CDDS Autism Caseload Q1 2007
April 17, 2007 by Do'C 
Printer-Friendly Version
Data for the CDDS 3-5 year-old autism caseload cohort became available today. The caseload has changed from 6348 at the end of Q4 in 2006, to 6533 at end of Q1 in 2007.
What more can really be said about this? (If you’re a new reader, there is additional information and links to other resources here, or at the link to the left “California: CDDS Q3 2006 Autism Data”).
Open comments thread if anyone is still interested in discussing these numbers from California. David?
21 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed, see "Comments/Contact" under "About".
Comment by Another Autism Mom — 17 April, 2007 @ 6:42 pm
My son is one of them!
Comment by Lurker Mom — 17 April, 2007 @ 8:20 pm
Another Autism Mom,
Can you tell us how much mercury your child received in his vaccines?
Thanks
LM
Comment by Lurker Mom — 17 April, 2007 @ 8:41 pm
For any of you EoHarm members who are still visiting here, I have a question. And if any of you are in contact with Mark Blaxill, I’d love to have his response to this graph. In my first letter to Do’C, I quoted Mark Blaxill as saying that the autism/thimerosal hypothesis was testable. Here’s another quote from Mark Blaxill on abmd, from an even earlier time, March 23, 2003.
____
“Absolutely, I have considered this. I track every shred of epi data I can get my hands on. I have also done a fair bit more than just the California chart. The situation for mercury exposure is a lot trickier, though. Remember that the policy shift announced in 1999 was to move away from thimerosal-containing vaccines, but there was no recall. So every thimerosal-containing vaccine already in inventory at that point was used up over the next few years. We have no idea how many months (or years) of inventory was still in the pipeline. So tracing the actual run down of mercury exposure is next to impossible with only public information.
The other tricky part is the time lag in autism survey data. Say for argument’s sake that the first birth year to receive the benefits of less mercury exposure was the cohort born in 2000. Now assume that the autism rate for this group will be reduced due to the lower exposure, when will be able to see the effect? Well, since autism takes at least three years to get diagnosed and ovre five to get fully ascretained, the earliest year you might even get a hint of a new trend would be 2004.
So we’re in the early days in all this. And we’ll need better instruments to test all this than the simple stuff that I did. But I’d sure be willing to place a bet on the outcome”
___
So Mark, you were expecting to get a hint of a new trend in 2004. It’s 2007 now. But it doesn’t look like a downward trend to me.
LM
Comment by Kev — 18 April, 2007 @ 4:04 am
So let me see….CDDS data still pointing up, mercury in vaccines at a level of 1.9% and dwindling since 2001.
Mr Kirby?
Comment by 666sigma — 18 April, 2007 @ 6:32 am
And your point is?
Let me take a wild guess. You are finally admitting that CDDS data for the 3-5 age group is no longer undercounting the prevalence of ASD by 50%. Right?
And, of course, we both know that the prevalence rate will continue to climb nationwide passed the 1:94 rate shown in New Jersey so CA’s got another 30% continued rise in its case count automatically built in. These case counts won’t go down for years.
Unfortunately, this data does not prove or disprove the mercury hypothesis. You only proved that Kirby is an idiot.
Comment by Do'C — 18 April, 2007 @ 9:22 am
To share the data and graph. If you’re not interested, go away.
The New Jersey 1:94 rate is for ALL ASD’s (Apples). Remember, CDDS data is not supposed to include PDD-NOS and Asperger’s - which make up the majority of ASD’s. (Oranges).
Without adminstrative changes or changes in population trends, is there some reason to think caseload should decrease in the future?
On second thought, don’t answer.
I’d suggest a long-term leveling trend as more likely.
I agree. It’s pretty much useless for anything other than proving current caseload.
I’d also add that “disproving” the Thimerosal hypothesis is neither required, nor a function of science. The burden of proof is on supporters of the hypothesis to show that it is true. But we’ve been over that so many times, in and off the comments of this blog, that I’ve lost interest in discussing it with you any further.
You’re entitled your opinion.
Comment by Prometheus — 18 April, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
If the “rise” is autism numbers is not due to administrative issues - changing definitions, greater awareness, etc. - and is due to some sort of “toxic exposure”, then the continuing rise in CDDS “autism” numbers would mean the following:
[1] Whatever is causing the rise in autism is still out there - and continuing to rise.
