Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 24 of 24

Thread: Autism - 1 in 50 Children

  1. #21
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,543
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by long island leprechaun View Post
    What's the old joke? Okay, enough about me. So how do you like my dress?
    LOL, exactly

  2. #22
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,001
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetworks View Post
    And again, this is not a newly defined disorder. The changes made by the APA to the DSM have little to do with its discovery by Kanner and Asperger. I find it highly unlikely that doctors were unaware of autism's existence, to say nothing of their ability to differentiate it from Down's and MR. Anyone who has seen autism first hand can spot the difference.



    Well, off the top of my head I know the head of the IACC stated as much. I'm pretty sure there was a study done out of CA that did as well. The increase is very real, just how much is open for interpretation.



    Sorry, but I don't buy that. I think a large portion of the medical community is afraid to do some earnest soul-searching to see just how at fault they may be for the increase. Wasted resources are studies like I linked to yesterday. That's pure junk science that is being paraded about by the CDC and the AAP as a clear indicator that vaccines aren't possibly a cause on any level. Seriously, read that press release and tell me with a straight face that you feel that was a good paper. I respect your insights and I am confident you'll agree that it is tripe.



    Not too often, but it shouldn't be limited by function. Really, my son is on the lower end of high-functioning, but I wouldn't hesitate for the opportunity for him to have the scan. I'm not sure why you are bringing that up as a point.

    Kids should be screened for a lot of things, especially before they are subjected to blanket health policies like vaccinations. If doctors who aren't up to speed are to blame for missing kids that may be autistic, it stands to reason they may not be up to speed with kids having underlying mitochondrial dysfunction or immune-compromising conditions that make them susceptible to a jab that would not affect most other kids. What then? An 'oh well', you need to break some eggs for the healthcare omelet?



    Good luck in finding it, I'd be interested in seeing it. Anecdotally, I'd think many would agree that we are seeing more of these kids. That is the view of laypeople, clinicians and educators.



    Those are educational resources, and that is for special needs overall, not autism. The two are not the same. That funding has nothing to do with the research (or lack thereof) being dedicated to autism.

    I can't even believe you are talking about ROI and 1 million+ American children in the same sentence. I'm not naive enough to believe that there should be some sort of conscience based, no-cost effort towards helping out those with autism, but I would think the government would want to get something done to avoid the fiscal tsunami these kids will represent once they reach adulthood. They did it with polio, why not here?



    Your prerogative. But what was? Was it 1:88, 1:110. 1:166, 1:210, 1:1,000, 1:5,000, 1:10,000 or have they been here all along?



    At this point, knowing that there is a significant increase should be enough, how much shouldn't matter. As for "a plethora of other things more expensive to our society", take a look at these numbers:

    http://archive.sph.harvard.edu/press...s04252006.html

    Right now, the cost is that of a generation of children. That's pretty significant, beyond the financials I linked to, wouldn't you say?

    I don't meant to sound contentious beyond debating the topic, so apologies in advance to anyone that may take it that way.
    First off, i want to say i appreciate your knowledge and insight into this topic. You are clearly more familiar with the issue and associated data. My skepticism is largely born of my personal experiences which of course is anecdotal.

    I brought up the lack of the usage of brain scans because as far as i'm aware (and indeed i was unaware of this as well before you brought it up), this is the only objective measuring stick, that can be used to diagnose autism. I understand that some cases are very easy to diagnose. I believe that you understand that some diagnosis are extremely questionable. The problem that creates is how to you know if it's 1:50, 1:88, or 1:10,000? Statistics are easy enough to skew when you are talking about discrete objectively measurable things. How much easier is it to fudge them concerning an issue where the vast majority of the data is derived from subjected diagnosis?

    My comment regarding ROI was poorly worded. What i meant to say was the government is particularly bad at pharmaceutical research. The federal government is responsible for a little more than a 3rd of the overall pharmaceutical funding in the US, yet is responsible for very little innovation.

