Study Says 1 Out of Every 91 Kids Has Autism Spectrum Disorder
By now you’ve likely heard about the new Autism study out today in Pediatrics.
It’s
a solid study that adds great value to the Autism landscape. To help
clarify questions raised by the study, the American Academy of
Pediatrics has put together a very comprehensive Q&A that is worth checking out.
What’s
important to understand about this study is that it represents an
evolving understanding of the entire field of Autism. Keep in mind that
Autism is not just one condition but a spectrum of disorders. It can be
very difficult to diagnose and the goal over the last few years has
been to attempt to screen children as young as 18 months and intervene
as early as possible with behavioral modalities. This is the type of
condition where early identification and intervention does make a huge
difference.
So, has there been a true increase in Autism, as
the study suggests? Maybe, may be not. Because of our better
understanding of Autism and our better screening tests, we are
certainly picking up more kids at younger ages. Whether this is a true
increase in rate we don’t know yet but we do know we are doing a better
job in identifying kids who may have Autism, and that is very
important.
And, it’s equally important we remember that not
all children initially diagnosed with Autism actually have it. The
study notes that 38% who are initially diagnosed with Autism “lose the
diagnosis over time.” I can think of 2 reasons for this.
1.
Our diagnostic criteria are constantly evolving so some kids stop
meeting the criteria for Autism but are found to actually have other
behavioral disorders.
2. Our screening tests for Autism are
working as they should. A good screening test will always pull in kids
who on further testing are found to not have the test they are screened
for but have something else.
For either of this situations,
this is still good news for these 38% of children because they are
still identified as having a behavioral issue that needs pursuing and
intervention. That’s significant even if the final diagnosis turns out
not to be Autism.
More studies will need to be conducted to
tease out where we truly are in numbers but studies like this help us
see that we are making progress in a very confusing situation.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
I think news media coverage of autism has greatly impacted our understanding or misunderstanding of autism. While I'm not expert on autism, and do not have an autistic child, I think its obvious that there has been a lot of speculation and misinformation surrounding autism. Like many other have said- if anything studies such as these are important to gain awareness about autism and hopefully secure more funding for research in the future. For a good recap of this issue, and to see how its been recently covered by the media check this out: http://www.newsy.com/videos/autism_on_the_rise
One of the places that I serve is a Group Home for clients that are identified as being autistic . There are four adolescent clients/consumers in the home. Two are not autistic. This is based on prior diagnoses. However, all four would count in a census of who is autistic in the world/USA. One has a confirmed diagnosis (medically/physiologically) of Citrulinemia, and the other has a confirmed (genetically) diagnosis of Smith-Magennis Syndrome. Pediatricians should know that Citrulinemia is a urea cycle disorder that, caught early enough, can be treated without an excess of ill effects. Smith-Magennis Syndrome is another story. I first met that person when he was six years old and no one thought that anything was wrong with him. In both cases, there are behaviors that present as autistic characteristics. Treating each strictly as autism would be inappropriate. I am glad that I deal with the behaviors rather than the diagnoses. However, I'd bet that one could find lots of folks who should not have a primary diagnosis of autism.
The increased identification of autism generates loads of money , publicity, and pity.
Autism, if detected early and treated can be
reduced/minimized so that a child can develope
and mature without being condemned to a life of
abnormal stimulation, confusion, etc...We can
fix or control other disorders and deformities;
why not autism ?..Aaron Allen..
What we can do for a disorder depends on how well it is understood. Most disorders (such as Downs Syndrome) can only be treated, not fixed.
The mechanism behind ASD is still not well understood, though there is strong evidence to support a genetic origin. Counseling and other focused does help develop people with ASD, but it really is not a 'cure'
A book that I recently read, "The Neurobiology of Autism" Second Edition, edited by Margaret L. Bauman, MD and Thomas L. Kemper MD and published by Johns Hopkins University Press has an entire section on this containing seven chapters. The introductory chapter states that there are at least 15 DIFFERENT genes that appear to have something to do with genetic susceptibility to autism . That is a big number, huh? Those of you who are sophisticated enough to understand ought to know that genes do not guarantee that someone will inherit anything. Those of you who are sophisticated ( education and training) enough to know are also aware that methylation causes changes in gene and chromosomal structure. Most of the impact of this is associated with the environment . Geez, is nothing sacred anymore? How do you tell the difference between a male and female chromosome? Easy (not!). You just pull down their genes.
Hi Mr Book: I agree with you that there is not
really a 'cure' but early detection and treatme
nt/therapy can make a great differece in a pers
on's life--who wants an undiagnosed and neglect
ed childhood, adolescence and adult life under
such a curse as autism ?..Many victims can help
themselves [when the learn 'what is wrong' with
them] and learn methods of coping with overstim
ulation, bright lights, excessive noise, etc...
