Yeah. Stats from CDC today.
I’m not in breeding mode but if I was I’d be very very concerned.
You shouldn’t be. It’s probably the same odds of 20-50 years ago, just that now the diagnoses are so much better. And, “spectrum” is the operative word here. You could have a kid with a form of the spectrum so small, that 30 years ago it wasn’t mentioned. You might not even need to see a doctor about it.
This just makes the science of the problem that much harder, when news organizations jump on a story.
And now that my mind kicked in, this one probably can’t last in General Questions(note–the OP was NOT a GQ), so I"ve moved it to Great Debates, where it would possibly have landed.
samclem, Moderator
This active GD thread seems related.
The rate has doubled in the last few years. (Citation needed.)
Why would parents run to a pediatrician for a very mild difference in a kid more so now than 30 years ago?
And this isn’t from the National Enquirer it’s from the CDC.
My position is that we are not talking higher incidence due to higher reporting.
e.g. Incidences of ADHD went off the exponential map since we bought a cow hormone from the Japs in 1994-95. WHen queried about health risks. The PM answered “Well we’ll see how the American kids do.”
ADHD cases mostly went way up in the 90’s because they changed the DSM, previous to that it “went away” at age 18 so people couldn’t get their medication once they became adults.
What cow hormone are you even talking about and where are your cites to back up the claim?
Because they are now aware that these differences might have a clinical basis. For example - Rain Man was 1988, and the general public needed to have autism explained in order to understand the movie.
I will grant that it is possible that autism rates have changed over the years, but we have no way of knowing if this is true, since we weren’t looking for it. And as mentioned, the very definition of autism has changed and expanded.
Let’s leave the insulting terms for other nationalities out of the discussion.
[ /Moderating ]
An Australian perspective, from Autism Victoria Professional Advisory Panel position statement (pdf).
“All recent studies support a rise in the prevalence of Autistic Disorder and the combined ASDs over time, especially since the 1990s and this is most likely due to a combination of changing diagnostic criteria and increased public and professional awareness of autism.”
The Statement reports that the current prevalence of ASDs within Australia is estimated to be 1 in 160 children.
Maybe there are differences in diagnostic criteria between NJ and Australia?
Does that mean I can’t abbreviate Brits or Aussies either?
I believe it was an NPR program–Robyn O’Brien?
best i can do. i might only have a minute of internet left.
That’s a strange name for a cow hormone.
What’s this about the internet going away in a minute? :eek:
“Brit” and “Aussie” are not pejorative terms, and questions about moderation go in ATMB.
Here is commentary from the head of NIMH, discussing the CDC’s findings and suggesting that the increase in reported cases is primarily due to increased detection, not increased prevalence.
A child with severe enough autism can qualify for either SSI (Supplemental Security Income) or SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance). You get what you reward.
What?
You still believe in autism in NJ?
That is sooo passé.
Not according to this sentence:
“Our working assumption is that there are both more children affected and more detected.”
Thanks for the link tho’.
Oh that is sooooo another thread.
Anyway, after I heard this interview I immediately switched to organic milk.
I really think it’s worth a listen. I won’t re-listen as I’m depressed enough.
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/2009/jul/08/the-unhealthy-truth/