Talk about déjà vu.
It was just over two months ago we and other news agencies reported on a study published in the journal Pediatrics that found that autism was now in about 1 in 91 children. So I was scratching my head when …
Before posting, please read our blog moderation guidelines. The comments below begin with the oldest comments first. Click on the last comments page to jump to the most recent comments.
Before posting, please read our blog moderation guidelines.
Post a Comment:
Copyright © 1995-2013 Psych Central. All rights reserved.
Site last updated: 18 May 2013
|
Dear Dr. Groom:
I find your reaction to the news of the new CDC MMWR data puzzling.
You conclude that the CDC data reported in the MMWR showing a relatively insignificant difference from an October HHS-HRSA study as somehow reassuring. The astronomical increase in autism rates, now similarly reported by two recent credible sources is cause for great concern. That you think the newsworthy nature of the CDC data is that “rates of autism are actually better than we thought” is a strange and inexplicable reaction. The difference in the rates reported by CDC and the earlier rates reported in Pediatrics are trivial and in itself insignificant.
In fact, the newsworthy part of the CDC data is that autism rates are (1) higher than previously believed as confirmed by two reliable sources (2) dramatically rising through the past two decades as the most recent data examining children born in 1998 shows rates of autism that is substantially higher than the rates of autism in children shown in the previous CDC prevalence reports for children born in 1992 and 1994.
Most newsworthy is the CDC statement that the data show that a true increase is indicated and cannot be dismissed, as opposed to the prevailing conventional thinking that the dramatic rise in autism rates must be due to broader diagnostic criteria, better reporting and better diagnosis.
As reported today in the Huffington Post, NIMH Director Thomas Insel, also Chair of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee, believes the emerging data from HHS, CDC, California and elsewhere demonstrate that there is a significant and true increase in rates of autism and that this strongly implicates environmental factors in the etiology of the disorder.
Your apparent inability to grasp the importance of recent studies confirming high and increasing rates of autism illustrates the weak response of the medical and psychology professions to an emerged health crisis. The inability of our health professionals to understand this health crisis is a story in itself worthy of journalistic attention.
I fear that the anemic response of professionals like you to the “autism” health crisis augurs a tragically inadequate professional, scientific, governmental and societal response to a public health need of historic proportions.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Krakow
Attorney At Law
Parent of a 10 year old child with multiple diagnoses including “autism”, a behavioral label only under DSM-IV, and more meaningful medical diagnoses
Dear Dr. Grohol:
My apologies about getting your name wrong in my earlier post.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Krakow
Robert – I grasped the problem back in October, when we originally (like all other news media outlets) reported the first study’s data. A study in Pediatrics is not something most professionals would readily dismiss. But two studies aren’t going to suddenly change what you claim is the prevailing conventional wisdom (which I would dispute).
A 20% difference between the two sets of numbers is, actually, pretty significant. The fact that politics and not good science is being reported (e.g., news outlets simply reported the same “dramatically rising rates” story) is telling.
In Oct., the number 91 was roughly equal to 100 and now the number 110 is roughly equal to 100. But when you report things in that manner, you miss the 19 point spread between the two numbers. Remember, the significant number we’re reporting is a 50 point spread (the rates went from 1 in 150 to 1 in 100). 50 is significant, but 19 is not?
Sorry, we try and report on the actual data. And the data in this case showed two reports that showed a significant increase from older estimates in autism. But they also significantly differed from one another, perhaps not statistically, but still worth noting.
Nobody is claiming — and nowhere did I write — that we shouldn’t be concerned about the rise in autism rates. Indeed, autism remains a serious child disorder which needs increased attention and research.
Autistic kids need help, but this media sponsered increase in autism? Moms flocking to support groups and marching in the street? Celebrating autism? That’s suspect. Autism skyrocketing? Higher rates? See the YOU TUBE video: autism spectrum seems out of control and “autism epidemic rooted in abuse and misuse of word ‘autistic’ to get a better understanding of what’s going on pretty shocking
When I first saw the title of this blog, I kind of freaked out, but I misread the title, after all. I really thought that you were insinuating that most of the children with Autism/Asperger’s, were born in October! lol. Well, nothing to laugh at, really but I had to laugh at myself for not looking at it, more closely!! Glad I wasn’t right…
Ok, duh. Sorry to even keep this stupid October conspriracy theory going, but there was a point to my freaking out when I thought October meant something not too good… My son was born on October 26th.. And for what it’s worth, I was born on Oct. 27th! He was considered by birthday present!