Shitstorm 2007
January 4, 2007 by Do'C 
Printer-Friendly Version
David Kirby and Kim Stagliano have shown their true colors at the Huffington Post blog, and those colors are various shades of feces brown.
Kirby starts things off with a torrential downpour of straw man arguments, appeals to pity, appeals to fear, and appeals to feces. On a serious note, his post can best be summarized as an attempt to separate his followers’ children from the vast majority (a likely 500,000 or so autistic kids in the U.S) of autistic children, as some special group of children with some so-called ‘condition’ other than autism (the result of ‘environmental toxins’ no doubt). How does he do this? With a creative set of criteria to be pitied and feared, which wouldn’t you know it, do not look anything like the diagnostic criteria for autism at all. A few other bloggers have already taken a fairly critical look, so I’d like to point you to the posts of Joseph, Kev Leitch, Kristina Chew, and Autism Diva to read interesting analyses.
For the purpose of this post (which is simply to report on conditions and developments in the shitstorm) please take note of what Kirby is talking about when he describes this ‘other condition’:
I’m talking about kids who can barely keep food in their inflamed, distressed guts, and when they do, it winds up in rivers of diarrhea or swirls of feces spread on a favorite carpet or pet (no one said this kind of “autism” was pretty).
Oh, the humanity - a feces-soiled “favorite carpet”. Tell us this is not happening. I’ve heard of shitstorms, but never anything like this before. I mean there are god-damned rivers of diarrhea going onto favorite carpets! Those poor poor parents who have to endure this tragedy. They must be super humans capable of surviving just about anything - which brings us to Kim Stagliano.
Stagliano’s post begins with what I thought was a lame analogy as an attempt to explain to readers that the autism her kids have, is somehow ‘worse’ than others (wah). What does she support this argument with? You guessed it - more feces.
Twice last month, we had a “crapisode.” What is a crapisode? (This is where you might want to stop eating and put down your beverage.)
As she continues with her story of an oppotunistic sibling’s turd snatching from the toilet, and subsequent smearing, it doesn’t seem to amount to much more than a pretty benign anecdote. I guess it was supposed to be a pretty horrifying story, but I’m utterly unimpressed. The feces are definitely intended as the siginificant evidence of how terrible autism is supposed to be for a parent with autistic children, but I think I’d have to say her efforts really only qualify as drizzle in this storm. Should the situation worsen, don’t worry, she’s apparently prepared do “whatever it takes”.
Recovering your kids doesn’t mean denying their value as people. To the contrary, it means we are willing to devote our lives, our savings, our sanity to their improved health, development and well being.
Okay, I think I get it. It’s all about the parents. The maximum potential (health, development, and well being) of ‘unrecovered’ kids might only be realized through the ‘recovery’ efforts of such selfless parents, and at the expense of their lives, savings, and sanity. She really deserves a pat on the back (besides her own) for being so strong in the middle of shitstorm season (with the potential for damaging, baseball-sized feces or flash-flood diarrhea to strike at any minute and all).
I won’t claim that feces is fun to clean up, it’s not. But complaining about this not-necessarily permanent aspect of only a very small portion of autistic children is probably not going to instill any sense of “value as people”. To the contrary, it’s probably more likely to demonize autistic children as “inconvenient”. They deserve way better.
77 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed, see "Comments/Contact" under "About".
Comment by anonimouse — 4 January, 2007 @ 10:16 am
I guess when your entire existence is about fitting in and being part of “normal” society, you can’t bear the fact that your kid’s different.
The more I listen to some of these parents, the more pathetic I find them.
Comment by Bartholomew Cubbins — 4 January, 2007 @ 11:15 am
Sad that it’s news to some that It’s not just about the parents.
Oh, the humanity!
Comment by Leila — 4 January, 2007 @ 11:16 am
Do’C, please allow me to disagree with your reading of Stagliano’s post. When a mother sees her child smearing herself in feces, she’s not feeling sorry for herself. She’s suffering for HER KID. It is exactly because she loves that person so much, she values that child so much, she doesn’t want her child doing that to herself.
That said, I need to clarify that my autistic son has never wanted to touch his own poop, and that I know at least three neurotypical kids that have had “crapisodes” several times… Also, I support the neurodiversity movement and disagree with Stagliano’s perception about it.
The problem is that on both sides of the debate, people are so quick to judge and attack the others personally. This does not help our children.
Comment by autismrealitynb — 4 January, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
“Okay, I think I get it. It’s all about the parents. ”
Isn’t that one of the topics highlighted in your Autism Street forum “This blog focuses on the implications of having autism in the family - what helps, what doesn’t, the challenges, and the differences, etc.” ?
The blogger in question related, in a humorous fashion, some of the challenges of raising 3 severely autistic children. But I guess she didn’t post exactly what you want her to post therefore it is time to mock and ridicule on the so called “Autism Street”.
This blog focuses on the implications of having autism in the family - what helps, what doesn’t, the challenges, and the differences, etc.
Comment by Julie — 4 January, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
Yeah- we had shitstorms, but what about the pisstorms? We went through a period when my daughter thought every piece of furniture in the house as well as the back seat of my car were her personal toilets. And she could pee gallons! Diapers were no help- she just pulled them off. As for the carpets: one night while scrubbing poop out of the rug for the 532nd time, my husband and I decided we’d rip out the carpets and have vinyl floors installed. Who needs rugs? I don’t know why we didn’t think of it sooner! My princess outgrew her toilet issues without any biomedical interventions at all. We love her just the way she is.
Comment by Ms. Clark — 4 January, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
Stagliano is all about how she had normal daughters that were robbed of her by teh evil CDC, IOM, FDA, WHO and whoever else is in the conspiracy this week. I don’t find her humorous in the least.
What will her daughters experience if they do “recover” will they enjoy knowing that mom shared her pathetic attempt at humor with them as the butt of the joke? (No pun intended, believe it or not.) Can you image their teen friends knowing this? What a mom. I’m glad mine isn’t like Stagliano.
Comment by Kev — 4 January, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
Hi Leila and autismrealitynb,
Stagliano’s post was a follow up to David Kirby’s and an attempt using shock tactics to create a gap between ‘the neurodiverse’ and the kids they know.
Responding to it isn’t about ‘mocking’ or ‘ridiculing’ but about being angry. I’d urge you both to read Joel’s post on how it feels to have someone ask you to validate your life through how much you couldn’t control your bowels as a child. Let’s hope when her children grow up no one forces them to validate themselves through the amount of shit they produced.
My daughter used to smear. She found it hilarious or fascinating. She stopped though. I learnt one valuable lesson through that couple of years: shit washes off. Here’s another lesson Ms Stagliano needs to internalise about the people she’s generalising about and attempting to marginalise - kids grow up. They become adults. Mine will, hers will. What challenges to their person-hood will they face by that generation of humorous parents with a quack theory to prop up?
Comment by Junior — 4 January, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
“Okay, I think I get it. It’s all about the parents. ”
Yes, it is.:
“Aren’t we wonderful because we clean up poop, and go into debt to help them. Somebody ought to make a movie about how darn wonderful we are.”
