Calling autism an "epidemic"

Post Reply New Topic

I agree that "epidemic" is an intentionally harsh and illegitimate description of the increase in AS and ASD diagnoses. But, I believe that, while developing medical and public awareness has provoked some of the increase (especially among previously undiagnosed adolescents and adults), much of the increase among children is a result of exposure to neurotoxins. I won't debate the vaccine implications here, but when The Lancet Neurology journal published a research paper in March (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneu ... 3/fulltext) which determined that the fluoride that is routinely added to drinking water is a "dangerous neurotoxin[,]" there is increasing evidence to suggest that environmental neurotoxins like fluoride need more scrutiny.

Agreed. We have the same amount of respect.

I hate them term and it's actually kind of scary. I'm not a disease that should cured or eliminated. I'm a person who just has more difficulties because I'm living in a world created by NTs for NTs.

Also, it could be 'spreading' because we understand more about it than we did in the 80s and parents and adults are more willing to be diagnosed (maybe...?).

I think that the media is doing it on purpose in order to increase NT's fear of us. This will then lead increase in profits for corrupt companies like Autism Speaks. They are spreading negative media around so they gain profits. It makes sense for them to do this. I have no evidence for it but it sounds like something that could happen.

It's not an epidemic. There is just a more comprehensive diagnostic criteria, one I fit now. 50 years ago I would have just been described as a shy, introverted character.

Just like others here I despise the term epidemic in itself. It's not contagious, but the media is very good at scaring people with the fear their child is going to 'catch' autism. The mystery around the cause of autism is also why some organisations propose this. It's simply hyperbole that the media uses to terrify everyone.

according to a geoengineering documentary I just watch some of it's now 1 in 50...some say it's from the poisonous chemicals in the air, I still believe it's the vaccinations...

Mirriam Webster definition: epidemic http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/epidemic
1 Affecting or tending to affect a disproportionately large number of individuals within a population, community, or region at the same time
2 a. excessively prevalent b : contagious
3: characterized by very widespread growth or extent : of, relating to, or constituting an epidemic

" excessively " and "disproportionately" are judgement calls.
If it is growing or always has always been here but now being recognized is still being debated.

The most common use of "epidemic" is 2b ie in relation to diseases spread by germs/virus. It is certainly not that.

Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 04 Sep 2014, 4:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

Government types call it "Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering" (AKA Chemtrails) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratosph ... neering%29 while others oppose it http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/ for the reasons you stated (and more).

Wait...are you guys joking?

Correction, the diagnosis rate went up. And given the fact that Asperger's wasn't even in the DSM until '94, is it really that freaking surprising that we see more people diagnosed now? Granted, the number of people with autism and the number of people being diagnosed could be increasing at the same time, but I've yet to see anyone try to quantify that difference. You can't just make the blanket claim that more diagnoses = more people with autism when you know there's another factor significantly influencing those numbers.

So, diagnoses -- and only diagnoses -- account for a 14,706-percent increase? That would suggest that, for all these years, diagnosticians were: 1) just sitting on their hands ignorant of the typical characteristics described in 1943 by Leo Kanner and in 1944 by Hans Asperger so much so that they couldn't see the obvious in certain patients, 2) fearful of professional retribution by diagnosing correctly but without the approval of diagnostic boards and other certifying entities, 3) couldn't see the characteristics in the patients they were asked to consider, thereby bringing their diagnostic knowledge and skills into doubt, or 4) the patients with ASDs themselves successfully hid their characteristics surreptitiously and well enough to deceive the diagnosticians into a false sense of "nothing to see here" ("Well played, people with ASDs. Well played.").

Technically, diagnoses -- and only diagnoses -- account for an infinite percent increase if you extend the timeline back to the 1942. So yeah, the way you define the condition can have a massive impact on how much it appears to be spreading. And no, your 4 possibilities do not encompass the entirety of reasons for why diagnosis can make such an impact. Most importantly, you left out that: First, the definition of the diagnosis itself is changing and will change how it gets applied. Second, that individual doctors the patients are seeking for diagnosis don't universally become experts in a condition and all of its nuances the moment it's written down in the DSM. And third, you're assuming that your 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 68 is completely accurate for whatever 10 year period we're talking about here.

As vickygleitz pointed out, the 1 in 10,000 number was something she got out of some MMR literature. I believe the more common number that gets bandied about is the 800% increase from 1993 to 2003 (which unsurprisingly includes the period that Asperger's was added to the DSM), because it's, you know, based on actual research and not just pulled out of thin air (no offense intended to vickygleitz).

Furthermore, these estimates of increases all carry a decent degree of uncertainty because they assume that in 1993, or 2003, or whatever year you pick, there was a single accepted rate, rather than a variety of studies that all come up with different numbers. For example, in 1996 Lora Wing estimated the rate at 0.91%. Today you generally see 1/88 or 1/67. Some people say 1/37 based on the Korean study, but the Korean study used a different methodology from what we use in the US, and looking at the subset that most closely matches US studies you get a 1/125. So depending on which study you're looking at, you could get an 800% increase, a 50% increase, or a 10% decrease for a roughly similar period of time.

So yeah, there's a huge amount of uncertainty around diagnosis and prevalence rates. And it's incredibly intellectually dishonest to try and use the changes in diagnosis rate to support whatever pet theory you have about causation, while at the same time painting over the incredibly complex issue of how those numbers are arrived at and what else is influencing them, especially when those other things that are influencing them, could quite possibly be the only things that are influencing them.