or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Peanut oil in Vaccines causing massive peanut allergy?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Peanut oil in Vaccines causing massive peanut allergy? - Page 15

post #281 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

What does this mean?
Yeah sorry autocorrect really did a number on that. It should say something to the effect that I think most of the increase is due to improved diagnosis/changing diagnosis criteria, where most is something more than half.
post #282 of 309
I don't see where dakotacakes claimed there was no real increase, in autism or allergies, but you know what they say about me and reading.
post #283 of 309
When you're considering the increase in something like autism remember, too, that special Ed services have changed drastically since the 70s. Things like project child find didn't exist back then. That makes a huge difference.
post #284 of 309

According to the CDC, (not sure if this is the most up to date figure*) 13.7% of children in the US have a developmental disability, so a vast majority of these kids were missed and are now in the system because of better special ed services?

 

 

Over the last 12 years, the

  • Prevalence of DDs has increased 17.1%—that's about 1.8 million more children with DDs in 2006–2008 compared to a decade earlier;
  • Prevalence of autism increased 289.5%;
  • Prevalence of ADHD increased 33.0%; and,
  • Prevalence of hearing loss decreased 30.9%.

 

 

* Obviously the autism figures are not

post #285 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post


Yeah sorry autocorrect really did a number on that. It should say something to the effect that I think most of the increase is due to improved diagnosis/changing diagnosis criteria, where most is something more than half.

"Most" is very broad.  Do you have a tighter ball park figure than 51-99%?

post #286 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

According to the CDC, (not sure if this is the most up to date figure*) 13.7% of children in the US have a developmental disability, so a vast majority of these kids were missed and are now in the system because of better special ed services?

 

 

Over the last 12 years, the

  • Prevalence of DDs has increased 17.1%—that's about 1.8 million more children with DDs in 2006–2008 compared to a decade earlier;
  • Prevalence of autism increased 289.5%;
  • Prevalence of ADHD increased 33.0%; and,
  • Prevalence of hearing loss decreased 30.9%.

 

 

* Obviously the autism figures are not

Who said vast majority?

post #287 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

"Most" is very broad.  Do you have a tighter ball park figure than 51-99%?

Not off the cuff, no.  I haven't read up on it lately.  I think there is some relevant research out there, I'll see if I can dig it up.

post #288 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

so if I understand you, it's still is all about diagnose and the criteria-correct? 

so that means there is no increase - according to you? all the data is not accurate because of the expanded definition - correct?



and the CDC must be wrong about food allergies- http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db10.htm
From 1997 to 2007, the prevalence of reported food allergy increased 18% among children under age 18 years. 

You do not understand correctly. It is most likely both diagnosis and actual increase. Hence, why I said "I don't personally know how much is diagnosis and how much is actual change" But we can't know how much IS actual change because the rates we are comparing are apples and oranges.

Personally, I would like to see statistics on the rates of classic low functioning autism alone. I would like to see how the actual rates are changing and see what the increase is. Because high and moderate functioning autistics, asberger syndrom and PDD-NOS were not included in 1970 so we can't compare the rate of ASD to the rate of Autism in 1970 because it is not the same thing.

I never said that food allergies weren't increasing. They clearly are. and I don't THINK the criterea have changed for food allergies the way they have for autism. I just don't believe they are increasing from vaccines nor do I think there is secret peanut oil conspiracy in vaccines producing peanut allergies.
post #289 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

According to the CDC, (not sure if this is the most up to date figure*) 13.7% of children in the US have a developmental disability, so a vast majority of these kids were missed and are now in the system because of better special ed services?

 

 

Over the last 12 years, the

  • Prevalence of DDs has increased 17.1%—that's about 1.8 million more children with DDs in 2006–2008 compared to a decade earlier;
  • Prevalence of autism increased 289.5%;
  • Prevalence of ADHD increased 33.0%; and,
  • Prevalence of hearing loss decreased 30.9%.

 

 

* Obviously the autism figures are not

Who said vast majority?

 

You said "most" is that not "vast majority". When questioned by Kathy, you said you in fact didn't know, but would look into it.

post #290 of 309
Quote:
 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakotacakes View Post


Personally, I would like to see statistics on the rates of classic low functioning autism alone. I would like to see how the actual rates are changing and see what the increase is. Because high and moderate functioning autistics, asberger syndrom and PDD-NOS were not included in 1970 so we can't compare the rate of ASD to the rate of Autism in 1970 because it is not the same thing.
I would, too.  I have looked -several times -and have not gotten very far. I would expect those type of figures to be readily available - but they are not.  It is sad how little information we have on such a prevalent issue.  I think those that are very high functioning could have been undiagnosed in the past.  I don't buy it for moderate-severe autism, though.  I read somewhere that even accounting for moving people out from the umbrella of mental retardation an under the umbrella of autism does not cut it.
 

ETA:  I found this:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr065.pdf

 

Comparing children diagnosed before 2007 and after, it does show an decrease in the number of children listed as severe, although moderate is holding its own.    Of course, a decrease in percentage does not mean there wasn't an increase in numbers. I would also like to see numbers going back much farther than 2007. 


Edited by kathymuggle - 4/4/13 at 11:59am
post #291 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

You said "most" is that not "vast majority". When questioned by Kathy, you said you in fact didn't know, but would look into it.

