Is There an Autism Epidemic? Vote in the Poll!
Friday May 9, 2008
As the UK plans to embark on its epic count of adults with autism, bloggers like David Kirby ask "97% of All Autism Cases Went Undected - Until Now?" Kirby, of course, takes the perspective that there is, indeed an autism epidemic. Changes in diagnostic criteria and a major media blitz to increase autism awareness, he says, can't possibly explain the huge surge in diagnoses over the past ten - twelve years.
But Kirby and those who agree with him have their detractors. Take anthropologist Richard Grinker, whose book Unstrange Minds makes the case that the apparent epidemic is - in essence - a boondoggle. Grinker is joined by a number of adults with autism (bloggers Alex Plank and Rich Schull to name two) who make the case that people with autistic qualities have been a part of our culture since culture began. While their differences were not diagnosed as "autism," some argue, luminaries like Mozart and Einstein would receive autism spectrum diagnoses today.
So... where do you stand on this question? IS there an autism epidemic? Take the poll!
Comments
Let’s not forget that researchers and science also join Grinker, not just autistic adults & bloggers.
And let’s remember too that an “epidemic” is “a widespread outbreak of an infectious disease; many people are infected at the same time” and autism is neither a “disease” or “infectious”.
While I think genetics and smog are a factor in real autism and delay cases.
The fact that schools in Minnesota can label kids autistics with little or no symptoms is the same deal with the fake ADHD epidemic years back. This hurt families who really had ADHD.
While schools are the best for treating Autism they are not the best for diagnosing it. Conditions like Dyspraxia/apraxia can be misdiagnosed as autism or ADHD.
I have to agree with jypsy here as autism is not an infectious disease how can we be having an autism epidemic? They keep using the wrong word. I think that the correct word may well be endemic and that has a totally different meaning.
I personally think that the word empidemic is being used quite deliberately for two reasons. 1) so that they can terrify people and 2) so that they will have public opinion behind them while they try to find a way to wipe autism out.
Let’s get some things straight. Autism is nothing but a term from the DSM-IV psychiatric manual. It’s a term that provides an alibi for the vaccine manufacturers who added mercury to vaccines at a level 250 times higher than what the EPA identifies as hazardous waste based on toxicity characteristics. It provides an alibi for the CDC, FDA, American Academy of Pediatrics and the other responsible parties that let this nightmare happen. It provides an alibi for the health insurance companies so they can refuse to pay for medical services for these sick kids. It provides an alibi for the pediatricians who administered this poison. And it provides a generous living for psychiatrists to distribute their chemical “straight jackets” they refer to as medication. There is no autism epidemic. There is an epidemic of vaccine injured kids and it is covered-up through the use of terms like autism, ADHD, Bi-Polar, PDD and the list goes on.
A DIFFERENT WAY OF THINKING?
That is the most preposterous of all the garbage that is out there. Is smearing feces and self injurious behavior ‘just looking at the world with a different lens’. Can these people get jobs, support themselves, have a meaningful relationship with anything that does not spin? Get real people. That is just more PC/Liberal ‘can’t we all get along’ talk. Call it childhood schizophrenia, autism, mental retardation, whatever, but it is not just a state of mind or view of the world. It is a disability that is growing that we as a society are going to have to face soon as these children become adults, and their ‘view of the world’ does not allow them to be self sufficient.
I realize that some of the folks at another blog have said they are not going to participate here, but I can’t see them avoiding it with this question. This is the sort of poll that brings a lot of people out.
Would that science were open to a vote.
Leave aside the question of whether the term “epdidemic” is appropriate. Has there been a real increase in the number of people with autism over time?
One problem is that we don’t have real data. There aren’t real epidemiological studies available over time. I doubt there is an accurate count even today.
That all said, the data that are out there show that there is a definite shift in
Service data show that a smaller fraction people with the autism label have intellectual disabilities today than in years past.
Also, as the ‘count’ of autism has risen, the ‘count’ of people with intellectual disabilities has dropped.
Also, there is a lot of sloppy accounting. People like to say “autism” and “asd” interchangibly. People like to compare current ‘asd’ counts (including PDD-NOS and Asperger syndrom) and compare those to strait autism counts of years past.
Was there a real increase in the number of individuals with autism? I don’t think so. If there is an increase, it is small and hidden by the other changes (diagnostic criteria, heightened awareness, etc) that have driven the counts up.
Are vaccines and/or mercury to blame? It is really time to move on from that failed theory.
Lisa Jo - this poll can be completed numerous times by one person. Every time I’ve returned to see the progress I am allowed to vote again.
“That is the most preposterous of all the garbage that is out there.”
It’s actually one of the most preposterous straw-men I’ve ever seen. I don’t think there’s a group of people who say that autism is a “different way of looking at the world.” However, Lisa Jo Rudy put it up there, so I’d like to ask her where she got that from. Until there’s an explanation, I can only assume it’s an attempt to discredit the neurodiversity philosophy, by assigning a meaning to it that is clearly misrepresented.
Joseph - it certainly wasn’t intended to discredit the neurodiversity community! if it appears that way, it’s entirely unintentional! how would you put the neurodiversity perspective in ten words or less? to me, it seems to place autism as simply part of the human experience: not a disease or a disorder, but a difference. how do you see it?
Lisa (autism guide)
fyi, folks - About.com polls are not intended to be scientific!
but in response to the question:
“Can these people get jobs, support themselves, have a meaningful relationship with anything that does not spin?”
um, yes!!! many, many people with autism are not only employed but doing very well, thank you; many are married; many are speakers, authors, entrepreneurs, you name it.
The problem we continue to face is that the autism spectrum covers so much territory that it’s impossible to really stereotype - much as folks might want to do so.
Lisa (autism guide)
Ok, thanks Lisa.
If I were to define neurodiversity right now, I would probably upset at least one other person who thinks it’s something else. That said, “not a disease” is certainly part of it. There’s also some agreement that it doesn’t only refer to autism, although it’s obviously a concept that is by and large used only in the autism community.
I used to think that it was a matter of broader diagnosis criteria, but after I read the article on mercury pollution and autism in Texas, I really started to wonder. Therefore I voted “possibly.”
I think the majority of kids diagnosed with autism don’t really have it…it’s just an excuse the doctors use because they want to explain why the kid is different. I know a 3 year old boy who is developmentally on course, smiles, makes eye contact, has no weird behaviors other than rocking and is speech delayed. They labeled him autistic and now his mother uses it as an excuse for all of his bad behavior. In most cases parents use it as an excuse for why their kid is throwing a fit instead of disciplining them properly.