Ooops, I think I’m about to have a vomit storm.
Comment by Harold L Doherty — 4 January, 2007 @ 2:56 pm
“Stagliano’s post was a follow up to David Kirby’s and an attempt using shock tactics to create a gap between ‘the neurodiverse’ and the kids they know.”
Kev - I don’t subscribe to the David Kirby- Robert F. Kennedy Jr. vaccine positions. One of the striking features of the thimerosal causes vaccines arguments is that - in the absence of scientific support for their beliefs adherents to the “theory” advance a conspiracy theory and argue that the evidence has been suppressed by Big Pharma and political lobbyist controlled politicians.
Your comment which I set out above also resorts to a conspiratorial theory to negative the bloggers description of some of the challenges of being a mother of three severely autstic children. Experiences which you appear to consider unworthy of discussion.
BTW does the expression “neurodiverse” have any substantive meaning or is it just a catchy buzzword?
http://autisminnb.blogspot.com/
Comment by Do'C — 4 January, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
This should answer your question from Kev’s perspective fairly well.
Link
Comment by notmercury — 4 January, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
My parents have informed me that I had a rather “sensitive stomach” as a child and the occasional bout of explosive diarrhea. I suppose I am fortunate that they didn’t have access to the internet back then so everyone could read about it for years to come.
We’ve had our share of accidents in this house but some of my friends with typical kids have stories to top our own. Shit happens.
Kirby’s perspective on autism is limited to the company he keeps - parents who like to describe every bowel movement in most graphic terms. To say that any of these things are typical for the majority of autistic children is simply a lie. Kirby is perpetuating negative sterotypes which is bald bigotry under any other circumstances.
Replace ‘neurodiversity’ with ‘racial diversity’ in his blog post. Replace the things he says about autistic children with racial stereotypes and there’s only one word to describe it.
Maybe he should try describing some of his gay friends with the same sort of colorful language. He could call them homo-diverse or something. Should be fine right?
Comment by Kev — 4 January, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
Hi Harold,
“Your comment which I set out above also resorts to a conspiratorial theory to negative the bloggers description of some of the challenges of being a mother of three severely autstic children. Experiences which you appear to consider unworthy of discussion.”
Not at all - discussing is one thing. I’ve seen plenty of posts from numerous bloggers discussing the less pleasant aspect of parenting. Discussion is a positive thing. However, you might know that both Kirby and Stagliano are members of a Yahoo group that revolve around the idea of vaccine causation (and that I have access to also). I wouldn’t claim this was a concerted agenda as that would be pushing the conspiracy theory angle I agree but lets say a few concerted actions are being warmly encouraged and applauded.
I don’t want to clog up Do’C’s site with quotes but if you mail me at kevleitch@gmail.com I’ll happily pass some on to you via email.
That said, I agree that the sentence you quoted from me is based on my opinion not establishable fact.
Comment by Leila — 4 January, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
So let’s suppose she needs a pat in the back. So what? Parenting 3 kids is hard, parenting 3 kids in the spectrum is beyond hard, and we can’t pretend it is not. We as parents are dealing with difficult challenges raising autistic kids and I don’t see why we can’t reach out for support and understanding from other people.
I agree with Harold’s comment. If we want to keep discussion honest, we also have to talk about how hard it is to deal with the difficulties that autism brings, both for the autistic individuals and their parents and siblings. If it was all positive, we wouldn’t all be so eager to exchange information and support through the blogosphere, in order to try to make sense of all what happened to our lives.
I understand Stagliano is obviously incorrect in her assumptions about the neurodiversity community. But I think that most of the criticism about her post was unfair and ad hominen.
Comment by Do'C — 4 January, 2007 @ 6:59 pm
Mostly ad hominem?
Please feel free to detail the premises, contentions, and co-premises, so I can understand why you think it’s ad hominem.
Comment by Kristina — 4 January, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
What troubles me most about the Kirby and Stagliano posts is their dividing autistic persons into those who are “hfa” and those who are “lfa” which, in regard to their particular postings of this week, appears to refer to those who do not always put what ought to go into the toilet into there. This is a gross (pun not exactly intended) oversimplification, and not only made by them.
Comment by Do'C — 4 January, 2007 @ 9:54 pm
I could not agree more Kristina.
Comment by Kassiane — 5 January, 2007 @ 12:54 am
The Huffington post is glorified toilet paper WITHOUT their shit all over it anyway (pun SO intended).
Otherwise, it’d be, um, balanced and stuff. Like, DoC and Diva and everyone put up with Kirby’s groupies. MENTION that there are groupies, and you’re so banned from HoPo. Try it sometime *nods*.
All the talk about poo was totally unneccessary, and completely disrespectful of the adults they
a) presume to know everything about
b) will eventually be the mom of.
I have a real winner for a mom, as most of y’all know, and I STILL think I win in this case. All my mom MIGHT remember is that enough apple product and woo. Get out of the way.
*still wondering why a command of written english makes me ‘high functioning’. Anyone? LOGICAL anyone?*
Comment by Ms. Clark — 5 January, 2007 @ 1:42 am
I’m wondering why it isn’t possible to tag the blog articles on Huffpoof as “abusive” when one can tag the comments that way… doesn’t seem fair does it?
Comment by Kassiane — 5 January, 2007 @ 2:07 am
Tagging does no good anyway. Why bother? It’s better discourse to bring the link to the blogs, note that the comments are utter buttkissing BS, and go from there.
Comment by Kev — 5 January, 2007 @ 7:12 am
“Parenting 3 kids is hard, parenting 3 kids in the spectrum is beyond hard, and we can’t pretend it is not. We as parents are dealing with difficult challenges raising autistic kids and I don’t see why we can’t reach out for support and understanding from other people.”
Absolutely! I completely agree. However that was not what the point of Stagliano’s post was. The difficulties she described were to demonstrate the ‘differences’ between her kids and those she see’s as ‘neurodiverse’.
“I agree with Harold’s comment. If we want to keep discussion honest, we also have to talk about how hard it is to deal with the difficulties that autism brings, both for the autistic individuals and their parents and siblings. If it was all positive, we wouldn’t all be so eager to exchange information and support through the blogosphere, in order to try to make sense of all what happened to our lives.”
Again, I completely agree. However, again, I disagree with your interpretation of Stagliano’s post in that respect.
Comment by Junior — 5 January, 2007 @ 9:52 am
I also think there’s a difference between discussing things with a friend or friends or a parent support group (a non-internet one), and putting information out on the internet for the world to see. In my opinion, the point of Ms. Stagliano writing about excrement was to shock her readers, not to gain support from other parents.
Comment by mike stanton — 5 January, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
Harold,
following on from Kev’s reply to you,
I do not see a conspiracy. Rather, there is a shared viewpoint which is reinforced in the forums which act as support groups for those who believe there is a vaccine induced epidemic that was forseeable and preventable. Autistic children are the victims of this epidemic. The second pillar of belief that unites them is that autistic children can be “recovered” using a combination of alternative therapies that the medical establishment refuses to countenance.
