Posted on 11/08/2011 3:56:12 AM PST by Kaslin
>>Perhaps what we are seeing is increased reporting and diagnostics as the ‘spectrum’ is ever expanded.<<
This is part of the problem. It’s a money maker.
We have friends with two children who DO have Autism Spectrum Disorders. There is not a doubt when one see them. The parents put in a huge effort and, imo are walking saints.
Then I see the kids who are labelled with “Autism Spectrum” who come from families that put in the barest minimum effort. One friend of ours told me that her son has Autism. She let this child do whatever he wanted and blamed the behavior on his disorder. This child never misbehaved around me or my kids because we would tell him that he was acting like a brat. Last night I got a text saying that he made National Honor Society.
With that, I have friends with a daughter labelled with Aspergers. The parents have a house that the hoarders show would take weeks in. They spend their lives stuck in books or on the computer. The girl is inappropriate until someone tells her the correct way to act. (like her marching band teacher) Yet, both these kids are in special classes with IEPs and the schools make big cash on them.
It bugs me that the kids that really need help lose out because we are labeling every behavior problem as a disorder.
Because you have incidence reportage is NOT an indication of growth. Cancer (of any sort) used to be considered very rare, as science got better at detecting and identifying cancer rates “went up”. Not all cancers will kill you in a short time span. We must be watchful in terms of trying to explain that which may not have an explanation
Thank you. My point could not be better illustrated.
Quackwatch is a drug company shill. Pure crap.
Let me help.
The “rise” is caused by expansion of the definition. Most of the categories within the autism spectrum have only been created in the last 10 to 20 years. Any kid with those problems before then weren’t considered autistic. There’s a whole lot of illnesses that have been “rising” that way since the 80s, pretty much everybody has a syndrome these days, because almost everything that deviates even slightly from the norm now has a label.
Yes. It is an anti-McCarthy website. Do you know how? It tells the truth. She has absolutely no background (no, taking off your clothes in public does not confer any scientific knowledge) to lecture anyone on autism etiology, treatment or cure (because there is none). If you want to help someone with an autistic child, send them to the Autism Science Foundation or related site.
I think it was rather hostile of you to post that.
Hostile? You might want to look up the definition of that word.
I was trying to help the parents with a devastating situation on their hands.
Sending them to a person who has no science background is "helping"?
You, on the other hand, mister smart aleck.
Yes?
I see that nothing's changed. Been back for a few days and all I've been doing is fighting the same old anti-vax woo.
I guess a doctor's job is never done. ;-)
When I was growing up, retarded and mentally ill children were often placed in institutions for care. There is more of a push to keep these children in their families these days. If most of the genuine autistic children were institutionalized in the 60s, but the institutionalization rate has been dropping, of course you will run into more autistic children.
There is also a simple phenomenon whereby you begin noticing something only when your attention is drawn to it. Furthermore, with the use of prenatal testing, about 90% of the children having a developmental disorder with a known genetic basis (e.g. trisomy 21, 18, or 13) are aborted. So there just aren't as many children with developmental disorders these days, making the remaining ones stand out.
My point, said in a rather roundabout way, is that there are all kinds of reasons for increased perception of autism that don't equate to increased incidence of autism.
The problem is that autism as a diagnosis is deliberately broad. It can be a catch all for a LOT of diseases.
Last year, the federal government spent $218 million dollars on autism research. Note that the table makes two columns for 2009, 2010, and 2011 spending, to show that "stimulus" funding paid for some of the research.
That is more funding than quite a few other diseases receive. It appears to me that there is a great deal of "care" in determining what causes autism, and how to treat it.
bttt
In England and Wales, there were 495 diagnoses of Edwards' syndrome (trisomy 18) in 2008/2009, of which 92% were made prenatally. There were 339 terminations, 49 stillbirths/miscarriages/fetal deaths, 72 unknown outcomes, and 35 live births.
So abortion is not that rare.
I would agree that shifting more and more manufacturing overseas leads to real concerns about the quality of the products. This goes for agriculture products, as well.
I do not know what time frame you are talking about, when you say that your pediatrician wanted to use you as a guinea pig. I do know, however, that medical ethics is a developing field, and has come a long way since surgeons could get away with performing experiments on anesthetized patients without their knowledge or consent.
A researcher wanting to do research with human subjects these days has to submit a protocol to what is called the “Institutional Review Board,” and they judge the protocol on whether it meets the ethical standards first, and whether it is scientifically valid second. I have sat on some of these boards.
Assuming the protocol gets approval from the board, the researcher then must advertise the research in the form of a poster which includes the protocol number and approval date. The researcher can discuss the protocol with the patient, and must get a signed informed consent from the patient. If the patient is a child, then the parent must be informed of the research intent, benefits, and risks. Depending on the age of the child, the child can agree to participate in the research, as long as the parent gives the final permission.
Research is very heavily regulated, especially where it concerns children, persons of diminished mental capacity, and prisoners.
I should also add that the regulations regarding animal research are just as strict.
I think the severity of the syndrome depends on how much of the chromosome in question was triplicated. Trisomies 13 and 18 are more lethal than 21, but not all children die at or near birth with them. There is also a survivable trisomy of the sex chromosomes; any other trisomy is completely lethal.
I'm very sorry for your loss.
There are a number of neurological diseases that turn what appear to be healthy, normal children into deathly ill, developmentally delayed children. Sometimes, it's because toxins normally present in the body are not broken down and discarded as they would be in a normal child, leading to a toxic buildup and subsequent neurological damage. These are genetic disorders.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.