Anonymous wrote:OMG, how dense are you?

The 1 in 45 number is an estimate and comes from survey of parents. Part of which had a doctor ever diagnosed your child with autism.

Again, it's finding is similar to a survey that S. Korea found:
"Studies in Asia, Europe, and North America have identified individuals with ASD with an average prevalence of about 1%. A study in South Korea reported a prevalence of 2.6%."
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/developmentaldisabilities/features/birthdefects-dd-keyfindings.html

The 1 in 68 number is also an estimate and from the following CDC report
http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2014/p0327-autism-spectrum-disorder.html

"The surveillance summary report, “Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorder among Children Aged 8 Years – Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 11 Sites, United States, 2010,” was published today in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Researchers reviewed records from community sources that educate, diagnose, treat and/or provide services to children with developmental disabilities. The criteria used to diagnose ASDs and the methods used to collect data have not changed."

Again both numbers are ESTIMATES not DIAGNOSES. (So it's possible at one point a parent may have been told this and it turns out the child isn't.) The CDC is trying to collect helpful data on how many people are diagnosed as autistic and what services they'll utilize. This is a bit of a moving target, but every time they do a survey it's not some trumped up conspiracy. No one's "cooking the books."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why assume that the shift in labeling from other things to ASD is comprehensively incorrect, or bad? The history of this field is the slow realization that Kanner was wrong, and autism is not at all rare. Kids who in past generations would have been labeled as intellectually disabled, or with childhood schizophrenia, are now diagnosed as autistic. That's not a bad thing, inherently. Nor is it terrible that we now understand that some kids who would have been considered just really weird in my youth actually have mild autism. This is an advance in our understanding, not a collapse of previously coherent and correct categories.

If they lump everything together as "autism" then kids won't get the proper help they need.

No. It's how the laws for coverage are written. They get the early intervention services they need; it just may not be autism in the end.

How do you have a SN kid and not understand this?

It's because I have a SN kid that I understand this. When my son was under the DD label he got the proper services. When they started trying to label him with autism, then everything derailed quickly. Same exact thing happened to almost all the parents I know in our support groups.

School labels are not the same thing as a medical diagnosis. There are only 13 categories by law under which you can get an IEP. Lobby to change the law and stop the pointless bitching about how your kid was given the "wrong label."

But this is the point: apparently the CDC numbers are based in a survey that asks parents if their kid was ever diagnosed with autism. But if these are not actually valid medical disgnoses, just incorrect labels driven by law and policy, that is very very different from some kind of change in actual autism rates.

No, the OP quoted a parent survey. The CDC estimate of 1 in 68 is based on USAGE of early intervention services under the autism label. All this really means is that more kids are getting access to services early and that early intervention makes a difference. Not that they're necessarily autistic or more kids actually have autism.

Every time the autism conspirator posts, these same issues are pointed out. If you really don't understand how the CDC came up with it's number ask your pediatrician, ST or other trusted provider in your kid's life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why assume that the shift in labeling from other things to ASD is comprehensively incorrect, or bad? The history of this field is the slow realization that Kanner was wrong, and autism is not at all rare. Kids who in past generations would have been labeled as intellectually disabled, or with childhood schizophrenia, are now diagnosed as autistic. That's not a bad thing, inherently. Nor is it terrible that we now understand that some kids who would have been considered just really weird in my youth actually have mild autism. This is an advance in our understanding, not a collapse of previously coherent and correct categories.

If they lump everything together as "autism" then kids won't get the proper help they need.

No. It's how the laws for coverage are written. They get the early intervention services they need; it just may not be autism in the end.

How do you have a SN kid and not understand this?

It's because I have a SN kid that I understand this. When my son was under the DD label he got the proper services. When they started trying to label him with autism, then everything derailed quickly. Same exact thing happened to almost all the parents I know in our support groups.

School labels are not the same thing as a medical diagnosis. There are only 13 categories by law under which you can get an IEP. Lobby to change the law and stop the pointless bitching about how your kid was given the "wrong label."

But this is the point: apparently the CDC numbers are based in a survey that asks parents if their kid was ever diagnosed with autism. But if these are not actually valid medical disgnoses, just incorrect labels driven by law and policy, that is very very different from some kind of change in actual autism rates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why assume that the shift in labeling from other things to ASD is comprehensively incorrect, or bad? The history of this field is the slow realization that Kanner was wrong, and autism is not at all rare. Kids who in past generations would have been labeled as intellectually disabled, or with childhood schizophrenia, are now diagnosed as autistic. That's not a bad thing, inherently. Nor is it terrible that we now understand that some kids who would have been considered just really weird in my youth actually have mild autism. This is an advance in our understanding, not a collapse of previously coherent and correct categories.