They have always opposed the government agencies and the big drug companies, believing they are conspiring in a cover up, letting a generation of autistic children go to the wall to protect their reputation and their profits.
Recently these parents have been made aware of “the neurodiverse,” who are supposed to be a group of high functioning autistics who do not need any help and are trying to deny it to their children. This is not true. But some in the biomed camp are deliberately spreading misinformation about supporters of neurodiversity because they see neurodiversity as undermining their children’s needs.
Nobody is challenging the facts in Stagliano’s piece. We do question her agenda.
Comment by autismthroughscience — 6 January, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
To me this is ridiculous I have been shunned by the support groups of AR bc I won’t bash doctor’s eventhough I may not agree with them. My son at 3 is autistic and it’s hard and my daughter at 5 is developmentally delayed and that’s hard, but to chelate my child or to say a causation is one thing when with the symptomology we can see it’s many is ridiculous again. I am finishing my PHD in molecular biology and these researchers that support the MMR claim is what I like to call plain idiots. We know more today about contamination in a lab than ever before. I mean that’s why we test twice if you get a positive for HIV bc of contamination. I work with PCR, LC-Mass spec and in my samples involving human DNA it will be contaminated with a plasmid from E. coli. Also, my child has regressive Autism and has Horrible GI problems like his sister and dad who is an aspy. To me these parents want the quick-fix and these parents are what I like to call well-informed idiots. They only look on websites that support their claims. THere’s a new autism journal out there and is peer reviewed and it’s called the Journal of autism and developmental disorders. It’s from Springer and most of their articles are free to the public. It’s crazy what parents will do but what about these kids if they are so concerned then you know what grow up assholes and just hold and hug your autistic child bc although my son can’t tell me he loves me and pulls away from touch I know he does bc he tell’s me that my lines are not correct (whatever the hell that means)! THank you
Comment by brian Kerwin — 7 January, 2007 @ 9:08 pm
Having a 15 year old son who is sicker today than ever, I think you have it wrong. This spectrum and its limited resources have always been dominatted by those that could benifit from aba, the same schools that denied diet,gi issues,vitamins, ot, pt having any use a decade ago. Any thing or anyonethat creates clinical help for my son i am for . go kirby,go imus, .
Comment by Do'C — 7 January, 2007 @ 10:48 pm
Hi Brian,
Based on your IP address among other things, it looks an awful lot like you could be Brian Kerwin, a financial broker from Wachovia Securities for Cure Autism Now (as listed on their website).
At any rate, you’re certainly entitled to your opinion.
Perhaps you’d care to explain (while I may “have it wrong” in my concluding opinion that ‘appeals to feces’ may not be instilling any sense of “value as people” and are potentially demonizing autistic children as “inconvenient”), how ‘appeals to feces’ do instill “value as people” or serve to promote societal acceptance of your son.
Comment by Ms. Clark — 7 January, 2007 @ 11:25 pm
It’s my impression that CAN’s Jon Shestack played Imus et al for fools in getting the CAA passed, but besides that…
What does this mean?
“This spectrum and its limited resources have always been dominatted by those that could benifit from aba,…”
I understand aba is ABA, but I still don’t get the “dominated by those that could benefit from ABA” thing.
Kirby is self serving all the way. He has no interest in whether autistic children or adult suffer. He’s playing at a nasty game.
Comment by Ms. Clark — 7 January, 2007 @ 11:30 pm
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/070107/15autism.htm
Autism’s Many Meanings
A child’s culture will affect how he’s treated
article in US News…
(Yeah, no kidding. And how he’s discussed in the media affects how he’s treated and how he’s treated affects how he will develop and thrive or not thrive)
Comment by hj — 7 January, 2007 @ 11:32 pm
Brian:
In what possible way are Kirby or Imus “creating clinical help” for your son? Kirby stated when he’s ready to walk away from autism, he’ll just walk and it”ll be over for him (paraphrasing). What can you possibly think these two individuals can do for your son? If your child is sick, then why not find a well-regarded immunologist? Unless I’m not understanding what you mean by “sicker today than ever” (which, btw, I am sorry to hear).
Comment by Not Mercury — 8 January, 2007 @ 6:16 am
BK: Any thing or anyonethat creates clinical help for my son i am for . go kirby,go imus, .
Do you seriously believe the Kirbys and Imuses of the world are doing anything to ‘create clinical help’ for your son or other autistic children?
If anything they are muddying the waters (in Kirby’s case with diarrhea)
Comment by Heraldblog — 8 January, 2007 @ 6:58 am
Staglianos’ experience reminds me of a case I read about many years ago. A young girl living in, I think, Georgetown, was mysteriously overcome with psychological and physical changes. These changes included the affectation of a low, gutteral timbre; abusive and profane language directed toward her parents and caregivers; and projectile vomiting of several liters of a thick “pea soup” like substance which she directed at caregivers. Her parents also reported a unique articulation of her first and second vertebrae, the atlas and axis, that ebabled the girl to rotate her head 360 degrees.
Fortuately the girl’s parents did not “accept” this condition, and with the help of several alternative therapists and a pea-soup free diet, the girl made a complete recovery.
Comment by David N. Andrews MEd (Distinction) — 16 January, 2007 @ 11:52 pm
“Fortuately the girl’s parents did not ‘accept’ this condition, and with the help of several alternative therapists and a pea-soup free diet, the girl made a complete recovery.”
She’d hate February in Finland… pea soup month!
Ewwwwwwwwwww…
Comment by 666sigma — 17 January, 2007 @ 6:30 am
I understand Kirby’s point perfectly well. I don’t believe that Asperger’s is the same as autism so I don’t think this group should be spokespersons for “autism.” I am all for neuro-diversity. That’s what makes life interesting. But there is no comparison between Asperger’s and a moderate to severely impaired autistic child.
Regarding the epidemic, there is no doubt a large percentage of the so-called epidemic is due to:
a. broader definition
b. better diagnosis
c. greater public awareness
d. government dollars
e. less stigma
In the past, these kids would have been called or labeled anything from quirky to weird to retarded. Only Kanner’s would have been identified and I’m sure that some of these kids would have been called retarded.
However, I have a friend who is studying to be a psychologist and he is working with autistic kids right now. He works mainly with kids that fall in the middle somewhere - not high functioning nor severely impaired. He does work with socially mal-adjusted Asperger’s kids.
He says there is NO DOUBT that 20 years ago, there was a rise in kids with SEVERE autism. That it is not just a “bigger tent.” He is involved with the issue because many of these kids are now coming to a point where the government will no longer pay for services. The numbers are very real and they are increasing.
I believe him. So even if 80-90% of the rise is due to better diagnosis, that would still leave a huge increase in the rate of autism. Why?
Comment by Do'C — 17 January, 2007 @ 8:06 am
Gee 666sigma, got any science to go with your anecdotal friend’s beliefs?
