Reply to Measles Outbreak

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Measles Outbreak "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
Yes, the rates of diagnosis of developmental issues like autism went up roughly around when countries had more money or assistance to invest in healthcare infrastructure, including vaccination. As those resources were becoming more abundant, the stigmatization of mental illness was going down, health literacy was going up, and there were more financial resources for things like early intervention in schools, so a diagnosis wasn't merely pointing fingers.

This isn't surprising to some people.

For others, they say things like "nobody has provided any alternative medical explanation!" as if this had not been discussed, and discussed ad nauseum. [/quote]

Are you arguing that the rate of autism is actually consistent over time, but diagnostic criteria changing is the only reason we have more autism now?

Would you use that same argument on something like peanut allergies?[/quote]

Hey, guess what a peanut allergy has that a clinical diagnosis does not?[/quote]

So you're saying the rise in peanut allergies aren't real either? What on earth are you trying to say? [/quote]

Do you understand what the term "clinical diagnosis" means?[/quote]

DP who is anti-measles and pro-measles-vaccination. I will admit that I don't actually know the answer to the question "what does a peanut allergy have that a clinical diagnosis does not?" I swear I'm not being bad-faith obtuse here. I'd genuinely like to know the answer, and to understand the bigger picture of what you're saying. [/quote]

My apologies.

There is an increase in peanut allergies. There are probably multiple reasons for this, but the increase is real, as can be demonstrated in laboratory testing.

Autism is a clinical diagnosis. That means it is based on history and physical examination. It's a clinical judgment call, and the changing criteria make a big difference in diagnosis rate. You also may get two clinicians disagreeing, and unlike with a peanut allergy, there isn't an objective gold standard test to rule one way or the other. So I would not "use that same argument on something like peanut allergies" because it is a different diagnostic pathway.[/quote]

I'm still having a hard time pinning down what you are saying. [B]So are you saying that Autism is more or less constant in presentation over time, but because of more inclusive diagnostic criteria, the numbers are increasing? [/B]

If that is what you are saying, then I would disagree with that for a number of reasons. One being that if it were only increasing because of criteria, then the rate should increase more or less in stair-step fashion. Being that every change in criteria leads to a sudden reclassification of cases, and then stasis within that criteria. But that's not what we see with autism, we see the rate going up year after year, even when no criteria has changed between those years. [/quote]

No.

I think I may have some greater understanding of whatever thought process is going on here, though.[/quote]

This is not how that works. Most disease including autism are based on a liability threshold model. Above a certain threshold you have the disease and below the threshold you don’t.Highly polygenic behavioral traits typically follow a normal distribution curve. Lowering the diagnostic threshold creates a non-linear increase in the number of people diagnosed. Here’s an example of how diagnostic rates could change dramatically with no change in the underlying prevalence of the disease. I’m 1970s/1980’s 1/5,000 kids were diagnosed with autism. Assume during this time period awareness was very low and only 2% of people had ever heard of this disorder and would pursue testing if the kid were having issues. The diagnostic criteria were more stringent and only 1/100 kids meet the criteria. The diagnosed incidence if this autism would be 1/5000. Now today awareness is much higher and 75% of people have heard of autism and would be willing to test their kids for It if there are behavioral issues. The diagnostic criteria has also become more permissive to cover people with milder austistic behavioral tendencies. Now 1/25 kids meet the criteria for autism. The population frequency of this diagnosis would 1/33 today. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics