Joined
·
5,036 Posts
<p><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/03/31/the-antivaccine-movement-resurrects-the-zombie-2014/" target="_blank">http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/03/31/the-antivaccine-movement-resurrects-the-zombie-2014/</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>He made some of the same points that I did (re vaccines and autism) that while the new estimate is 30% higher than the one from two years ago, vaccine rates have remained pretty stable in the same time, which does not make for a compelling case that vaccines are a cause of the "autism epidemic". </p>
<p> </p>
<p>He makes other good points. For example, non hispanic white children were 30% more likely to be diagnosed with ASD than non hispanic black children, and were almost 50% more likely to get diagnosed than hispanic children. He says "<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);">This sort of disparity is far more likely to be due to differences in screening and diagnoses than to biology." </span></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Additionally, he points out "<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);">The authors noted that in previous reports, from 2002 to 2008, the greatest increases in ASD prevalence were noted in Hispanic children, non-Hispanic black children, and children without co-occurring intellectual disability. The first two suggest that Hispanic and non-Hispanic black children are likely to be “catching up” with Caucasian children in terms of access to diagnostic services..." </span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color:#333333;">He talks about the broadening of criteria as well and quotes Emily Willingham as saying</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color:#333333;">"</span><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);">From the data, it looks like a lot of sociocultural factors enter into the values. Given the huge variability from site to site and the ethnic differences, recognition and service availability are probably factors. Dr. Boyle referred repeatedly to the evolution of our understanding of autism and used the large percentage of children included in these values who have average to above-average intelligence as an example of that. Unlike numbers from a decade ago, these values include children who previously might not have been recognized as autistic."</span></p>
<p><a href="http://pediatrics.about.com/b/2014/03/27/responses-to-the-latest-cdc-report-on-autism-prevalence.htm" target="_blank">http://pediatrics.about.com/b/2014/03/27/responses-to-the-latest-cdc-report-on-autism-prevalence.htm</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>And Rachel Dornhelm </p>
<p> </p>
<p>"<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);">For one thing, the prevalence seems to vary in different communities and among children of different races. The CDC found white children are far more likely to be identified with autism, even though scientists don’t believe the rates are truly different between whites, Hispanics or blacks." </span></p>
<p><a href="http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/2014/03/27/higher-autism-numbers-announced-as-feds-introduce-early-screening-program/" target="_blank">http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/2014/03/27/higher-autism-numbers-announced-as-feds-introduce-early-screening-program/</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>So snark, sarcasm and insolence aside, what do you think about his interpretation of the new CDC autism data? Do you agree? Or do you think theres an environmental factor at play here? </p>
<p> </p>
<p>He made some of the same points that I did (re vaccines and autism) that while the new estimate is 30% higher than the one from two years ago, vaccine rates have remained pretty stable in the same time, which does not make for a compelling case that vaccines are a cause of the "autism epidemic". </p>
<p> </p>
<p>He makes other good points. For example, non hispanic white children were 30% more likely to be diagnosed with ASD than non hispanic black children, and were almost 50% more likely to get diagnosed than hispanic children. He says "<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);">This sort of disparity is far more likely to be due to differences in screening and diagnoses than to biology." </span></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Additionally, he points out "<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);">The authors noted that in previous reports, from 2002 to 2008, the greatest increases in ASD prevalence were noted in Hispanic children, non-Hispanic black children, and children without co-occurring intellectual disability. The first two suggest that Hispanic and non-Hispanic black children are likely to be “catching up” with Caucasian children in terms of access to diagnostic services..." </span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color:#333333;">He talks about the broadening of criteria as well and quotes Emily Willingham as saying</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color:#333333;">"</span><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);">From the data, it looks like a lot of sociocultural factors enter into the values. Given the huge variability from site to site and the ethnic differences, recognition and service availability are probably factors. Dr. Boyle referred repeatedly to the evolution of our understanding of autism and used the large percentage of children included in these values who have average to above-average intelligence as an example of that. Unlike numbers from a decade ago, these values include children who previously might not have been recognized as autistic."</span></p>
<p><a href="http://pediatrics.about.com/b/2014/03/27/responses-to-the-latest-cdc-report-on-autism-prevalence.htm" target="_blank">http://pediatrics.about.com/b/2014/03/27/responses-to-the-latest-cdc-report-on-autism-prevalence.htm</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>And Rachel Dornhelm </p>
<p> </p>
<p>"<span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);">For one thing, the prevalence seems to vary in different communities and among children of different races. The CDC found white children are far more likely to be identified with autism, even though scientists don’t believe the rates are truly different between whites, Hispanics or blacks." </span></p>
<p><a href="http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/2014/03/27/higher-autism-numbers-announced-as-feds-introduce-early-screening-program/" target="_blank">http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/2014/03/27/higher-autism-numbers-announced-as-feds-introduce-early-screening-program/</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>So snark, sarcasm and insolence aside, what do you think about his interpretation of the new CDC autism data? Do you agree? Or do you think theres an environmental factor at play here? </p>