Speaking of 20 years, when was autism first used as a clinical diagnosis? When was it introduced to the DSM? When was the criteria expanded? I’m not asking about PDD-NOS or Asperger’s, I’m asking about the diagnosis and criteria for autism itself.
What’s happened to the numbers of children who received services or education under a diagnosis of mental retardation or something else? Did you read (Shattuck, 2006)? It included the following:
“The growing administrative prevalence of autism from 1994 to 2003 was associated with corresponding declines in the usage of other diagnostic categories.”
Have you been using Deirdre Imus as your source of scientific information?
Comment by Ian Parker — 18 January, 2007 @ 7:32 pm
Hi Do’C,
FYI, I linked to this post here discussing the Stagliano post and GI issues.
Comment by Do'C — 18 January, 2007 @ 8:55 pm
Hi Ian,
I enjoyed reading your post and commented, there. I think others will appreciate it too.
Comment by 666sigma — 19 January, 2007 @ 6:37 pm
And where is your proof? I would love to see definitive data showing that the overall rates of other learning disabilties declined with the rise in autism rates. The reports that I have read show that the rates of ALL learning disabilities are rising.
Of course, I believe most of this is the desire to label things now-a-days. I also believe that most the epidemic is an epidemic of awareness as I stated in my original comments. I do believe that autism is genetic, but that does not mean that all kids are born with autism. it is also clear from genetic studies (already) that autism is not one genetic defect. As I said, it is collection.
You are just as guilty as Imus. You believe the reports, stories and anecdotal data that supports your view. You disregard any contrary opinion. Like Imus, you see Black & White. I happen to see Gray. I’m sorry if my vision is not myopic enough fior you.
Here’s another fact for you to chew on. There is ZERO proof that Asperger’s is connecting in any way to Autism (or at least severe autism). Where are the brain scans showing how NT, Asperger’s, PDD-NOS and Autistic brains work? Or autopsies comparing the different groups?
We do know one thing. Aspie’s love to say Einstein had Asperger’s, but we also know that his brain had ZERO similarities with autistic brains. We know this because his brain was preserved at his death. While his brain was unique in structure, it had none of abnormalities associated with autism.
Comment by 666sigma — 19 January, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
GENETICS AND AUTISM
Most of the research that I have read seems to indicate that autism is the result of a brain inflammation due to an auto immune response. In other words, many (most?) people are not born with an autistic brain. Auto Immune diseases are genetic, but not everyone with the genetic predisposition gets the disease.
Auto immune diseases include MS, lupus and arthritis. Inflammation is now believed to be the leading role in heart disease and scientists are studying more closely how inflamation leads to other degenerative illnesses.
My guess is that you will dismiss this theory because it doesn’t fit your view of the world.
Comment by Do'C — 19 January, 2007 @ 8:36 pm
My proof of what? What claim did I make in my comment to you that you would like proof for? I asked you several questions which your response doesn’t answer.
If you’re going to claim there is an epidemic, YOU bring the proof!
Not definitive at all, but did you bother to read Shattuck et al.? Have you looked at the CDDS data for mental retardation? Profound mental retardation?
Did anyone claim that all kids are born “with autism”?
Did anyone claim that it is one genetic defect?
On the contrary, I’m open to consider scientific evidence that supports the notion of an ‘epidemic’. Got any?
I’m sorry, but your point with these last two paragraphs is entirely unclear to me.
Comment by Do'C — 19 January, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
brain inflammation?
I don’t dismiss any hypotheses, not even one of ‘epidemic’, I simply don’t see them as fact without scientific evidence to support them.
Neuroinflammation as a hypothesis is interesting but doesn’t appear well-studied yet.
Comment by Ian Parker — 19 January, 2007 @ 9:39 pm
Hi Do’C,
Thanks for the nice words regarding my post.
666Sigma wrote:
“Here’s another fact for you to chew on. There is ZERO proof that Asperger’s is connecting in any way to Autism (or at least severe autism). Where are the brain scans showing how NT, Asperger’s, PDD-NOS and Autistic brains work? Or autopsies comparing the different groups?”
Among other work is this research paper by Casanova et al in 2002, that specifically links asperger’s to the same minicolumnar structure as found in autism. It was one of five autism and minicolumn papers written by his team that year, and followed up by several papers since then[1].
[1] Edited to add additional reader links. (By Do’C, 19 January, 2007 @ 10:30 pm)
Comment by Do'C — 19 January, 2007 @ 10:37 pm
Hi Ian, I hope you don’t mind that I added additional links to your comment. I think Casanova’s work is interesting, and that one paper you cited is relevant, but only the tip of the iceberg to begin understanding the nature of his published work.
Comment by 666sigma — 20 January, 2007 @ 3:55 am
You’re the one who picked an argument. I posted opinion so tell me why I need proof to believe a friend that works with autistic children?
You demanded facts so I asked you for yours. If it is okay for you spout out opinions than it should be okay for others to do likewise - without you demanding proof. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
You pretend to be unbiased, but your bias is obvious. If I read the information on your site correctly, you claim to be the father of an autistic child. However, you come across like an Aspie from the “Neurodiversity” crowd.
I agree with much of what Stagliano wrote. In fact, I think she writes with great humor. One thing that I have found scanning the autism sites is that the opinions are largely those of the Aspie crowd who claim to speak for the whole autistic community. I happen to disagree with them, their intent and motives.
Even if Asperger’s and Autism is related, you can compare a SOCIALLY high functioning aspie with a severely autistic individual. In that case, I will side the parents of the autistic child and I have no problems with it.
Comment by Do'C — 20 January, 2007 @ 8:50 am
You also posted this claim, at the end of the opinion.
Do you understand why that is not necessarily opinion?
Do you believe that you have been inhibited in spouting out your opinion here?
Believe what you want, it’s a free country.
Good for you. I disagree. Her writing, in my opinion, is mediocre at best, and appears to lack consideration for the potential demonization of autistic people.
Speaking as the parent of an autistic child, I think it’s important to consider the children and their futures too (not just their parents), which is why I wrote this article in the first place.
What did you think of Ian’s article?
Emphasis mine.
Comment by R — 20 January, 2007 @ 11:23 am
“So even if 80-90% of the rise is due to better diagnosis, that would still leave a huge increase in the rate of autism. Why?”
This comment brought to you by someone who decided not to take math past 10th grade.
Comment by Kev — 20 January, 2007 @ 11:42 am
“You’re the one who picked an argument. I posted opinion so tell me why I need proof to believe a friend that works with autistic children?
You demanded facts so I asked you for yours”
Actually Do’C asked for science. You mentioned proof. You need no proof to believe a friend, likewise the rest of us require no proof to believe your friend is full of Kim S’s favourite subject matter.
“You pretend to be unbiased, but your bias is obvious. If I read the information on your site correctly, you claim to be the father of an autistic child. However, you come across like an Aspie from the “Neurodiversity” crowd.”
Do you think those two positions are necessarily divorced from each other? If so, why?