[2] Whatever is causing the rise in autism is not:
[a] thimerosal - exposure has declined since 2000
[b] mercury - enviromental exposure has declined since the 1960’s
[c] vaccines - exposure has been fairly steady since the 1990’s; certainly not rising as fast or as steadily as the autism rates
The US Census Bureau estimated that there were 1,531,000 children between the ages of 3 and 5 years in California as of January 2007, so the Cal. CDDS numbers mean that 1 in 230 children aged 3 - 5 years were autistic (not PDD-NOS or ASD, since the Cal CDDS “autism” category excludes those diagnoses).
So, if you believe that the Cal CDDS numbers represent some sort of reality in the world of autism, then you have to admit that thimerosal and mercury can’t cause autism.
If, on the other hand, the continuing rise in the Cal CDDS “autism” numbers are some sort of administrative “glitch” or a function of increased awareness and shifting diagnostic criteria, then the evidence for the “autism epidemic” has just vanished.
Cognitive dissonance: what happens when your vision of reality runs into reality itself…and shatters.
Prometheus
Comment by 666sigma — 18 April, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
It’s good to see some honesty.
Kirby’s hypothesis that the CDDS case count for the age 3-5 group should start dropping by 2007 is based on a faulty premise. These numbers will continue to rise for several years to come, regardless of the thimerosal content in vaccines. At best, they would start to increase at a decreasing rate. They only way they could drop is if mercury were THE cause.
I did not read EoH. I have no desire. But I do find the CDC’s and IOM’s behavior on thimerosal and vaccines more than a little strange.
Comment by Lurker Mom — 18 April, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
666 Sigma,
I don’t see your point. You think that autism is caused by? For clearly you have a hypothesis in mind that you are just dying to share.
LM
Comment by 666sigma — 19 April, 2007 @ 6:10 am
“So, if you believe that the Cal CDDS numbers represent some sort of reality in the world of autism, then you have to admit that thimerosal and mercury can’t cause autism.”
This is not necessarily true. The trend is clearly a result of better diagnosis since it was severely undercounted in the past. Only now does the actual count come close to representing an accurate number.
“For clearly you have a hypothesis in mind that you are just dying to share.”
I think autism is like cancer. There is not just one cause. Lumping the spectrum under one umbrella is a joke. No different than lumping cancer into one category. Clearly, genes play a role. Identical twins prove that genes don’t explain 100% of the disease. It clearly involves numerous genes and, in some cases, it seems to involve mutations that are not present in either parent.
I do believe that ultimately we will find out that inflammation plays a role in some forms of autism. I am not convinced that vaccines don’t play a role.
I do not believe that the vast majority of kids diagnosed today would have been diagnosed 10-15 years ago so the long term outcome is much better than the historic figures show. Kids have been “recovering” or “cured” for years because we never knew or thought anything was wrong. They simply grew up and learned to cope like everyone else.
Comment by Another Autism Mom — 19 April, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
Lurker Mom, as far as I’ve researched, my son wouldn’t have had any thimerosal in his vaccines (2003 and after). And I suppose his flu shots did not contain thimerosal either, being a pediatric vaccine in California (but I might be wrong).
I don’t think he became autistic due to his vaccinations because he displayed symptoms early on, such as restlessness/hyperactivity since he was a little baby; not pointing at 12 months (before MMR and flu shot), and not paying attention when we tried to read books to him, hated toothbrushing and having his nails or hair cut, hated when the doctor touched his head or ear. I didn’t see any regression on him.
I can’t imagine any toxic exposure during my pregnancy either. I was very careful and took folic acid even before I conceived.
I’m more inclined to believe that my son’s autism is just written on his genes. My father’s side of the family has some individuals in the spectrum (undiagnosed), while my husband’s family has a strong history of anxiety, depression and ADHD.
Recently my family participated in the CHARGE study (that investigates possible environmental causes for autism besides genetics in California) and I can tell you they are looking for an EXTENSIVE list of possible culprits, stuff from our everyday life that would be basically impossible to avoid (or not, had we known), so I’m curious to see if they’ll arrive to some concrete answers.
Comment by Lurker Mom — 19 April, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
Thank you, Another Autism Mom.
