempts to claim to have all of the answers, you really want to believe everything you read. But that won't help your son.
We as scientists make it our business to question every theory, look at the data, and decide if it is sound or plausible based on the data and the methods. And based on the data, vaccines are not what gave your son Autism. I have read tons and tons of the research put out on etiology and potential causes of Autism, as I'm sure you have, and believe me- I have that pang of hope when I read a story that promises to give answers as well. I am constantly keeping up on the latest research so I know that I am providing the best services to every one of my clients. Every child I have, I look up every one of their specific medical conditions and dual-diagnoses so I have the absolute most accurate information to work with. You see, I want what you want. But all we can do is all work together to support real research done by people who know what they are doing, and make sure that the data is presented to the public in a way that is honest and straight-forward.
If you read through that research study that I linked, they drew my same conclusions at the end of the paper. The problem I have is with the media diluting the data and drawing hyped-up conclusions that only serve to confuse and frustrate parents like yourself when it turns out not to be the Holy Grail that they have been looking for.
I wish you continued courage and strength, and the best hopes for a steady progression of learning for your son. I am not sure where you live, or what types of services are offered or what types you currently receive for treatment of his Autism, but if you need any resources, please feel free to send me a private email and I will do what I can to help. As for me, I am off to work now to teach my own "kids". Good luck- Andrea
Andrea Kuszewski | 10/06/09 | 05:23 AM
I've typically seen several possibly valid explanations (after you discard the discredited stuff like vaccine links) for the rise in reported cases of autism spectrum conditions, particularly on the high-functioning end -- Aspergers, PPDs.
And one could include related comorbid conditions here, such as ADHD/ADD, OCD, et cetera, all of which have similar "incidents are rising" and "what causes it" debates. And possibly rises in autoimmune disorders and allergies, which also have some trickiness in labeling and diagnosis.
I'm using names based on my own readings, so please forgive any nomenclature errors. I'd love to know your opinion, either here or in future blogs (always nice to have new material to write on!)
A) False Statistics. There is no rise, we're just tracking it now, whereas we didn't have numbers before. This could include your items #1, #2 and #3.
B) Better Diagnosis. By better defining Autism/Aspergers/PPDs, we are able to diagnose people who wouldn't have otherwise been diagnosed. The occurrance rate itself may or may not be rising, but we are diagnosing more people with it. This also includes your items #2 and #3.
C) Academic Disfunctionality. Emphasis on NCLB/test-based schooling and removal of vocational tracks in schools means more non-neurotypical kids underperform and thus get intervention, whereas in the past there were more alternative learning channels. Almost the opposite of your #3.
D) Environmental. Rising toxicity and pollution is triggering autism in people who have a genetic predilecation towards PDDs, in higher numbers as pollution increases. This is the 'genetics loads the gun, the environment pulls the trigger' explanation.
Thanks!
Alex
next door at The Daytime Astronomer
Alex Antunes | 10/06/09 | 14:35 PM
