Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. autism rate surges, CDC reports (1 in 68)

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 61 posts

Re: U.S. autism rate surges, CDC reports (1 in 68)

#51

Post by rogert »

insuffi wrote: post #7

Well, how about not diagnosing your kid with autism just because he's an uncontrollable little bastard, just to justify your bad parenting?(This includes ADD, ADHD, ASD). That should bring the stat down. Qualifier: not all obviously, but it has certainly become a way to remove personal responsibility as a parent.

Hah! I wish my autistic kid was merely spoiled and undisciplined. On the contrary like many autistic kids my kid is very quiet, too quiet, in fact doesn't even respond to pretty much anything going on in the area. I envy parents with spoiled kids, at least those kids can express a personality.

Re: U.S. autism rate surges, CDC reports (1 in 68)

#52

Post by sirmeowmeow »

mason240 wrote: post #25
cbhl wrote: post #2

> “It could be that doctors are getting better at identifying these children, there could be a growing number of children with high intelligence [who are autistic], or it could be both,” she said. The article doesn't mention that the DSM-5 went into force last year. The criteria for diagnosing Autism has changed since the DSM-IV, and this could also explain the jump in diagnoses. (This is alluded to with the line "Mi…

You comment hit on something that has been bothering me lately. If in order to be informed I have to trawl through multiple news aggregators to find comments with primary sources and information closer to the source, weigh the potential bias of those commentors, analyze their citations, then what roles does journalism even serve? To me they seem to be nothing more than conversation starters, leaving individuals to sp…

I think the problem is that it is up to the consumer to be discerning and reward sources who strive towards accuracy, while punishing bad sources with less attention.

Since the other consumers of whatever news source you are using aren't sufficiently sensitive or discriminating, your news source will thus suffer.

Re: U.S. autism rate surges, CDC reports (1 in 68)

#53

Post by fecak »

rogert wrote: post #46
fecak wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having seen a lot of children, including my own, (10 years old and unable to speak), I think you should do a little more research on the entire spectrum the disorder covers. This is one of the major problems with the autism community and the diagnosis. Someone who doesn't make eye contact and perhaps fixates on certain topics (maybe comp Sci) has the same diagnosis as my child who will require lifelong care and never…

As another parent of a child with autism who is barely verbal, I have to agree, this is not the same as Aspergers. In fact, I think you'll agree, we hope our kids will one day only be diagnosed with Aspergers! The problem with classifying autistic as "intelligent" and "obsessive" and "introverted" hides the truth that there are the other half of autistic people on the low-functioning end of the spectrum cannot live i…

This thread seems convinced that autism = intelligent and quirky. Maybe it is Rain Man, or the character on the show Parenthood or that other lawyer character (forget which show), or the prevalence of Asperger's in tech. People really don't seem to see it until it happens to them or their family.

As I've said elsewhere in this thread, when the CDC chooses to highlight (1) that 46% of these kids are average to above IQ, it says "don't worry". Why didn't the CDC choose to highlight "31% of these kids are severely impacted, unemployable, and will require lifelong care at an incredible expense to their families (financial and emotional) and taxpayers"? 46% is not even a majority, yet the CDC chose that group to mention as a highlight.

Why would the CDC make that choice?

Re: U.S. autism rate surges, CDC reports (1 in 68)

#54

Post by fecak »

ds9 wrote: post #45
userbinator wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having seen a lot of very successful, but somewhat autistic people working in tech (probably Asperger's), it seems a little strange to be classifying it as a "disorder"...

Many Asperger's people themselves have rejected the "disorder" label and ask to be thought of as different in a neutral, not necessarily bad way. For this reason they refer to non-Aspergers people as "neurotypical". This is reasonable in regard to high-functioning Aspies, but remember that ASD covers a wide range. I think it would be better to retain the separate label for Asperger's, because it is distinguished by n…

The neurodiverse crowd is an interesting case. Autism organizations find themselves getting criticized by them, with the stance that they "don't need fixing" - and they are correct. For those that autism is a gift, keep that gift. The people the groups are trying to help don't focus on the neurodiverse, but rather are focused on those.

If you have the ability to say "I don't need fixing" to the autism organizations, rest assured that they aren't referring to you.

Re: U.S. autism rate surges, CDC reports (1 in 68)

#55

Post by tdaltonc »

XorNot wrote: post #38
tdaltonc wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Autism isn't my field. But the Autism epidemiologists I've spoken to all think that in addition to those two trends ((1) better coverage, and (2) Shifting diagnostic baseline) there is still a underlying increase in symptom frequency and severity.

This is something I'd really want to see numbers on though, and not just a feeling, because those two issues are two of the biggest ways that humans - being poor statisticians - draw incorrect conclusions.

Actually this is exactly the kind of thing that I humbly defer to experts on. A dataset and a few hours in R couldn't get you to the truth of this question. It would take me a couple of years to figure out for myself if there is an underlying increase in the rate. I'd have to talk to a lot of doctors, personally deliver the diagnostic exams, get a feel for why this or that measure might disagree, etc. If you go looking I'm sure that you could find datasets and papers that purport to prove any possible conclusion. There are people who have earnestly done those years of inquiry, and I'm inclined to trust them.

