Board index › General Discussion › Autism Politics, Activism, and Media Representation
Thoughts on the Autism "Epidemic"
Page 4 of 6 [ 82 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
MrsPeel
I'm not sure if this link is going to work, but it's a very interesting chapter on autism prevalence in relation to SSI which I found online:
Prevalence of ASD
Recent prevalence estimates for ASD in the general under-18 population range from 1.5 to 2 percent.
An increasing trend in the prevalence of ASD has been observed across all data sources, including national surveys, epidemiological studies, special education service use counts, and Medicaid reimbursements. The trends in the rate of the child SSI recipients for ASD among children in low-income households are consistent with trends in the rate of ASD observed in both the general population and others.
There is evidence of diagnostic substitution between ASD and ID in both the general population data and the SSI program data. From 2004 to 2013, decreases in the rate and number of recipients of SSI for ID were similar to decreases in the rate of special education service use for ID in the general population; significant increases in the rate and number of recipients of SSI for autistic disorder are similar to increases in the rate of special education services for ASD in the general population.
The trend in ASD diagnoses among Medicaid-enrolled children was similar to general population trends between 2001 and 2010. The yearly prevalence estimates of ASD diagnoses among children enrolled in Medicaid were similar to estimates based on special education child counts, but lower than ASD prevalence estimates from surveillance and survey data for the general population.
Location: Wales,UK Relationship: Single Interests: Trains AgeGroup: 40's FavouriteColor: Green Music: CyndiLauper Pets: Cats and Ducks
Ah. There is one element that has been happening in the western world, and that is that in recent years the middle classes of society have almost dissapeared and the gap between the rich and poor has also increased massively, to the point where there are less and less rich but more and more poorer classes. If the study does not allow for this shift, it will sway the results into thinking that the main increases in autism related diagnoseses will be with the lower classes of society, when in reality, it is society itself which is changing that is the cause and less likely to be those diagnosed with autism in themselves if that makes sense?
Awaiting asessment. Neurodiverse 173/200. Neurotypical 21/200. Empathy 11/80. AQ 39.
Shutdown link: --》⊙ I can relate: --》⊙
Shutdown Experience similar to mine: --》⊙
Location: Calne,England
Mountain Goat wrote:
I'm relatively poor , but not from a poor background. Does ASD ,on its own, result in people being less wealthy than their parents?
Support mental health research
Please support mental health research
http://www.mentalhealthresearchuk.org.uk/
http://mcpin.org/
https://www.mqmentalhealth.org/
Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 133 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 47 of 200
You are very likely neurodiverse (Aspie)
That seems likely.
Generally speaking, autists have poor job prospects.
Not all, but many, will be limited in their ability to earn a decent income long-term.
firemonkey wrote:
It could be either. Some end up ultra rich and most end up poor to not being able to work in decent jobs for periods of time long enough to gain wealth. If you saw my work record which is good compared to some, as I always left of my own accord, but you will see rhat every couple of years I changed jobs. The reason for this is I could only keep up masking for so long, and when the masking started breaking down, oh boy! That's when the trouble starts with a triple whammy of being picked on, daily anxiety and stress, and a constant need to fight off partial and full shutdowns, and then burnout. So it was important to change jobs even though I hated the first "Settling in period" which could take a year to settle in. Settling in learning new routines is stressful, but the stress would be on a scale of 75% in settling in like a backgroud stress, followed by a brief window of happiness for a while having learnt the routines and I would be plain sailing..... But then, I would reach the point when the masking started to break down (Usually in 2 or 3 years time though could vary), the stress would be 10,000% daily!! !
Yes, it seems to be common to hit burnout around the 2-3 year mark.
I've managed to struggle through that period twice and found if you can get to about 5 or 6 years things tend to ease up. By then one is part of the furniture and they rely on you too much to let you go easily, so you're more likely to get whatever adjustments you need than the boot.
But of course it all depends on the job and the people whether it's possible to stick it out. I've been fortunate to have landed in an AS-friendly career and had relatively supportive colleagues.
Joined: 5 Mar 2018
All the hf aspies I've known were forced to retire early, mid fifties at best.
They scrapped by after that limping to retirement age on benefits or crappy jobs before being eligible for a state pension.
Maybe our ability to cope goes down with age. I certainly find things tougher in middle age than in my 20s. Another decade and I might be finished too.
Maybe expectations are higher as well.
I found this comprehensive summary on possible autism causes / triggers:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10 ... .v4i0.7111
It is interesting that they actually refer to autism, asthma, and metabolic disorders as epidemics, even though they are not infectious diseases. I had been thinking the term 'epidemic' for autism was just hyperbole, so wasn;t expecting that in a scientific paper.
