Oral Statement of Dr. Walter Spitzer, Emeritus Professor of Epidemiology - McGill Univ., at the Burton committee hearings in April, 2001:
| Speaking as an epidemiologist, there is an epidemic. It is not refutable on the evidence that is there. I am saying it, even though the great majority—except for one or two studies—they are all prevalence studies. A prevalence study is inexpensive and that is why one leans in that direction with the meek resources that are given for this kind of research. You need incidence to clearly demonstrate or refute an epidemic. And the one peer-reviewed published study that did incidence—which is a case study out of the Boston Collaborative Surveillance Unit at Boston University, based on the British data base—it is an incidence study and it shows an epidemic. It is a seven-fold increase. In California, you reported yourself, Mr. Chairman, that there are 700 new cases—which is incidence—in the past 3 months. Compared to the same seasonally adjusted period of 3 months 7 years ago, that is a 404 percent increase. That is an epidemic. In Ireland, just the day before yesterday, there is a three-fold in-crease in prevalence done in the last few months. And in Cambridge University, a study showed a 10-fold increase in prevalence. These are numbers that are not the basis upon which you question an epidemic. We have an epidemic of autism and I assert that, as an epidemiologist, with confidence. [Emphasis mine] |
There is simply no epidemic and no exponential rise.
The fact is that there is an increase, but most major institutions feel that it is related to better identification of children.
More importantly, children with autism in California are offered special gov't subsidies and gov't financed healthcare permanently. If a parent has a child in California who is diagnosed with autism, there is no longer any imperative to really diagnose the child. Autism is a poor diagnosis when there is failure to run the appropriate tests to identify the myriad of other conditions that mimic the disease.
Fortunately, most major pediatric centers are very thorough with their metabolic, neurologic, and endocrine evaluations.
I know one thing is for sure. Unless you are well experienced in the differential diagnosis of neurologic, metabolic, genetic, endocrine, and developmental pediatric disorders; you are totally unqualified to render these assumptions and decisions.
If you begin to render opinion on actual cases through this website, you should be cautious because you are stepping on the state laws on medical practice and on the federal laws on communication (FCC regulations).