Politics and Medicine - Ped Med: Autism's changing face

Author

Ped Med: Autism's changing face

Jan Drew

2006-10-18, 2:31 am

Ped Med: Autism's changing face

Many practitioners with autistic patients consider one of their biggest
challenges to be keeping up with what one of them refers to as "the changing
face" of the disorder.
"It's been truly trying for the best diagnosticians to be able to classify
our children over time," said Dr. Rafael Castro, a Boston neuropsychologist.

"There have been instances in which they have been grouped with kids who had
childhood schizophrenia," he added. "Most recently, they've added other
diagnoses, such as the Asperger's disorder and PDDNOS (pervasive
developmental disorder not otherwise specified), and it does reflect the
variation that we can find in the presentation of the symptomatology."

In 14 years, between 1980 and 1994, the official diagnostic manual of mental
illnesses expanded the definition of "pervasive developmental disorders" --
as the range of conditions on the autistic spectrum are called in scientific
circles -- from two categories to five.

Ranging from debilitating impairment to near-normal functioning in most
settings, these include the severe classic autism, the much milder
Asperger's syndrome and an intersection of the two, termed PDDNOS.

In addition, the group also comprises the rare but severe Rett's disorder,
which affects primarily girls, and "childhood disintegrative disorder." Both
of these involve a regression that wipes out earlier developmental
milestones in social, language and/or cognitive skills.

Overall, an estimated 425,000 children under age 18 and 100,000 younger than
5 have a pervasive developmental disorder, according to Dr. Deborah Hirtz of
the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, a component of
the National Institutes of Health, in Bethesda, Md.

She approximates one to three out of 1,000 children have autism, and three
to six of 1,000 have combined pervasive developmental disorders.

The ubiquitous one in 166 figure popping up on and off the Internet is the
simplified form of six in 1,000, the highest rate studies suggest for the
most liberally inclusive category of autism, which encompasses the mildest
forms of the condition, scientists say.

No actual head count has been taken of Americans with autism spectrum
disorders, and no one knows exactly how many children are affected, the
Department of Health and Human Services acknowledges.

The figures cited are derived by assuming a 1-in-166 prevalence and applying
it to the 4 million children born in the United States each year. Of these,
then, approximately 24,000 would have an autistic disorder.

Presuming this proportion has stayed steady for the past two decades, the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta calculates the total
number of autistic children through age 20 should hover somewhere around
480,000.

That sum would be lower if the mildest cases were omitted, or if, as
mercury-in-vaccines critics contend, the percentages have been soaring along
with the expansion of the childhood immunization program.

Or they might be higher, if the base rate has been undervalued.

CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding stresses the one in 166 figure was drawn
from a small sample and has been used as a stopgap until studies currently
under way in a number of states and other research present a truer measure
of the problem.

Findings made public in May 2006 from two of the ongoing national studies --
the first ever based on parents' reports of children's autism diagnosis --
suggested between 5.5 and 5.7 per 1,000 (or one in 182 to one in 175)
youngsters ages 4 to 17, or at least 300,000, were identified with the
disorder as of 2003-2004.

However, because neither survey distinguished among the various types of
autism, the results provided no hint to how many cases were of the less
severe forms. In addition, because both studies covered the same period,
they gave no indication how these rates compare to those of the past.

Thus, the findings offered little resolution to the continuing debate over
the direction of the patterns in prevalence.

"We're just learning about the subtleties that can be early signs of autism,
we're learning about the importance of early detection, and we're learning
about the importance of early treatment, but we have a long way to go before
we really understand the scope and magnitude of this problem in our country
and what the trends really mean," Gerberding said.

Next: Coexisting conditions further muddy autism count.

On the net http://www.autismtreatment.info/aut...nd+columns.aspx

Ed Friedman

2006-10-18, 4:34 pm

If you are seriously interested in what causes autism, then you should
check out: http://www.hriptc.org/metal_autism.html

If their theory is correct, then it should be possible to treat autistic
children by normalizing their abnormal biochemistry. While I'm not
aware of any such studies yet being published, they do seem to be doing
ongoing research at the Pfeiffer Institute along these lines. A
coworker has had her son treated by Pfeiffer for almost a year now, and
he has improved to the point where he is almost off scale now (and is
attending a mainstream preschool with no special assistance - at the
same preschool where he was tossed out last year after only a few days).