Comment by Ian Parker — 20 January, 2007 @ 11:48 am
Hi Do’C
No issues with editing my comment to add the additional link. I put the Asperger link down to demonstrate that Casanova’s work indicated similarities between various diagnoses within ASD, but didn’t have much time to put anything else. The link to a list of his papers was a good addition. Thanks.
666Sigma wrote:
“Even if Asperger’s and Autism is related, you can‘t compare a SOCIALLY high functioning aspie with a severely autistic individual.”
(I’m assuming you meant to say can’t instead of can based on the rest of your comment)
My daughter’s diagnosis is ‘autism, at the severe end of the spectrum’. In case you are implying that severely autistic individuals can’t be (or don’t want to be) social, I would strongly disagree. While she does not respond to strangers (not the worst characteristic in a three year old), she is very social with those she knows.
She loves to interact with my wife and I, initiating much of the interaction herself. The same is true with her IBI instructors, extended family, etc. Her issue is not so much social ‘desire’ as social ’skills’. And skills can be taught - as can reciprocity on the part of the people she interacts with.
Comment by 666sigma — 20 January, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
I did mean “can’t” and what I meant by “can’t compare” was that Aspies should not speak for the broader autism community.
For example, I notice you refer to IBI, which the so-called neurodiversity crowd (including the Autism Diva) is VIOLENTLY opposed to. Their attitude is that there is nothing wrong with an autistic child and that any parent that tries to help their child be more functional in society does not love or respect their child. You should accept them as they are. I violently disagree.
I wish you the best of luck with your daughter. I am sure that you are a loving and respectful parent.
Here’s some more anecdotal evidence for the so-called epidemic.
The number of children born to parents over the age of 40 in the USA has tripled in the last 20 years. Another study just showed that children born to fathers over the age of 40 were 6 times more likely to be on the spectrum than those with fathers under 30.
Comment by 666sigma — 20 January, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
For R,
I will put my mathematical background up against yours any day, my friend. Every standardize test that I took my entire life placed me in the top 1% from grade school to college admission. My profession requires an advanced mathematical degree (although I rarely do the number crunching now-a-days).
Comment by 666sigma — 20 January, 2007 @ 7:10 pm
For the record, my oldest son has been diagnosed with PDD-NOS. We have been told that he is on the milder end of spectrum. He is very social and is actually very popular in pre-school. I have every intention of making sure that he never gets labeled. He is speech delayed (and catching up). That’s it.
To be quite honest, I prefer having a child that has great strnegths (and a few weaknesses). It is what makes life interesting.
My older brother did not speak until he was 3. He did not talk in sentences until 4. But he was bi-lingual by the time he was 5. Today, I am almost certain that he would be placed on the spectrum.
We will never know. He is married, successful and has 2 great, well-adjusted children. And he had the benefit of never being labeled.
What a great idea!!!
Comment by Do'C — 20 January, 2007 @ 8:51 pm
Nice try sport. You be disagreeing with NOBODY.
(except maybe mister straw man)
Exactly how does this support a hypothesis of ‘autism epidemic’?
Comment by alpha beta wu — 20 January, 2007 @ 10:54 pm
“I notice you refer to IBI, which the so-called neurodiversity crowd (including the Autism Diva) is VIOLENTLY opposed to.”
Wow got a quote or two to back that up? Surely you do. “Violently”, as in, violence? No person of any sort has even so much as picketed an ABA/IBI provider. Nor has any provider ever been slightly harassed by anyone, as far as I know, except maybe an unhappy parent/client. So where’s the violence? Maybe you could choose your words a bit more carefully?
Comment by 666sigma — 21 January, 2007 @ 2:02 am
DoC . . .
I can see that you support the Autism Diva, but apparently you’ve never read her site all that closely. You should give it a try.
Do you see the words “so called?” I thought not. Nice try, sport. However, maybe you can get your math wiz R to do some calculations for you. I’m sure he can look up the data on the Internet.
I see you love to contort my words, but get testing when I return the favor.
For Wu,
It’s called hyperbolia, but I stand by my statement. The “neurodiversity” crowd opposes ABA. I can’t imagine how they feel about IBI. Go check out the Autism Diva’s web site or You Tube and see for yourself. If I didn’t know any better, I’d think Lovaas was into devil worship or human sacrifice.
Comment by 666sigma — 21 January, 2007 @ 2:39 am
Here’s my take on the Mercury Moms and the Neurodiversity Crowd . . .
The Mercury Moms remind me of the right wing religious zealots in the Republican party. However, the Neurodiversity Crowd reminds me of the left wing PC nut cases in the Democratic party. Neither is balanced. Neither is objective. They see the world as they want it to be, not how it is. They don’t even try.
We all have biases. These biases shape the way we see the world. However, stubborn and ignorant is a deadly combination.
I am not an expert. I seriously doubt anyone writing on this or any blog is an expert. It’s all opinion. The less honest try to disguise it as facts.
My belief is that there is no epidemic. There is no way my son would have been diagnosed “on the spectrum” when I was born. I’m not sure he would have been diagnosed even 10 years ago. However, I also believe that there is a rise in the incidence of autism. It is based on gut feeling. Nothing more.
One reason for this belief I cited above and it is that parents are getting older and older. The anecdotal evidence is there to see. I do believe that there is some validity to “Silicon Valley” theory - geeks marrying geeks. People seek out mates for different reasons than 50 years ago because society has changed so much.
Do I have any proof? Of course not. But neither do the self proclaimed experts writing on this site or a number of other blogs. It’s all pseudo-science. Even the so-called hard science like the bullshit thimerosal study by CDC is pure garbage.
I do believe that Mercury Moms love their children and are trying to help their children live happy and productive lives. I see nothing wrong with Stagliano’s desire to help her children and I do not question her motives. I have serious reservations about the Aspies in the Neurodiversity crowd. Perhaps, they have experienced too much hatred and bigotry to forgive those who ignorant. I don’t know.
Comment by Kev — 21 January, 2007 @ 2:45 am
“For example, I notice you refer to IBI, which the so-called neurodiversity crowd (including the Autism Diva) is VIOLENTLY opposed to.”
Really? I must’ve missed that on the entrance exam.
“Their attitude is that there is nothing wrong with an autistic child and that any parent that tries to help their child be more functional in society does not love or respect their child. You should accept them as they are. I violently disagree.”
I would disagree too. If it were true.
I can only surmise that you are really new to this whole debate and therefore don’t know what you’re talking about. I’d really love to know where you got these amusing ideas from.
Comment by Do'C — 21 January, 2007 @ 9:32 am
Feel free to bring a quote over to support this statement:
I copied the sentence with a cut and paste (pretty tough to contort). It doesn’t matter who you were referring to with the “so-called”. Find ANY group, and support it with examples that show your sentence to be true, or it’s a straw man.
Do you understand why her desire to help her children isn’t, and never was in question.
Good for you. You’re on the blog of an NT parent of an autistic child (not PDD-NOS, not Asperger’s). Perhaps you should consider discussing your reservations with ‘them’, rather instead of coming here to talk about ‘them’.