I notice now that some TV programs and films po
st the warning, "contains bright light-flashes,
noise, etc. [like warnings about visuals, langu
age, situations]. I wonder if someone who is en
lightened and informed about autism and similar
disorders is in charge?..Aaron Allen..
Autism is most likely an evolutionary mutation, not a disorder. Why do some people think they can or should try to cure people of the process of evolution ? Doesn't that smack just a bit of prescriptive eugenics?
The traits associated with autism have been around a VERY long time, thus so too have the genes involved been in the human gene pool a very long time... and they're not being eliminated! If anything, they are becoming more prevalent, if "studies" like the one quoted here are to be believed.
Why is that? Why aren't the traits disappearing? Could it possibly be that not ALL the traits expressed by those genes are actually an evolutionary advantage? Could it possibly be that some of them are actually advantageous to success? If we "cure" autism by excising the responsible genes, don't we also risk excising those advantageous traits from the gene pool as well? Can we really afford to lose a tendencies toward advanced reasoning, problem solving, and ability to focus narrowly on one subject over a lifetime? Would we have missed some of the great breakthroughs in science and mathematics if we had succeeded in curing autism centuries ago?
Certainly not every expression of these genes in individuals is identical, and there is often some yang to endure along with the advantageous yin. However, isn't that really the same challenge faced by EVERY living creature: to learn to use its strengths to its best advantage and cope with its weaknesses? How about we simply help people with that process rather than trying to "cure" the evolutionary process that made them unique in the first place?
Attempting to "cure" autism is EUGENICS. Is our knowledge of ourselves, our brains, and our bodies so advanced that we can reasonably take prescriptive control of our own evolution and do a good job of it, like we've been doing such a good job managing our environment ?
This is a case where the cure might actually be far worse than the "disorder". As a high-functioning autistic person myself, I quite frankly view my fellow neurotypical humans as the ones who deserve to be called "disordered". How about you let autistic people themselves declare their own status, rather than having that declaration and diagnosis forced upon them by the tyranny of the neurotypical majority?
Being the father of two girls with autism , and a likely sufferer myself, I can well feel the need to "Help" our children through any means necessary. However, I do think that those who are to be "helped" need to be involved in the decision making process. I can not decide for my 19 year old daughter what she may or may not do. However, in the recent Auton case conducted in B. C., and ultimately the Supreme Court of Canada, it is interesting that the court decided that the participation of Autistics was to be prevented. To me that says the problem is not one of Eugenics, but is rather a condition of human rights.
For most, we have the right to decide. We even debate the right of those in extreme pain or decrepetude the right to decide their own lives. They have a chance to be involved in that discussion and may even create living wills. But anyone classed as an Autistic can not in any way be involved in a case that is clearly trying to determine their right to choose their own lives.
Michelle Dawson and others have been far more elequent than I, but it really is time that autistic people were no longer discriminated against. Not in terms of having vast sums of money to support questionable services. Rather, they need to be able to participate in the decisions and actions the determine their lives.
The link you posted does not link to the actual questions used in the telephone interviews. Also, telephone interviews are not reliable sources for studies. The CDC study is far more representative in that it actually looked at medical records from a fairly large population. It's a testimony to the ineptitude of the press that studies like this consistently make the headlines .
I place more credence in the comments by Rashi18. It appears that he has at least had first hand professional experience with the issue.
I am a psychologist with over 30 years of experience. My primary field of practice has been pediatric. I have worked in schools and private practice. For the past four years, I have worked with children under three years old. I am a member of the National Honor Psychology for Psychology, and have been president of my state School Psychology Association. I guess that this qualifies me as a sort of expert.
I have seen mental health fads come and go. The biggest debacle in my honest professional opinion has been the over medication of children for ADHD, with subsequent finds that these children may be Bipolar, or have sleep disorders. I generally regard my mental health brethren with a healthy grain of salt, and have still managed to keep my blood pressure down.
Now, as to autism spectrum disorders. There has been a huge increase in referrals for this disorder, primarily because of advertising. The questions exists about whether we need to turn a deaf (or at least partially hearing impaired) ear to Autism Speaks. Some research indicates that many of those identified as autistic today, would simply have been identified as being language impaired years ago.
Part of the problem with autism is related to impaired social skills. I think that we should leave that one alone (lol). During my job, I make home visits. I'd say that over 90% of the homes that I visit have a television on and a child standing or sitting within a foot of the 32 inch to 60 inch flat screen. They are not interacting with people. The television is the newest social milieu. That is something needs to be severely curtailed. The fact that the American Academy of Pediatricians recommends no television or a maximum of an hour of television per day for the small kiddos has not made it into the world.
There are issues of chemical causation or attachment disorders. Attachment disorders in very small children can resemble an autism spectrum disorder.
Final conclusion - The epidemiological statement that 1 in 91 children is born with autism is ill-considered. Get to work on the cause of autistic behavior (not all of which is directly physical). Teach adults how to parent again.