But I agree with their conclusion (bold is mine):
Research is an important component in the ultimate prevention of autism. However, research is most often after the fact and is reactive to emerging health threats that have already taken a heavy societal toll. In contrast, well-conceived safety testing of chemicals and drugs is far more likely to be proactive in the prevention of developmental conditions affecting the neurological and other systems. In the case of autism, increased prevalence that has emerged over the past 30–40 years and the targeted research that has followed to date, have yet to produce a definite list of causative environmental factors. Still, safety testing today is not designed to detect the types of developmental disruptions that are likely to result in autism (or other recent childhood health threats such as asthma or type 1 diabetes). Why is the primary response to this emerging health threat only to be found in research and not reflected in purposeful and effective changes to regulations that determine the safety of our drugs and chemicals? Recently, investigators focused on the developmental origins of chronic disease called for a more forceful role of public health officials to reduce the burden of disease established early in life 108. We concur with this appeal, which will require a different level of engagement on issues in developmental toxicity such as the prevention of autism.
The point being, that drugs and chemicals are tested for immediate health effects in adults (or in rats), not health effects on fetuses from maternal exposure, nor induced epigentic changes and transgenerational effects.
ASPartOfMe
Location: Long Island, New York
MrsPeel wrote:
They also called our neurotype a threat many times.
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
My autism is not a superpower. It also isn't some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It's just part of who I am as a person. - Sara Luterman
Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 25 Dec 2020, 10:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
For example, there's this:
Current evidence indicates that a proportion of autism cases result from the interaction of multiple susceptible genetic loci and that environmental interactions with susceptible genetic loci produce myriad routes that may culminate in an autistic phenotype.
And this, in the section on vaccinations:
It is of note that in many cases when postnatal childhood exposure to infectious agents elevates risk of chronic disease, the infectious challenge serves as a triggering event in children previously made susceptible (reviewed in Dietert 94). This is one reason why childhood triggers promoting the onset of diseases such as asthma are often more obvious than are the actual causative prenatal environmental conditions that established susceptibility in the child.
I'm also interested in the link to maternal stress.
As a factor, it seems worthy of more attention than it usually gets, I think.
kraftiekortie
Location: Queens, NYC
I've been on my job 40 years, and will retire in 2 years.
I didn't do as well as I might have done had I not been autistic, it must be said.
The "higher" incidence of autism, to me, is caused by the broadening of the criteria.
27 Dec 2020, 12:06 am
Yes, that is the general concensus of opinion here.
But you have not done a scientific study on this, Kraftie, so how can you be sure?
Not meaning to pick on you personally, you understand, just trying to explain my view.
What I mean is, while it is clear that there has been a broadening of the diagnostic criteria which would be expected to result in increasing the apparent prevalence of autism, who are we to conclude that must be the sole explanation?
Can you point to any study which actually demonstrates that broadening of diagnostic criteria is the only cause of the increase, and that environmental factors play no role?
Or are you just jumping to the most obvious or convenient conclusion?
And if the general concensus were wrong, would we be doing a disservice to the ever-increasing numbers of severely autistic children, by failing to adequately investigate causes of the dramatic increase?
Sure, there might be environmental influences at play. And research is addressing this.
But the consensus amongst the experts is that the "broadening of the criteria" is the primary (but not the only) cause of this supposed epidemic.
I don't believe vaccines or their preservatives cause autism. Neither do the vast majority of experts. I believe, if this was the case, then we would have had an "epidemic" during the 50s and 60s.
I'm certainly not precluding other potential causes—including environmental ones. Especially environmental insults around birth, like anoxia (I knew a person with autism from that cause).
I am all for research in this area.
Well, I agree with you about vaccines, there've been a lot of studies on that which have not demonstrated any link.
I'm not seeing a whole lot of studies on other environmental factors, though.
Most autism research seems to be trying to pinpoint genetic causes rather than environmental. I think study of autism genetics is sort of the "in" thing - probably because we know that the condition is mostly genetic but no-one has pin-pointed the combinations of genes and/or mechanisms (except in the case of a few specific mutations) - so the field is still open for someone to make a big breakthrough and get famous as the person who "solved the autism puzzle".
I think genetic studies are the low-hanging fruit, but by concentrating on these we may be missing the whole picture.
I do believe there are "autisms," rather than just one "autism."
NBC's "Autism: The Hidden Epidemic" - Thoughts?
in General Autism Discussion
aspiegirl2
The Autism Epidemic?
Xyzzy
Autism: The Hidden Epidemic
MolotovCocktail
in Television, Film, and Video
echospectra