Ed Friedman

Mark Probert

2006-10-18, 9:32 pm

Ed Friedman wrote:
> If you are seriously interested in what causes autism, then you should
> check out: http://www.hriptc.org/metal_autism.html
>
> If their theory is correct,

Their theory is at least 5 years old, and there has been NO follow-up I
can find. This is merely another slant on the bogus biomed approach.

then it should be possible to treat autistic
> children by normalizing their abnormal biochemistry. While I'm not
> aware of any such studies yet being published, they do seem to be doing
> ongoing research at the Pfeiffer Institute along these lines. A
> coworker has had her son treated by Pfeiffer for almost a year now, and
> he has improved to the point where he is almost off scale now (and is
> attending a mainstream preschool with no special assistance - at the
> same preschool where he was tossed out last year after only a few days).
>
> Ed Friedman

Ed Friedman

2006-10-19, 4:27 pm

Mark Probert wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Ed Friedman wrote:
>
>
>
> Their theory is at least 5 years old, and there has been NO follow-up I
> can find. This is merely another slant on the bogus biomed approach.
>
> then it should be possible to treat autistic
>

Mark,

You are correct. The original finding is 5 years old and no followup
has yet been published - which is what I said in my original post.
Their ongoing research must be considered experimental, but with one
case that I know being miraculously positive, it certainly bears looking
in to.

However, your claim that "This is merely another slant on the bogus
biomed approach." puts the onus on you to point out research that
supports your statement. Also, it would be helpful if you could state
what qualifications you have for making any such statements. I.e., what
degrees do you hold, what have you published in peer reviewed journals,
etc. (In my own case, I have a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Theoretical
Biology from the university of Chicago and have had a few articles
published in peer reviewed journals.)

Ed Friedman

Mark Probert

2006-10-19, 9:36 pm

Ed Friedman wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> You are correct. The original finding is 5 years old and no followup
> has yet been published - which is what I said in my original post. Their
> ongoing research must be considered experimental,

Incorrect. They do not have ongoing research that I can find. I cannot
locate any evidence that they have had approval from an unbiased IRB.

but with one case that
> I know being miraculously positive, it certainly bears looking in to.
>
> However, your claim that "This is merely another slant on the bogus
> biomed approach." puts the onus on you to point out research that
> supports your statement.

No, it does not. The onus of proof is on those who claim that the biomed
approach does something. The advocate for a treatment bears the burden
of proof.

Also, it would be helpful if you could state
> what qualifications you have for making any such statements. I.e., what
> degrees do you hold, what have you published in peer reviewed journals,
> etc. (In my own case, I have a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Theoretical
> Biology from the university of Chicago and have had a few articles
> published in peer reviewed journals.)

That's nice. Irrelevant, but nice.

Jan Drew

2006-10-20, 2:29 am

"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:XuTZg.6576$IW6.2875@trndny01...
> Ed Friedman wrote:
>
> Incorrect. They do not have ongoing research that I can find. I cannot
> locate any evidence that they have had approval from an unbiased IRB.
>
> but with one case that
>
> No, it does not. The onus of proof is on those who claim that the biomed
> approach does something. The advocate for a treatment bears the burden of
> proof.
>
> Also, it would be helpful if you could state
>
> That's nice. Irrelevant, but nice.

You should understand that Mark's rules change when it is most convenient.

Also--he has declared a UDP. However *I* posted the thread.

Poor Mark.

Jan Drew

2006-10-20, 2:29 am

Terry Jones

2006-10-20, 2:29 am

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 03:52:09 GMT, "Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

>
>It is noted Mark has NO qualifications.

It doesn't take an academic qualification to ask "what's the evidence
for this?"

Remember that children have *died* as a result of unvalidated
"treatments" for autism and its' symptoms (including chelation
"therapy").

--

Terry

Mark Probert

2006-10-20, 9:30 pm

Terry Jones wrote:

>
>
> It doesn't take an academic qualification to ask "what's the evidence
> for this?"
>
> Remember that children have *died* as a result of unvalidated
> "treatments" for autism and its' symptoms (including chelation
> "therapy").

Quite true. Other children are having their hormones altered by Lupron
treatment, chelation, and a myriad of other "treatments" which really
have no basis in reality. These poor children are being poked, needled,
prodded, etc. all because their parents want to repair their "broken"
"defective" child and cannot accept, as others have done, that there is
no cure for autism.

They are forcing the waste of money on research venues where parents of
these wonderful kids need help with things such as better education
programs, respite, etc.

Jan Drew

2006-10-20, 9:30 pm

"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:zkb_g.876$iM2.221@trndny08...
> Terry Jones wrote:

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 03:52:09 GMT, "Jan Drew" <jdrew1...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

Mark doshonestly left that out. Showing once again his true character--and
his UDP.

Poor Mark.

[vbcol=seagreen]
>It is noted Mark has NO qualifications.

It doesn't take an academic qualification to ask "what's the evidence
for this?"

Remember that children have *died* as a result of unvalidated
"treatments" for autism and its' symptoms (including chelation
"therapy").

--

Terry

>
>
>
> Quite true. Other children are having their hormones altered by Lupron
> treatment, chelation, and a myriad of other "treatments" which really have
> no basis in reality. These poor children are being poked, needled,
> prodded, etc. all because their parents want to repair their "broken"
> "defective" child and cannot accept, as others have done, that there is no
> cure for autism.
>
> They are forcing the waste of money on research venues where parents of
> these wonderful kids need help with things such as better education
> programs, respite, etc.
>
>