Comments on: The myth of the autism epidemic

By: composer777

composer777 — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 23:17:54 +0000

I was just diagnosed recently at the juvenile research center for autism. I’m 35. Amidst all the toys in the waiting room it became clear that it’s all set up for diagnosing children, not adults. The questionairres are oriented towards parents, not people seeking treatment for themselves. I’ve been diagnosed, and they are trying to find a therapist, anyone, in a city of 2.5 million people, that can actually treat me. I’ve done my own searching for months, and only found one person, who was a complete hack.

Doesn’t anyone find that curious? It shouldn’t be any wonder that adults aren’t being diagnosed, not only are they more difficult to detect, but everything I’ve encountered so far says that adults are not welcome, and that the experts do not care about my problems. Maybe eventually I’ll find treatment, and I’ll try not to trip over the toys in the waiting room…

By: Terry Nova

Terry Nova — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 21:19:35 +0000

I read your blog in a regular manner and just love it
hope there will be more postings from you, keep on going
greetz, terry

By: The Extraordinary Claim of the Autism Epidemic

The Extraordinary Claim of the Autism Epidemic — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 01:50:03 +0000

[...] December Scientific American considers arguments familiar to those who have been tracking the myth of the autism epidemic: Is there something, such as an environmental factor—-thimerasol from vaccines, toxins from [...]

By: The New McCarthyism

The New McCarthyism — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 05:15:31 +0000

[...] In the New McCarthysim, those who prefer not to talk about curing autism, or suggest that there is no epidemic of autism, or that a link between vaccines and autism is a myth, or that our better understanding of autism [...]

By: Joseph

Joseph — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:24:32 +0000

“Who is responsible for the increase in administrative prevalence?”

Does there always have to be someone to blame, even for relabeling? If you must, I’d say Lorna Wing and colleagues, in addition to the APA and the internet.

By: autblog

autblog — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:05:42 +0000

It’s not the numbers that are misleading; it’s the way they’re used by groups whose agenda is to mislead.

By: dynk

dynk — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 03:47:34 +0000

Who is responsible for the increase in administrative prevalence? What is it being done for? Who is going to stop misleading numbers from being promulgated?

By: Joseph

Joseph — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:39:44 +0000

“But a few of them who doubted the vaccines’ role have mentioned recent higher autism rates as evidence that vaccines had nothing to do with it”

No, it doesn’t work that way. Everyone agrees there has been and continues to be a rise in the administrative prevalence of autism. Absolutely no one that I know of will deny this. That is not the same as saying there has been a rise in true prevalence.

By: dynk

dynk — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:19:24 +0000

It seems the same people saying vaccines have nothing to do with autism say the epidemic isn’t there. It’s likely true there isn’t an epidemic anymore. There could be overdiagnosis. But a few of them who doubted the vaccines’ role have mentioned recent higher autism rates as evidence that vaccines had nothing to do with it, as the removal of thimerosal around 2000 didn’t get the rates of autism to go down. Whatever suits what they’re trying to convince people of.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:26:20 +0000

Rofl, Well, for a passionless entity it seems to me that you have quite a passion for pointing things out PD.