Everyone intentionally misses the point, ALL of the previous studies and data are subject to a variety of interpretations. [emphasis added]

Now, I suppose that Dr. Gordon has some data to support his assertion that “everyone” (himself included, correct?) is intentionally missing the point? I’ll be waiting for that

I, for one, have been intentionally making a similar point: that the educational and social services “data” on autism prevalence are not sufficiently rigorous or consistent to make a valid comparison between this year and last year, let alone between this year and twenty years ago.

And I’ve been giving Dr. Gordon the benefit of the doubt by assuming that he was missing the point unintentionally.

No matter how loudly people shout at one another, honest people will still disagree.

“People” can be absolutely “honest” and still be dead wrong. I assume that the people involved in these “debates” are “honest” - to the extent that they are telling what they believe to be the truth. What I have said - over and over - is that telling “the truth” (as you perceive it) does not make you automatically correct.

Thirty years of observation in a clinical, reasonably busy pediatrics practice. Nobody else involved here, and not Dr. Offit or any of the other experts involved can contribute this perspective.

Nobody else can offer Dr. Gordon’s perspective, true enough, but some can offer as many years of pediatric practice and others - such as Dr. Offit - can offer as many years of specialty pediatric practice and research into the science of immunity. That is a perspective Dr. Gordon can’t offer.

You may consider my perspective and my experience anecdotal and/or worthless,…

Dr. Gordon’s perspectives and experiences are anecdotal, since he has not - so far as he has reported - gone back through his “experiences” and systematically looked for the data. If he had, I assume that he would have brought forth the data rather than his “interpretation” of his “experiences”.

Finally, I don’t consider Dr. Gordon’s perspective or experiences “worthless” - I just don’t value them as highly as he does.

Prometheus

Everyone intentionally misses the point, ALL of the previous studies and data are subject to a variety of interpretations.

Dr. Gordon,

The “data” (and I use the term loosely) presented in the slide I originally asked you about, suggest an interpretation that is completely without scientific merit, or logical basis, and is probably best represented by the term, “credulous”.

Perhaps you’d like to give that little logic problem a shot?

Your point about previous studies and data being subject to a variety of interpretations was not “intentionally” missed by me. I see your point, but find it completely without merit to support your argument so far.

No matter how loudly people shout at one another, honest people will still disagree.

Honesty and disagreement are irrelevant to scientific reality. One may be honest, and one may disagree, but neither guarantees a clue about autism epidemiology.

I offer only one thing to the discussion: Thirty years of observation in a clinical, reasonably busy pediatrics practice. Nobody else involved here, and not Dr. Offit or any of the other experts involved can contribute this perspective.

No offense Dr. Gordon, but this is one of the weakest appeals to authority I have ever seen. Appealing to your “exclusive” status (based on number of years worked) and indirectly including yourself as an “expert” is about as irrelevant an argument that can be made, unless you can show that your experience is scientifically relevant.

What scientfic knowledge has been uncovered and documented as a direct result of your experience? Please try to be as specific to autism as possible, and provide appropriate supporting references/citations.

You may consider my perspective and my experience anecdotal and/or worthless, but I still offer it to you.

I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, without declaring a priori worthlessness.

What scientfic knowledge have you uncovered and documented (or are in the process of documenting), and submitted for peer-review, as a direct result of your experience? Please be specific to autism, and provide appropriate citations for the readers.

I don’t deny having an agenda. My agenda is to ask everyone involved to look harder at vaccine formulations and schedules and change the way we do things in the best interests of children.

Do you think it is in the best interest of autistic children to suggest that they are part of an “epidemic” without actual scientific data to support such a claim?

I won’t leave it readers to glean such a perspective from my opinion about the numbers from your slide, I’ll also refer them to the following written by you.

Linked Article By Dr. Gordon

If you have actual scientific data that shows an autism “epidemic”, please feel free to present it. If you don’t, I’d suggest that a very core premise of your argument with respect to vaccines and autism is fatally flawed.

Not to worry though Dr. Gordon, this is easily remedied with actual evidence or errata.

Jay

This is where most of the increase is coming from. Note this does not mean that children who would have been given an MR diagnosis in the past are not now called autistic, but that increase is dwarfed by the rise in HFA and Aspergers.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_14.pdf

See the average life expectancy for males? What effect do you think this might have on the number of 78 year-olds who could be diagnosed as autistic? What do you know about the scientific study of utility of diagnosis?

Lorna Wing was a pioneer, way ahead of her time. She in fact suggested that prevalence could easily reach 1% if you combine those autistics with IQ less than 70 and those with IQ 70+ per Gillberg et al.

“It would be interesting to note how robust the combined figure of 1 in 500 for people with IQ less than 70 is, and whether the growth in prevalence amonst people with IQ greater than 70 is what is driving the growth in overall numbers.”

It would be interesting to note how robust the combined figure of 1 in 500 for people with IQ 70 is what is driving the growth in overall numbers.

BTW, Lotter (1967) found a prevalence of autism of 4.5 in 10,000.

Indeed Joseph, thank you.

Dr. Gordon, where did you get the 1-2 in 10,000?