OneMom

Time once again to shed light on the recent autism report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the ensuing alarms set off by the media and those who seek to benefit from the so-called crisis.

Before I continue, I write this in support of those families who actually have children with true autism, and in defense against those who place children on a spectrum and then claim to cure autism when those “cured” children never actually had autism in the first place.

The prevalent headline from the CDC’s latest report is that 1 in 88 children in the United States has autism – a 78% increase in 10 years.  That’s right, the headlines don’t say “1 in 88 children placed on autism spectrum”, they say “1 in 88 has autism”.

Here’s what the media failed to report from the CDC study:

The data provided in this report are subject to at least two limitations. First, increases in awareness and access to services have improved the ability of the ADDM Network to identify children with ASD over time, and this likely contributes to the increase in estimated prevalence. The proportion of the increase that is attributable to such changes in case ascertainment or attributable to a true increase in prevalence of ASD symptoms cannot be determined.

Second, the surveillance areas were not selected to be representative of the United States as a whole, nor were they selected to be representative of the states in which they are located.

So, while the media present the crisis that1 in 88 children have autism, the rest of the story is that the increase may be due to an expanded definition that is too broad and too loosely and liberally applied by people who have no professional license to make such diagnoses. And, oh by the way, the “data” collected cannot be considered representative of the entire US population or even in the regions where the collection sites are located.

This autism “epidemic” may come to an end or be greatly slowed in 2013 when the new DSM-V (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) is released. Even the CDC report mentions their concern (or is it a loss of funding that is the real concern):

Another important consideration for future analyses is the changing clinical definition of ASDs over time. Although the ADDM methods have always been based on the DSM-IV-TR (1) diagnostic criteria, proposed changes to the definition of Autism Spectrum Disorder in the forthcoming revised Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) might affect prevalence estimates and complicate temporal comparisons.

You can read the proposed new definition HERE. As mom to a child with a language disorder, I appreciate one line in the new criteria very much:

Delays in language are not unique nor universal in ASD and are more accurately considered as a factor that influences the clinical symptoms of ASD, rather than defining the ASD diagnosis.

Many people I encounter (professionals, parents, etc) believe that difficulty with language is the main criteria for a diagnosis of autism, so it is good to see that language will be a considered factor and not the foundation element for a diagnosis of autism. Perhaps this will help children and families dealing with real autism receive the services they so desperately need, and reduce the quack treatments claiming to cure autism. And maybe children who just need speech therapy will receive it without being entangled in the autism net.

OneMom

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2012Some Rights Reserved