It is a matter of faith that there is no epidemic. This is necessary for the pro-vax community since they have nothing to offer to replace vaccines as what caused the epidemic. It does not mean that there can be nothing else, but every time there is a mention of an autism epidemic and the pro-vax community says it can’t be vaccines, with nothing else to replace it vaccines rush back in to fill that void. Faith doesn’t make it.

Is the definition of the condition under scrutiny the same? If so, can we expect lesser or greater exposure if all other factors were the same?

Has the opportunity for exposure remained the same? If not, have services changed? If so, are they now more delineated or inclusive?

Would the person have had proper awareness of exposure at the time? Could they be motivated to remember otherwise?

That’s just a shortlist of questions to consider when reading opinion. McMasters or CASP can provide good templates for other critiques.

We need to consider all factors and not just jump to the conclusion that it must be increased incidence just because some guy took a straw poll one day.

I’ve worked with plenty of people whose care needs were met by a very small team of people, because that was the only people willing to do so. Now with the push for mainstreaming they get taken care of by their GP or down the local hospital, just like anyone else.

The question is why the exposure has changed, not wheter it has, as exposure would change for the reasons put forth by the autism community. Unless you can show that none of the other contributory factors have changed (tip : the general consensus in the autism field is that they have changed rather noticably) then your example is as much an arguement in favour of Dr Offit as it is against it.

I’ve not read False Prophets yet, but I strongly doubt Offit failed to provide references. It’s irrelevant anyway, he’s reporting consensus, not making it.

In Dr Chez book “Autism and its medical management”, he talks about a meeting with other pediatric neurologists. These are people who would recognize autism if they saw it. When asked who was treating autism 20(?) years before almost noone stood. When asked who is treating autism now, all stood.

I believe his testimony and I do not believe Dr. Offit who offered the theory in his False Prophets book without proof.

No, no paper planned on the specific question, but it is haunting me, lately. The university wants me retested and this neuro-psych team seems to think I can’t be HFA/autistic and be a student of rhetoric and philosophy. You know “autistic” means I can’t possibly deal with abstractions.

If I am “relabeled” it will be frustrating. It gets tiring to be categorized every few years. I went from remedial to gifted to “average” to gifted with ADDD… and so on… throughout school. The bouncing about has affected how I view the labels — unreliable and subjective.

Instructors do judge you by the labels. Peers also judge you. I guess I can’t help but wonder how the label changes influenced my parents over the years.

It is apparently okay to also be interested in science. The neuro-psych team seemed to approve of my scientific pursuits, as if that fit with “ASD.” It’s as if they have a template I need to match.

Changing criteria, changing “rates” of autism. We’re a moving target, I guess.

It is niave to believe that several legions of relevantly qualified and experienced professionals would merely accept the ‘diagnostics’ idea just on someones say so. It is also niave to believe that claim is made without evidence, especially as some of that same evidence is what led to the diagnoistic criteria being what they are now.

It is incredibly niave to believe that the social and institutional changes – most noticably the drive to mainstream special needs children – have had no impact on their appearance in mainstream schools. Certainly, some of the older clients I work with would never have been mainstreamed at all, yet some of the younger clients are assisted to go to college (high school) and some eventually go to onto Uni (college) with support.

This matches my experience with dyslexia exactly – less than 10 or so out of a 600+ school in the early 90’s, yet I’m now in contact with twice that number, most only being assessed in adulthood regardless of being fresh from A-levels or being parents of teenagers.

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head as to why the anti-vax idea still has support – people simply won’t pay any attention to the evidence against them. Environmental issues may play a factor in autism , but to deny that the diagnostics have radically changed and improved is not just niave but is actually quite stupid.

This is why claims from personal experience hold little validity – anyone can claim anything, especially if they retrospectively attribute skills of perception and comprehensive experience to themselves. Your experience is exactly what you should expect it to be regardless of wheter it’s ‘diagnostics’ or ‘epidemic’.

“Rhetorical implications”—-paper you’re working on?

Do you think the “label” matters to your understanding of Charlie as your son? I don’t mean that to sound rude or offensive — I am trying to consider the “rhetorical implications” (uhg) of the word “autistic” as experienced by parents.

I know the label matters in terms of what I can or cannot provide to students. Labels determine access to extra help, even at the university level. But, labels seem fluid, ever changing as we learn more about the mind. What is “autistic” today might be three or four different things in two decades.