And I specifically clarified that by most I meant anywhere north of half. That's very different than vast majority.

Dakota, I saw a small study recently that applied the urgent criteria to a group of adults screened as children for some type of delay and found 40% of them would qualify as autistic under current criteria, both severe and mild.

Again, the changing criteria is far from the only influence at play. Our approach to identifying special needs children has changed drastically in the last few decades, and that's reflected in diagnosis across the board.
post #292 of 309

So, crunching a few numbers from figure 3 of the study I linked:

 

I am going to compare those aged 6-17 diagnosed before and after 2007.  I am rounding to a whole number.

 

17% of those born before 2007 were consider to have severe autism.  17/100 of 1/150 (prevalence in 2007) means in 2007 about 1/882 people had severe autism.

 

34% had moderate autism (a cohort I doubt would have been missed  in earlier generations)  34/100 of 1/150 is 1/441.  In 2007 about 1/441 people had moderate autism

 

Consider today in 6-17 year olds:

 

7% are severe - so 7/100 of 1/50  =1/714.  So today, 1/714 have severe autism.

 

35% are moderate:  35/100 of 1/50  =1/142.  Today, 1/142 have moderate autism

 

It look like severe has gone up a bit, and moderate has gone up a lot.  

 

Any glaring issues in my math?

post #293 of 309
I haven't reviewed your math, but I don't think it's fair to assume moderate autism wouldn't be caught in previous generations.
post #294 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

When you're considering the increase in something like autism remember, too, that special Ed services have changed drastically since the 70s. Things like project child find didn't exist back then. That makes a huge difference.

and why do you think that occurred?

 

 

 

 

I could not make sense of what you wrote, that is why I asked

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakotacakes View Post


You do not understand correctly. It is most likely both diagnosis and actual increase. Hence, why I said "I don't personally know how much is diagnosis and how much is actual change" But we can't know how much IS actual change because the rates we are comparing are apples and oranges.

 

 

From what you posted I still feel you are saying it's about diagnose and the criteria that you are questioning, that was all I was asking you- I got that, not miss understanding - just wanted clarification.    

post #295 of 309
Serenbat, there was a lot of legislation involved for one thing.

http://nichcy.org/laws

I also think attitudes towards seeking help and diagnosis has changed in the last half century or so, but that's more a hunch than anything I have data to support.
post #296 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Serenbat, there was a lot of legislation involved for one thing.

http://nichcy.org/laws

I also think attitudes towards seeking help and diagnosis has changed in the last half century or so, but that's more a hunch than anything I have data to support.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

When you're considering the increase in something like autism remember, too, that special Ed services have changed drastically since the 70s. Things like project child find didn't exist back then. That makes a huge difference.
 

What you said makes no sense! They aren't connected! You don't receive a diagnosis because you have special ED services! 

 

We are not seeing an increase in autism or any other disorder or disease because we have "special service" to deal with it- that is simply untrue.

 

We do not have increase of diagnosis because of legislation, that's like say we have the Voting Rights Act (that is also legislation) because we have more African Americana - it's not true, not even close to being an accurate statement.

post #297 of 309
Serenbat these laws require schools to actively identify and serve students with special needs, including autism. Starting at birth school systems have to provide services, like project child find, that actively seek out children with special needs. I don't see how that could possibly not impact diagnosis.
post #298 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I haven't reviewed your math, but I don't think it's fair to assume moderate autism wouldn't be caught in previous generations.

I assume moderate autism would be caught in previous generations - which is thus an argument for an increase in the real rate of moderate autism.

 

The study did not define what was meant by moderate autism, sadly.  It did say it asked parents if the child was mild, moderate or severe.

post #299 of 309
I'm not convinced we would be very good at detecting moderate autism in previous generations is all I'm saying. Severe autism sure, although it might've sometimes been called something else. But I guess it depends a lot on what you mean by "moderate"
post #300 of 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Serenbat these laws require schools to actively identify and serve students with special needs, including autism. Starting at birth school systems have to provide services, like project child find, that actively seek out children with special needs. I don't see how that could possibly not impact diagnosis.

apparently you did not have civics or forgot why we have most laws - regarding "special ED" - it's called discrimination, has nothing to do with diagnosis increase. This is the link you need to look at - http://www.archives.nysed.gov/edpolicy/research/res_guides_disability_hist.shtml 

 

 

 

1975 Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, guaranteed a free, appropriate public education to children with disabilities in every locality across the country. The law was reauthorized in 1990 as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Among the specific provisions:

•  State and local schools must provide substantial special education services to all children with disabilities.

•  Each child has the right to an Individualized Education Program (IEP) designed to meet his or her unique needs.

•  Each child's education must be provided in the least restrictive environment available.

•  Procedural safeguards guarantee the rights of each child and family.

•  The 1997 reauthorization of IDEA required that children with disabilities have access to the general curriculum.

 

 

 

Services must be provided- to all, we use to not have that- this county use to discriminate. Programs to assist came about out of discrimination, not increase in disorder,etc.

 

 

 

You seem to want to so badly push your agenda that increases are sooooo greatly impacted by better diagnosis, no matter how you spin it, your view comes out crystal clear.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Peanut oil in Vaccines causing massive peanut allergy?