Comment by Do'C — 21 January, 2007 @ 9:52 am
A small increase in the actual prevalence of ASD’s is a possibility, although there is no data that I am aware of to directly support this notion one way or the other. The Geek Syndrome, and Assortive mating theories are interesting hypotheses, among others.
You might enjoy (or have read) Joseph’s post on the subject.
Comment by 666sigma — 21 January, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
You might enjoy looking at this chart on Interverbal’s (neurodiversity friendly) blog . . .
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/346/1599/1600/3.1.gif
First, it clearly shows that you can’t look at the CDDS data for 3-5 year olds because there is severe undercounting. Just follow the age cohorts as they mature. If this data is accurate, the bozos with the thimerosal argument like Kirby should realize that the age 3-5 cohort is inaccurate measuring tool because it is undercounting the incidence of autism so he’s bought some time for his thimerosal argument.
However, there is a very nice (eyeballing) tie-in between the age 5-9 and 10-13 cohorts with a 4 year offset. This implies that they are counting these age cohorts correctly or at least consistently. Although not quite mature enough, we see the same pattern starting to emerge in the age 14-17 cohort. Of course, these age cohorts can’t be used for or against the thimerosal argument, yet.
I am absolutely astounded by the increase that has occured in the rates of autism since 2000 since we can no longer blame this on changing definitions or greater awareness. The rates of autism per 10,000 have essentially doubled since 2000 as proved by our neurodiverse friend.
I don’t think it would be inappropriate to say that this is an epidemic. Hyperbolia? No doubt. The cause? Who knows. The rise? It looks real to me, Jack.
Yes, I believe my friend since his work and profession involves working directly with these kids.
Comment by 666sigma — 21 January, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
“I can only surmise that you are really new to this whole debate and therefore don’t know what you’re talking about. I’d really love to know where you got these amusing ideas from.”
I am new to it. But I know what I have read on their blogs and what I have read and watched on You Tube from the same group of people. I read Stagliano’s blog and I don’t see the need to demonize her. I think there should be a little more compassion from people in similar circumstances.
Kirby is a hack. He’s waffled all over the place depending on which way the wind is blowing. He’s out to make a buck and a name. It’s worked well for him. BFD. He feeds into parents who feel that their kids have been damaged by environmental factors. This does not make them bad or uncaring parents.
Comment by 666sigma — 21 January, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
I realize my use of term “cohorts” was incorrect, but my oservations still apply.
Comment by Do'C — 21 January, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
Geez 666 Sigma, go back and read Interverbal’s blog carefully. There is no question about the increase in diagnoses. Do you understand why the California numbers are not necessarily representative of true prevalence? I can just about guarntee you that Interverbal will be very careful not to say, “the rates of autism” (which implies true prevalence). Have you read the CDDS data disclaimer?
You seem to bounce around. Upthread you said:
The rise in diagnoses is real, Jack. Go back and re-read Gernsbacher et al. 2005.
Comment by Do'C — 21 January, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
I don’t see a need to demonize her either. I’d assume she is a very capable and loving mom. I do however think that some aspects of her writing (that potentially demonize autistic children, or children on the entire autism spectrum) are not above reproach.
That’s a good point. It’s a shame Stagliano apparently didn’t consider the potential impact on anyone else’s autistic children, before she wrote her piece, in my opinion.
Comment by Interverbal — 21 January, 2007 @ 7:40 pm
“You might enjoy looking at this chart on Interverbal’s (neurodiversity friendly) blog . . .”
“http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/346/1599/1600/3.1.gifFirst, it clearly shows that you can’t look at the CDDS data for 3-5 year olds because there is severe undercounting. Just follow the age cohorts as they mature.”
I agree with Sigma that the 3-5 category constitutes under counting in the CDDS system, but the undercounting has a consistent pattern. Post January 1998, the 3-5 category consistently =40% of the 6-9 category.
“If this data is accurate, the bozos with the thimerosal argument like Kirby should realize that the age 3-5 cohort is inaccurate measuring tool because it is undercounting the incidence of autism so he’s bought some time for his thimerosal argument.”
Most of the people who do the thimerosal argument with the CDDS data use the total autism data (all age cohorts). This would include Mr. Rollens and Dr. Geier and Mr. Geier. This is important as it is assumed by those persons that any change between quarter are “new intakes” while in reality they there is constant growth in CDDS data at every age grouping.
But again, because the 3-5 is consistent in terms of how it changes. If we expected a drop in the 6-9 category we would have reason (via induction) to first expect it the 3-5 category.
Also, the CDDS data are not meant to be used for purpose I used them for. The CDDS is very clear about this. These data are not be used for purposes of prevalence/incidence calculation. These data fail to control for the 6 threats to random and systematic statistical error.
I do my analysis only with the caveat that, even though these data are inappropriate, they still do not show what some parties claim they do.
“However, there is a very nice (eyeballing) tie-in between the age 5-9 and 10-13 cohorts with a 4 year offset. This implies that they are counting these age cohorts correctly or at least consistently. Although not quite mature enough, we see the same pattern starting to emerge in the age 14-17 cohort. Of course, these age cohorts can’t be used for or against the thimerosal argument, yet.”
There is still consistent growth, of about 25-30% between the 5-9 and 10-13 cohorts
“I am absolutely astounded by the increase that has occured in the rates of autism since 2000 since we can no longer blame this on changing definitions or greater awareness.”
Can you please explain how you reached this conclusion?
“The rates of autism per 10,000 have essentially doubled since 2000 as proved by our neurodiverse friend.”
That is true, but, please remember that these rates are still lower than what the descriptive epidemiology shows. I will make a precition that the two will get closer before the increase levels off.
Comment by 666sigma — 22 January, 2007 @ 6:01 am
This reply is for Interverbal since he seems to have a better sense for his graphs . . .
I read the caveat in the CDDS data. As always, it is anecdotal data. But it is much better than most of data that I have seen and certainly better than the so called studies that have been linked on many sites to support their argument one way or another.
I will also admit that my eyeballs were not quite correct. I printed out the graph and lined up the the 6-9 age group with the 10-13 age group and it is about a 3 year offset, not 4 years. There also seems to be about a 3 year offset between the 14-17 age group and the 10-13 age group. However, I was also wrong that these were rates of autism. They are the raw numbers so I would expect to see a rise in California’s numbers over time since the population of the state is still increasing.
If the diagnosis were accurate and consistent (and the population remained the same), I would expect to find the number with autism in the 6-9 age group for 2000-2001 to match up very closely with the 10-13 age group in 2004-2005. They match up, but it’s about one year earlier.
However, this still IMPLIES that roughly 25% (1 year out of 4 years) is due to changing or better diagnosis and the remaining 75% is a rise in the rate of autism. The slopes for these age groups line up too closely to simply dismiss the 3 year “shadows.”
In other words, it sure don’t look like it’s all diagnosis to me.
The important point for Mr. Kirby is that he can easily wiggle out of his previous statement that we should see a drop in the number with autism in the CDDS 3-5 age group by 2007. It was based on the faulty premise that a diagnosis of autism would be made (accurately) by the age of 3. This does not appear to be the case. The data IMPLIES that the CDDS data is not accurate prior to the 1st grade at the earliest. Surprise, surprise!!!