    I feel as though i may be coming off as callous or uncaring regarding this issue, and if so i apologize. i sympathize with the families that have to live with autism. I very much hope that new treatments will be developed to address the symptoms and behaviors associated with those currently suffering with autism, and preventive techniques developed to limit the problem in the future. However my response to the poster who responded with nothing is more important than our children is this: Everything we do now. Every decision our country makes affects our children. Children suffer from many hardships and diseases and we do not have the resources to attack all of them. We also diminish the ability of the private sector and economy to deal with these issues every time we take more money from the government to do so.

    Anyway, let me reiterate Jetworks, i appreciate your insight on the issue, and apologize if i appear unsympathetic as that's not the case at all.

  3. #23
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,747
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JetPotato View Post
    LOL, exactly
    Personal experience only matters to the people they agree with?

    Kids are a lot work and it seems that they are a lot of parents who'd rather look for a diagnosis than actually care for their children. Diagnosis and prescribe pills or a plan that involves others doing for their kids.

    Parents have helped destroy the institution of marriage and destroy their own children's lives because of simply being inconvenient. Sacrifice is for suckers.

  4. #24
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    8,673
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Axil View Post
    First off, i want to say i appreciate your knowledge and insight into this topic. You are clearly more familiar with the issue and associated data. My skepticism is largely born of my personal experiences which of course is anecdotal.
    And let me assure you, I totally understand some of that skepticism, anecdotally arrived at or otherwise. There are some out there who simply are looking to explain why they are the way they are. Others want services or funding. Still others just want to "be" something. There's definitely a comfortable amount of wiggle room to explain the increase.

    Quote Originally Posted by Axil View Post
    I brought up the lack of the usage of brain scans because as far as i'm aware (and indeed i was unaware of this as well before you brought it up), this is the only objective measuring stick, that can be used to diagnose autism. I understand that some cases are very easy to diagnose. I believe that you understand that some diagnosis are extremely questionable. The problem that creates is how to you know if it's 1:50, 1:88, or 1:10,000? Statistics are easy enough to skew when you are talking about discrete objectively measurable things. How much easier is it to fudge them concerning an issue where the vast majority of the data is derived from subjected diagnosis?
    Yes, the subjectivity of a diagnosis is definitely a large problem. There was a push to have autism reclassified as a neuro-biological disorder ahead of the new DSM, but it failed. That's too bad as it is estimated over a third of current people will lose their diagnosis once DSM-V kicks in. Which, when you think about it, is funny as that will fly in the face of those who feel better recognition and awareness is the cause of the increase.

    The study I spoke of fudges the numbers to the extreme, even relying on a flawed study from three years ago that had over-reaching cohorts, among other things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Axil View Post
    My comment regarding ROI was poorly worded. What i meant to say was the government is particularly bad at pharmaceutical research. The federal government is responsible for a little more than a 3rd of the overall pharmaceutical funding in the US, yet is responsible for very little innovation.
    I wasn't aware of that. Is that funding off-set at all by PDUFA? And how is it that they are permitted to fund AND have oversight in the form of the FDA and CDC? Seems odd.

    Quote Originally Posted by Axil View Post
    I feel as though i may be coming off as callous or uncaring regarding this issue, and if so i apologize. i sympathize with the families that have to live with autism. I very much hope that new treatments will be developed to address the symptoms and behaviors associated with those currently suffering with autism, and preventive techniques developed to limit the problem in the future. However my response to the poster who responded with nothing is more important than our children is this: Everything we do now. Every decision our country makes affects our children. Children suffer from many hardships and diseases and we do not have the resources to attack all of them. We also diminish the ability of the private sector and economy to deal with these issues every time we take more money from the government to do so.
    The only thing is, this hardship/disorder outnumbers most, if not all, the others if the numbers are to be trusted. Question is, who wants to be the one to take the chance that they aren't? Aside from the head in the sand CDC and AAP, of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by Axil View Post
    Anyway, let me reiterate Jetworks, i appreciate your insight on the issue, and apologize if i appear unsympathetic as that's not the case at all.
    No apologies necessary, I didn't personally take offense to anything you said. Thanks for your (always) high level of discourse.
    Last edited by Jetworks; 04-02-2013 at 07:20 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us