CDC finds spike in Autism rate -- DUH!

In an article entitled, "CDC finds 1 of 110 U.S. kids is on autism spectrum," Delthia Ricks reports that "[a]n estimated 1 in 110 children in the United States has an autism spectrum disorder, according to a new government analysis. The rate amounts to a 57 percent increase in the developmental disorder since federal investigators' last assessment in 2002.

If the new rate is correct, then 1 percent of the nation's children now have any one of the conditions that are classified as autism. . . .

The report revealed once again that there is a higher prevalence of autism in boys than girls. The new data also show a fivefold increase of autism in boys, whose rate of autism by gender is 1 in 70. The rate for girls, the CDC found, is 1 in 315.

The CDC's last prevalence study was in 2002 when it concluded the rate of autism was 1 in 150."

[By the way, did I mentioned that I did a SEPTA presentation many months ago at which I stated that the then estimated number of cases (1 in 150) was low, and that based upon reports I had read, the number could be upwards of one in 90? One of the parents at the meeting nearly took my head off when I said this. Unfortunately, my information was correct.]

The article then repeats the old debate about whether the increase is due to a genuine increase in the number of those afflicted or just "more" or "better" diagnosis of the disorder.

This is the same ridiculous debate that followed the 2002 study. The claim, initially, by the medical community, was that the increased numbers were the result of both a more inclusive change in the definition of "autism" and better diagnosis of the issue. It had nothing to do with any kind of environmental insult (for example, thimerosal containing vaccines).

However, those weak attempts to downplay the increased incidence of autism did not stand up to scrutiny, and soon the CDC admitted that there must be some environmental factor that was responsible, at least in part, for the dramatically increased numbers.

Still, there is NOTHING in this latest article that talks about any environmental changes over the past decade that might be linked to the new numbers.

You know what I find really interesting? The focus of the study was children who were 8 by the close of 2006. That means that even if manufacturers really did voluntarily stop using thimerosal in their vaccines in 2001, these kids were all fully exposed.