If they lump everything together as "autism" then kids won't get the proper help they need.

No. It's how the laws for coverage are written. They get the early intervention services they need; it just may not be autism in the end.

How do you have a SN kid and not understand this?

It's because I have a SN kid that I understand this. When my son was under the DD label he got the proper services. When they started trying to label him with autism, then everything derailed quickly. Same exact thing happened to almost all the parents I know in our support groups.

School labels are not the same thing as a medical diagnosis. There are only 13 categories by law under which you can get an IEP. Lobby to change the law and stop the pointless bitching about how your kid was given the "wrong label."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why assume that the shift in labeling from other things to ASD is comprehensively incorrect, or bad? The history of this field is the slow realization that Kanner was wrong, and autism is not at all rare. Kids who in past generations would have been labeled as intellectually disabled, or with childhood schizophrenia, are now diagnosed as autistic. That's not a bad thing, inherently. Nor is it terrible that we now understand that some kids who would have been considered just really weird in my youth actually have mild autism. This is an advance in our understanding, not a collapse of previously coherent and correct categories.

If they lump everything together as "autism" then kids won't get the proper help they need.

The idea that Kanner was "wrong" is a fallacy. It's not to say that our understanding of conditions doesn't change, but throwing a lazy label on everybody doesn't get to the bottom of how to treat children -- and prevent autism, which many people want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why assume that the shift in labeling from other things to ASD is comprehensively incorrect, or bad? The history of this field is the slow realization that Kanner was wrong, and autism is not at all rare. Kids who in past generations would have been labeled as intellectually disabled, or with childhood schizophrenia, are now diagnosed as autistic. That's not a bad thing, inherently. Nor is it terrible that we now understand that some kids who would have been considered just really weird in my youth actually have mild autism. This is an advance in our understanding, not a collapse of previously coherent and correct categories.

If they lump everything together as "autism" then kids won't get the proper help they need.

No. It's how the laws for coverage are written. They get the early intervention services they need; it just may not be autism in the end.

How do you have a SN kid and not understand this?

It's because I have a SN kid that I understand this. When my son was under the DD label he got the proper services. When they started trying to label him with autism, then everything derailed quickly. Same exact thing happened to almost all the parents I know in our support groups.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why assume that the shift in labeling from other things to ASD is comprehensively incorrect, or bad? The history of this field is the slow realization that Kanner was wrong, and autism is not at all rare. Kids who in past generations would have been labeled as intellectually disabled, or with childhood schizophrenia, are now diagnosed as autistic. That's not a bad thing, inherently. Nor is it terrible that we now understand that some kids who would have been considered just really weird in my youth actually have mild autism. This is an advance in our understanding, not a collapse of previously coherent and correct categories.

If they lump everything together as "autism" then kids won't get the proper help they need.

No. It's how the laws for coverage are written. They get the early intervention services they need; it just may not be autism in the end.

How do you have a SN kid and not understand this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why assume that the shift in labeling from other things to ASD is comprehensively incorrect, or bad? The history of this field is the slow realization that Kanner was wrong, and autism is not at all rare. Kids who in past generations would have been labeled as intellectually disabled, or with childhood schizophrenia, are now diagnosed as autistic. That's not a bad thing, inherently. Nor is it terrible that we now understand that some kids who would have been considered just really weird in my youth actually have mild autism. This is an advance in our understanding, not a collapse of previously coherent and correct categories.

If they lump everything together as "autism" then kids won't get the proper help they need.

Anonymous wrote:Why assume that the shift in labeling from other things to ASD is comprehensively incorrect, or bad? The history of this field is the slow realization that Kanner was wrong, and autism is not at all rare. Kids who in past generations would have been labeled as intellectually disabled, or with childhood schizophrenia, are now diagnosed as autistic. That's not a bad thing, inherently. Nor is it terrible that we now understand that some kids who would have been considered just really weird in my youth actually have mild autism. This is an advance in our understanding, not a collapse of previously coherent and correct categories.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the CDC is basing its numbers at least in part on educational diagnoses of autism by schools, despite the fact that those are not actually medical diagnoses? That explains a lot.

The survey is for parents not schools so it's the parents perception of what is going on more than anything else.

Anonymous wrote:So the CDC is basing its numbers at least in part on educational diagnoses of autism by schools, despite the fact that those are not actually medical diagnoses? That explains a lot.