Kirby just bought himself 3 more years, if he is smart. Hmmm. I wonder how much it’s worth to him?
Comment by 666sigma — 22 January, 2007 @ 6:35 am
When you cut through the “shock jock” talk, Stagliano writes . . .
“When I talk about autism, I mean the version that my three girls got. I’m not talking about the sort of autism that encompasses quirky kids with some social deficits who are otherwise brilliant.
The ND community tells me and tens of thousands of other parents that we are disrespecting our kids by trying to help them. The ND blogs berate us as wanting to change our kids because we don’t accept them.”
I agree with her comments. The Autism Diva is a classic example. She openly opposes any and all intervention as do many of the other bloggers listed in this blog.
Who could oppose bio-med? It’s 100 times better than giving our children drugs. If it doesn’t work, so be it. But how can CLO or pro-biotics be compared to chelation??? My son was taking pro-biotics before we knew he was on the spectrum because it cleared up his chronic diarrhea. It was recommended to us by a friend who is into organic foods. I guess those are silly, too.
My son has received speech therapy and ABA. The speech therapy is worthless, but ABA has been worth it’s weight in gold. I am fortunate. My son doesn’t have behaviorial problems. He is social so we are just working on his speech (along with sensory integration). But anyone who thinks it is brainwashing or changing his personality just doesn’t know what they are talking about. What I see is step-by-step one-on-one teaching. I see someone willing to take the time to teach him visually so he can learn.
I have read the same kind of comments that Stagliano has read from the Aspie community. Their resentment is obvious but, I’m sorry, it is not fair to compare their situation was a truly autistic child. I agree with Stagliano.
I feel for every parent that goes through what she is going through. I am fortunate. My dreams for my son remain unchanged. I may have to work harder. I may have to spend more money. But my hopes and dreams for his future remain unchanged. My dreams are still alive.
Comment by Do'C — 22 January, 2007 @ 8:48 am
Hey Sigma, you agree with whomever you want. Go ahead and find us some examples of anyone telling tens of thousands of parents that they are disrespecting their kids by “trying to help them”.
While you’re at it please provide examples of open opposition to “any and all intervention”.
You still be building Mr. straw man.
Straw man again. Are pro-biotics being compared to chelation? Good luck finding anyone who thinks comorbid issues (like diarrhea or constipation as examples) should not be treated.
We spend a lot of time on customized educational intervention, and I think it is important.
I’m the parent of an autistic child. What does the “Aspie community” have to do with what I wrote?
Comment by alpha beta wu — 22 January, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
Silly Sigma:
“The ND community tells me and tens of thousands of other parents that we are disrespecting our kids by trying to help them. The ND blogs berate us as wanting to change our kids because we don’t accept them.”
I agree with her comments. The Autism Diva is a classic example. She openly opposes any and all intervention as do many of the other bloggers listed in this blog.”
What a bunch of hot air. Still no quotes from you to back up any of this demonization of the bloggers you dislike.
I don’t read everything written by all autism spectrum peole on the web, but where did you get the idea that any of the hub bloggers are against all biomed? You made that up. What you might find is that there are good reasons not to use certain kinds of treatments, that they are in fact quite dangerous, if not just a waste of money and stressful for the kids to go through for the purpose of making their parents feel like they are doing SOMETHING. There are bona fide quacks abusing parents. Would you rather no one challenge this? Would it make you feel better if we all stopped picking on the poor sometimes law breaking DAN! docs?
Where did you get the idea that you can draw tidy categories and split out the high from the low functioning? You can’t tell by people’s writing how high or low functiong they are, or in which situations they function well and which make them look like lost-causes. You can’t even tell that a particular bloger is FOR some kinds of biomed when they write positive things about biomed, apparently. Writing some positive things about biomed is not enough for you to see that they are for some kinds of biomed, no you have to say that they are against all biomed treatments. Black and white thinking?
Ballastexistenz would be considered “low functioning” by almost anyone, but she writes better than some aspies. Some of the aspie bloggers you seem to despise have low functioning or middle functioning children. Some of the NT neurodiversity bloggers have low functioning kids. Autism Diva links to interverbal’s blog, and inteverbal is studying ABA and has been an ABA therapist. Janna is a hub blogger and has been an ABA therapist, neither are opposed to ABA. Michelle Dawson has had ABA done to her. She was a “low functioning” autistic child. She’s still “lower functioning” than many other hub bloggers. Any of the low functiong kids or PDD,nos can grow up to look like Aspies. Many of the Aspies you berate were “low functioning” or PDD,nos kids without a diagnosis as kids. With enough abuse, an Aspie kid can grow up to look like a low functioning autistic.
Your comments here really make you look not too smart, Sigma666. Maybe if you go back and actually read the blogs you claim to have, you might be able to comment intelligently about them.
Comment by Interverbal — 22 January, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
“I read the caveat in the CDDS data. As always, it is anecdotal data. But it is much better than most of data that I have seen and certainly better than the so called studies that have been linked on many sites to support their argument one way or another.”
I don’t understand why some persons consider the CDDS data as good data let alone the gold standard. Yes, these data have a few less problems than the IDEA data, but that is not saying much. These data should not be taken as comparable to the descriptive epidemiology of Fombonne and company.
“I will also admit that my eyeballs were not quite correct. I printed out the graph and lined up the the 6-9 age group with the 10-13 age group and it is about a 3 year offset, not 4 years. There also seems to be about a 3 year offset between the 14-17 age group and the 10-13 age group. However, I was also wrong that these were rates of autism. They are the raw numbers so I would expect to see a rise in California’s numbers over time since the population of the state is still increasing.”
Correct,
“If the diagnosis were accurate and consistent (and the population remained the same), I would expect to find the number with autism in the 6-9 age group for 2000-2001 to match up very closely with the 10-13 age group in 2004-2005. They match up, but it’s about one year earlier.”
Yes, so, in other words there is still growth as the cohort ages.
“However, this still IMPLIES that roughly 25% (1 year out of 4 years) is due to changing or better diagnosis and the remaining 75% is a rise in the rate of autism. The slopes for these age groups line up too closely to simply dismiss the 3 year “shadows.””
This same cohort was only at 40% its original size when they were 3-5. These children are strictly “Autistic Disorder” which means if they met criteria when they 6-10 they also met the criteria by age three; that is a hard and fast rule in the DSM-IV. Why were these children missed in the 3-5 count? According the oft quoted Mr. Rollens, these kids are like train wrecks, you can’t miss them.
“The important point for Mr. Kirby is that he can easily wiggle out of his previous statement that we should see a drop in the number with autism in the CDDS 3-5 age group by 2007. It was based on the faulty premise that a diagnosis of autism would be made (accurately) by the age of 3. This does not appear to be the case. The data IMPLIES that the CDDS data is not accurate prior to the 1st grade at the earliest. Surprise, surprise!!!”
