For any disease, condition, etc, if you combine those two factors, the number of cases is going to rise. Simple as that.

We think we need to cure these people of some disease. In all likelyhood many great artists and thinkers, most notably Leonardo da Vinci and Albert Einstein, would have been considered definitely autistic if the diagnosis had existed at the time, what if we had tried to “cure” them? It was not in spite of, but because of the fact that they thought in different ways that they contributed so much to society. I am by no means attacking people diagnosed with autism but defending them, because society seems to think there is something horribly wrong with not being just like everyone else, and that abnormal people are “diseased” and need to be cured.

And in the second-to-last paragraph, was “delivish” supposed to be “devilish”?

Willingham raises some interesting points, but she seems unaware of important epidemiological studies that have examined the very question in the headline . A study published in Epidemiology in January 2009 closely examined the question of increased diagnosis and concluded:

“In summary, the incidence of autism rose 7- to 8-fold in California from the early 1990s through the present. Quantitative analysis of the changes in diagnostic criteria, the inclusion of milder cases, and an earlier age at diagnosis during this period suggests that these factors probably contribute 2.2-, 1.56-, and 1.24-fold increases in autism, respectively, and hence cannot fully explain the magnitude of the rise in autism.” http://www.precaution.org/lib/autism_increases_real.090101.pdf In other words, while autism diagnosis in California increased 700% in less than 20 years, only 56% is due to inclusion of milder cases, and 12% is explainable by changing age at diagnosis. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19234401

The rising numbers of children diagnosed with autism cannot be mostly attributed to changing diagnostic categories or better diagnostic techniques. We know that environment is a large component, and the many co-morbidities (such as seizure disorders and severe gastrointestinal distress) suggest that we should be looking at some systemic disrupters in the environment (so rain in August, and television since the 1950s, can probably be ruled out, and therefore do not merit study).

I enjoyed hearing from both ‘sides’ in the discussion until it degenerated into bickering. While I note that there is no definitive evidence on acetaminophen, I think we should treat this drug with a high degree of caution, particularly among pregnant women and young children. I am looking forward to a full investigation, which should be able to tell us more about whether this over-the-counter medicine could be a strong contributing environmental co-factor in the rise in autism.

I think we should put to rest this question of how ASD should best be diagnosed by pushing the medical community to agree upon a quite reliable diagnostic test, a brain scan. While it isn’t 100%, many cases could be easily identified, and the brain scan less expensive than currently used methods. http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Uk/uk.philosophy.humanism/2010-08/msg00039.html

“One study in South Korea found a significantly higher rate of autism, but it used a different methodology and different study population. In fact, the part of the Korean study that was most comparable to other studies found an autism rate of .8%—about the same as in other countries.”

This seems to be an understatement of the significance of the South Korean Study, in that the .75% was identified in a similar high probability demographic that is used in the US for surveillance studies for 8year old children most of whom are identified as receiving educational services in the school system for children with developmental disabilities.

1.89 % were identified as previously undiagnosed in the general population of children in the school system in South Korea, providing a total of 2.64% of children scanned for ASD’s, ages 7 – 12.

While the England study scans the entire adult population, it does not scan any demographic below 16 years of age. If a similar study was done in England or the US as was done in South Korea, there is the potential that the rate among children could be close to the rate found in South Korea, at 2.64%.

The lowest rates recently measured have been in Brazil at .27%, with a much different methodology; different cultural factors potentially also play a role with testing methods that are used across cultures that don’t account for identified cultural differences, per the link below.

http://sfari.org/news-and-opinion/news/2011/researchers-track-down-autism-rates-across-the-globe

Until a full population scan is done among all age demographics using similar methodology in one country, it is too soon to speculate on whether or not there is a larger prevalence statistic among children as compared to the adult population as a general population scan of children was not provided in the England study that focused on adults.

Autism Speaks is currently funding a 3 year study in the US targeted at a scan of the full demographic of the general population across all age groups with similar methodology that may provide more definitive answers as to what the real prevalence of ASD’s are across child and adult demographics, in one country.

It is interesting from the first link above that the adults in the England study scanned for ASD’s were fairly consistent per prevalence across that entire age demographic at 1 percent. However, there could be newer factors in the environment in the last 15 years that children are more vulnerable to than adults.

What some of those factors might be are controversial, including the potential that some children cannot adapt as well because of newer cultural influences that adults were not exposed to as young children; particularly those that are providing less opportunity for face to face interactions.

The 1 in 88 measured in classes for children with developmental disabilities in the US, seen in the similar .75% demographic in the the study from South Korea, may miss a potential measure of the difficulty that children in the larger school population are having problems with adapting to newer cultural influences that were not part of the accessible cultural environment for most children 15 years ago, broadening a spectrum that decades ago would have been a part of what is currently described as the broader autism phenotype.

Community wide scans for ASD’s done for children in Amish country at a rate of 1 in 271, provide a potential clue. A major element lacking in those communities is progress in technological advances driving culture away from face to face interaction. South Korea is a world leader, per this element of potential correlation.

https://imfar.confex.com/imfar/2010/webprogram/Paper7336.html

I have never contributed to any on-line debate on this topic and have no desire to do so again. However, after reading the comments above I had the feeling that I was a child at a cocktail party, l listening to a room full of adults argue about the statistics of neglected children. What is the point? Why argue about headlines and inconclusive studies? Does anyone really think that statistics will give us an answer? Or is this just a way to avoid fear.

Here is the simple truth. No jargon. No numbers: The children that are enrolled in my classroom today, have very different needs as compared to the children who were enrolled 15 years ago. This is not because, back in the day, there were more children in institutions. It is not because my former students really had the same needs and I just don’t remember them very well, or that I just used different terms to categorize children. I don’t even use those terms unless I have to communicate with someone who needs big words to feel important. It is not because our busting- at- the- seams, school launched an advertising campaign so we could stretch our budget just a little bit more. It is most certainly not because the hard working families of these beautiful children are just following a popular new trend in in parenting.

I will agree that , over the years, the language that has been used to describe behaviors or skills has changed. More contemporary, politically correct labels have been created. However, those of us who have actually been working with children in a public classroom did not participate in that project. We don’t have time to publish, do research, attend committee luncheons, or even go the bathroom. We teach. We observe. We take data. We spend more time with the children in our classrooms than their parents do. We don’t need to debate statistics. We know. We are not concerned about what the popular public trend is. We live it.

So here is a fact: We have seen a dramatic increase in children being referred to us who demonstrate significant challenges in sensory processing, motor planning and communication. These children have striking and dramatic differences in the way that they play and interact with people in their environment. Their neurological and biological systems are so overwhelmed that many resort to engaging in repetitive behaviors and routines in order to protect themselves from the constant bombardment of language and sensations that they can not interpret. If they had been here 20 years ago I would remember.

On the other hand, many of these children demonstrate academic skills that are far more advanced than their classmates who do not flap their hands, and are able to look adults in the eye. So statistically these children could help to create a new “norm curve” for academics. The possible result could be that my “typically developing” child could then be statistically, delayed or even worse…..atypical.

Each child is an individual. Knowing how many children exist in the population, that exhibit similar behavior patterns to the individual, is as useful to me as knowing how many children used a binky or picked their nose. It is not about seeing children as a percentage of the group. It is not about identifying everything that is different or lacking and changing it. It is about finding a way to see the world through a child’s eyes. It is about understanding that the “norm” is not necessarily better, and different is not a disease. Maybe we need to just understand.

I do not work with statistics.
I do not work with diagnoses.
I do not call my students Asperger’s
or ASD, Classic or rock n roll Autism.

They are children
They have names