Re: U.S. autism rate surges, CDC reports (1 in 68)

#56

Post by trothoun »

kenster07 wrote: post #36
mason240 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You comment hit on something that has been bothering me lately. If in order to be informed I have to trawl through multiple news aggregators to find comments with primary sources and information closer to the source, weigh the potential bias of those commentors, analyze their citations, then what roles does journalism even serve? To me they seem to be nothing more than conversation starters, leaving individuals to sp…

I think it is worth pointing out that for the vast majority of people, there still a level of 'belief' required for the modern science, not unlike the religions of old. There are very few laypeople equipped to think critically about, let alone verify, most scientific theories. As a result, they have to take it on faith that the "priests" (in today's world, scientists) are correct.

And even scientists can really only be be deeply familiar with the experimental basis for a few narrow fields of study. For all the rest, they too have to take it on faith.

Re: U.S. autism rate surges, CDC reports (1 in 68)

#57

Post by ds9 »

fecak wrote: post #54
ds9 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many Asperger's people themselves have rejected the "disorder" label and ask to be thought of as different in a neutral, not necessarily bad way. For this reason they refer to non-Aspergers people as "neurotypical". This is reasonable in regard to high-functioning Aspies, but remember that ASD covers a wide range. I think it would be better to retain the separate label for Asperger's, because it is distinguished by n…

The neurodiverse crowd is an interesting case. Autism organizations find themselves getting criticized by them, with the stance that they "don't need fixing" - and they are correct. For those that autism is a gift, keep that gift. The people the groups are trying to help don't focus on the neurodiverse, but rather are focused on those. If you have the ability to say "I don't need fixing" to the autism organizations,…

To be clear, I was only commenting on the neurodiversity thing in reply to the parent, not advocating for it. We agree that it is relevant for only a small percentile of ASD individuals.

And on second thought, it may make sense from a public health perspective to abandon labels for subtypes, unless the experts think the subtypes have different causes. But AFAIK the causes of ASD are unknown.

Re: U.S. autism rate surges, CDC reports (1 in 68)

#58

Post by indiv0 »

insuffi wrote: post #27
mchanson wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a very ungenerous/unkind position that many folks take when they don't know WTF they are talking about.

Right. Care to share the scientific details of how ASD/ADHD/ADD is classified, since you're such an expert? Abnormalities in a kid do not instantly indicate a disorder. Yet doctors are quick to prescribe adderall to the first person that comes in their office and claims they have "trouble concentrating".

Overprescription is of course a serious problem in the developed world, but that doesn't mean that doctors are using autism as a catch-all diagnosis.

There are specific, medical criteria which need to be met for a diagnosis, and these criteria are outlined in the DSM V [1]. These are the details on how the disorders are classified, since you asked.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-5#Neurodevelopmental_disor...

Re: U.S. autism rate surges, CDC reports (1 in 68)

#59

Post by fecak »

ds9 wrote: post #57
fecak wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The neurodiverse crowd is an interesting case. Autism organizations find themselves getting criticized by them, with the stance that they "don't need fixing" - and they are correct. For those that autism is a gift, keep that gift. The people the groups are trying to help don't focus on the neurodiverse, but rather are focused on those. If you have the ability to say "I don't need fixing" to the autism organizations,…

To be clear, I was only commenting on the neurodiversity thing in reply to the parent, not advocating for it. We agree that it is relevant for only a small percentile of ASD individuals. And on second thought, it may make sense from a public health perspective to abandon labels for subtypes, unless the experts think the subtypes have different causes. But AFAIK the causes of ASD are unknown.

Understood. I'd argue that the need for additional classifications is fairly evident just from the comments in this thread. Saying someone has 'autism' doesn't tell you much in terms of what level of care they may need - those who fall into the neurodiverse crowd may require no care and perhaps minimal supports, while some require lifelong care.

The burden on families and society is quite different for these groups, and further classifications are necessary. There are also several related health patterns (digestive, allergy, etc.) with many who are usually more severely impacted which will likely lead to more research on causes. Some advocate for an additional medical diagnosis instead of just referring to the neurological. Down the road there could be a separate diagnosis for those.

Re: U.S. autism rate surges, CDC reports (1 in 68)

#60

Post by tdaltonc »

fecak wrote: post #42
tdaltonc wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Autism isn't my field. But the Autism epidemiologists I've spoken to all think that in addition to those two trends ((1) better coverage, and (2) Shifting diagnostic baseline) there is still a underlying increase in symptom frequency and severity.

It has gone from 1:150 to 1:68 over about 10 years, and another study from last year (1) had the rate at 1:50. Saying that an increase this dramatic is based on changing diagnostic criteria and awareness seems disingenuous, and intended not to alarm the public. 1 http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/April-2013/CDC-Reports...

The sort of academics I'm talking about don't think about whether or not they'll alarm the public. They don't think of the public as their audience. Thier audience is other academics, and all that they care about is making conservative conclusions based on data.
Post reply on HN