Mr. Kirby could try that gambit, but I think we would still skewer that argument on the fact that the 3-5 rates predict a specific amount of growth. Any drop in 6-10 group, should first be seen when that cohort was 3-5. We could also hammer the point that new kids/adults continue to get added even past the 6-10 age.
“Kirby just bought himself 3 more years, if he is smart. Hmmm. I wonder how much it’s worth to him?”
He writes for HuffPo, you could recommend it to him in the comments.
Comment by 666sigma — 23 January, 2007 @ 4:48 am
“Mr. Kirby could try that gambit, but I think we would still skewer that argument on the fact that the 3-5 rates predict a specific amount of growth. Any drop in 6-10 group, should first be seen when that cohort was 3-5.”
Not necessarily. The 3-5 age group is clearly undercounted so it is possible for the numbers in this group to still rise while the incidence rate is dropping. I am not saying it is likely to happen, but the data in this group appears to be less than perfect so any conclusions could be argued with - endlessly.
The 5-9, 10-13 and 14-17 age groups seem to be consistent with each other so lends a degree of credibility to the data. My guess is that the 3-5 age group is undercounted because not all children are caught (or reported) prior to 1st grade. It’s a hunch, but I’ll bet it’s a good one.
Comment by Do'C — 23 January, 2007 @ 8:06 am
Well how about that 666 Sigma, we do actually agree on something more or less. Here are two notes I included in my post “CDDS Q3 2006 Autism Data” a few months back.
Comment by 666sigma — 23 January, 2007 @ 9:13 am
For Kev,
Here are some comments on ABA pulled from this site . . .
- - - [Deleted, off topic. 666Sigma, it's perfectly fine if you want to discuss Lovaas ABA. If you really want to discuss that particular post with the blindness spectrum analogy, let me know, I will re-open the comments for you (as stated in my comments note under "about") for a couple of weeks (I close them to reduce spam). I'll also invite the original author of that post back to consider your comments if you like. You'll need to keep the comments relevant to the post (ie: references to Bartholomew Cubbins giving his kid Flintstone Vitamins would not be relevant). Additionally, If you simply want to complain about the concept of neurodiversity and various people who may espouse it, or discuss biomed in general, I'd suggest the comments might be more relevant in Kev's post about it.
It seems like you have a lot to say. Perhaps you should consider starting a blog, and organizing relevant criticisms (some of which are very valid by the way) into posts.] - - -
Comment by Interverbal — 23 January, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
“Not necessarily. The 3-5 age group is clearly undercounted so it is possible for the numbers in this group to still rise while the incidence rate is dropping. I am not saying it is likely to happen, but the data in this group appears to be less than perfect so any conclusions could be argued with - endlessly.”
I agree that it is possible, but again it would be a break from the pattern we’ve seen. I suppose you could invoke Hume’s problem here, but I am not sure how far it will get you in this case.
“The 5-9, 10-13 and 14-17 age groups seem to be consistent with each other so lends a degree of credibility to the data. My guess is that the 3-5 age group is undercounted because not all children are caught (or reported) prior to 1st grade. It’s a hunch, but I’ll bet it’s a good one.”
And that is the problem, the trend is still going up as the cohorts age, that is what the pattern shows.
Comment by 666sigma — 23 January, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
Those age groups all include kids given thimerosal. It is also looks like a protion of these groups includes recent diagnosis. The 3-5 age group shows clear signs of undercounting so you can’t determine exactly what is causing the rise.
You and I most likely agree, but the question is can you use the 3-5 age group to disprove thimerosal. I say “no way, Jose.” It only proves that Kirby is no expert. That’s it.
By the way, the original CDC did show a link between thimerosal and several learning disabilities. However, their data was too thin. How did they correct the problem? Sliced the data even thinner to get rid of the connection. Pretty sad.
Comment by Do'C — 23 January, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
FWIW, I agree with your statement.
Can you use the 3-5 age group over the past two decades to prove Thimerosal?
Comment by Interverbal — 23 January, 2007 @ 9:09 pm
“You and I most likely agree, but the question is can you use the 3-5 age group to disprove thimerosal. I say “no way, Jose.” It only proves that Kirby is no expert. That’s it.”
Agreed, but…. if Kirby and others will claim it, not only will I nail them on the fact that the CDDS data aren’t appropriate, I will get them a second time by showing how the 3-5 data doesn’t hold to their claims.
“For ’tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his own petard; and ‘t shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines
And blow them at the moon”
-Hamlet
Comment by Jennifer — 26 January, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
666Sigma wrote: I agree with her comments. The Autism Diva is a classic example. She openly opposes any and all intervention as do many of the other bloggers listed in this blog.
Who could oppose bio-med? It’s 100 times better than giving our children drugs. If it doesn’t work, so be it. But how can CLO or pro-biotics be compared to chelation??? My son was taking pro-biotics before we knew he was on the spectrum because it cleared up his chronic diarrhea. It was recommended to us by a friend who is into organic foods. I guess those are silly, too.”
Mr. Sigma,
Here are some links to commets by Kev and Autism Diva which make it perfectly clear that they are NOT opposed to the safe biomed treatments that you refer to.
Diva.
(scroll down to the fourth comment)
Kev.
Comment by 666sigma — 27 January, 2007 @ 9:53 am
- - - [Moderated: Off-topic - Autism Diva and Kevin Leitch are not the topic of this post] - - -
Here’s a brilliant theory for you. In fact, it’s not a theory. It’s fact. I don’t need any proof because it is common sense.
This whole NT and ASD argument is a joke. I’ve got news for the ASD world (mostly AS world). NT is a spectrum, too. In fact, the NT and ASD spectrums are really one spectrum. We are all different. Yes, some differences and deficits stand out more than others and will have a bigger impact on our lives.
However, if my child sucks in math should I just give up and focus on their strengths? Or do I help them become numerate so they can manage their basic finances as an adult?
Teaching skill sets to ASD kids to make them more NT (for lack of a better phrase) is not wrong. You can’t take any 2, 3,4 or 5 year old kid and tell me exactly where they are on the NT/ASD spectrum and where they will be 10 or 20 years from now. And you can’t wait 20 years for a definitive study to find out if a therapy may work. As a parent, you’ve got to do the best you can to help your child.
- - - [Moderated: Off-topic - Neither Biomed nor ABA are the topic of this post] - - -
Comment by Do'C — 27 January, 2007 @ 8:59 pm
Has anyone suggested you should?
Has anyone suggested that you shouldn’t work to enable numeracy (to whatever degree)?
Education to impart meaningful knowledge and skills makes more sense to me, be we can disagree on this if you don’t see it that way.
“Therapy” is pretty ambiguous.
Autistic, NT, and everything in between. While specifics of the what constitutes “best” are often critcized (chelation as an example, is criticized because there is not scientific evidence that it does anything for autism or even should for that matter), no one is suggesting that you don’t do the best you can to help your child.
You really do have a lot to say, why don’t you start a blog, so you’re not restricted by me attempting to keep comments relevant to the post to some degree.