LM (yet another Autism Mom)
Comment by Kev — 20 April, 2007 @ 1:54 am
“Unfortunately, this data does not prove or disprove the mercury hypothesis. You only proved that Kirby is an idiot.”
A little history Mr Sigma.
A lot of us only got interested in the CDDS data when it was touted by the mercury militia leaders (Rollens, Schafer, Handley, Kirby etc etc) that it was the rising figures in CDDS that proved the ‘epidemic’ was caused by vaccines as they detected a downward blip at one point.
We pointed out to them that CDDS could not be used to prove or disprove. and then Kirby made his infamous statement about the CDDS data not dropping by 2007 causing a bad hit to the mercury hypothesis. We decided to hold him to his word.
So, your section about us establishing Kirby is an idiot is correct.
However, we have to acknowledge the reality. If mercury in vaccines is the sole cause of autism (as believed by same group above) then these data do in fact establish they’re wrong. What they believe would simply be impossible given the data.
Questions:
1) Do they want to now claim that CDDS data isn’t actually that good after all? Fine, but this undermines the ‘epidemic’ idea.
2) Do they want to claim it ‘other things’ other than thiomersal? Fine, but that undermines every sinlge point they’ve made based on that premise between 1992 and now.
Comment by 666sigma — 20 April, 2007 @ 5:48 am
Kev,
If you read my comments, I said exactly the same thing.
However, to the best of my knowledge, very few are claiming mercury is the sole cause of autism. Although, it does appear that some believe it is a very significant, if not predominant, cause.
I really don’t understand belaboring the point that Kirby is wrong. It’s not like he is some kind of rocket scientist.
Comment by Interverbal — 20 April, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
However, Mr. Kirby demonstrated honesty and respectability when he took what he knew + what he believed and created a testable hypothesis.
This takes integrity. I would wager a guess that there are a few more advocates of a vaccine etiology of autism theory, who (based on their knowledge and beliefs) could create testable hypotheses, but have not taken Mr. Kirby’s step.
Comment by Tom — 20 April, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
“Although, it does appear that some believe it is a very significant, if not predominant, cause.”
At the risk of feeding the troll, what do you believe?
Comment by 666sigma — 21 April, 2007 @ 7:27 am
Tom,
Why do you resort to insults? Do you really feel that is an appropriate way to engage someone in a dialogue?
I think my views are quite obvious if you’ve read some of my previous statements. I’ll bet that they don’t differ substantially from yours. I think the biggest difference is that I am more open minded whereas your mind is most likely already made up.
Regarding Kirby, what’s the point of beating a dead horse? He’s a schlock artist out to make a buck. He’s not the first and he won’t be the last. He’s an authority only in the media’s eye (and his own). Why do you take him so seriously?
Comment by Tom — 21 April, 2007 @ 10:39 am
666sigma,
I did not resort to insults. If you click on your name, a handsome troll appears. What are we to make of that?
You then posit yourself as somehow more in the know and open minded. It’s all a bit too much self flattery. And you keep coming back to vaccines as though we should now accept your authority. The approach is pretty transparent.
My mind is open to new science. But no one has provided any evidence that vaccines/mercury cause/contribute to autism. And until the time someone does, it’s a hypothesis that doesn’t fit well with the known science and clinical presentation.
Comment by Do'C — 21 April, 2007 @ 10:46 am
Tom, that’s my doing. In my opinion, Sigma has earned it - it’s due to the number of times Sigma has been banned from individual posts for being off-topic/irrelevant, or otherwise trollish in my opinion.
Comment by 666sigma — 22 April, 2007 @ 5:22 am
Do’C,
At least be man enough to tell the truth. The only reason that I earned the troll designation is that I don’t agree with your opinions. The messages that you deleted were in response to other messages. In some cases, I had been insulted. You know I am telling the truth.
This will be another message that you delete and it has nothing to do with being off topic since I have become your topic.
Comment by Do'C — 22 April, 2007 @ 9:30 am
You earned the troll designation for repeated off-topic comments and very tiny bit of nastiness to other posters (which I did not post). Yes, others had been insulting to you, and in some cases I moderated the messages of others too.
You are correct though, the topic has inappropriately turned to you.
All commenters, please make your comments relevant to the CDDS data.