1/3? Even if you accept the findings without question, 1 in 38 is nowhere near 1 in 3.

The increase in estimated prevalence is a product of the widening of the diagnostic definition of "autism" and more aggressive screening efforts to identify mild or borderline cases. Higher rates are a direct result of doctors and parents "taking this issue more seriously".

One of the key indicators of if a child will have autism is the age of the father at conception.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/04/AR2006090400513.html

When fathers are in their thirties, children have about 1 1/2 times the risk of developing autism of children of fathers in their teens and twenties. Compared with the offspring of the youngest fathers, children of fathers in their forties have more than five times the risk of developing autism, and children of fathers in their fifties have more than nine times the risk.

The sad, but oft ignored, truth is that even sperm has a "shelf life." Delaying fatherhood, just as delaying motherhood, has possible consequences.

differnet, I have never heard of that link to autism. I'll look up the study and see what it has to say. I am the father of a child with Asperger's who was dx at a very early age, thank God. He has been treated and is making great strides but, he will definitely have a tough road his whole life. He is now 14 years old and is becoming more and more aware that he is different then those around him. He's great kid and very talented in the arts so, I hope he can find his niche in life and enjoy it to the fullest.

"AUTISM" is such a wide spectrum disorder that in itself causes us to have problems determining key factors. If we could differentiate between all the symptoms and make it more specific we would make more progress.

We need to quit lumping kids with Aspergers together with kids that are low functioning Autism and even separate out the kids with HSP (Highly Sense Sensitive Persons) Perhaps the thing that causes Aspergers is genetic where the lower functioning autism is environmental and HSP is due to old sperm (just an example)

My son had "issues". Colic that lasted a year, rocking, extreme sensitivity to light and sound though he spoke in complete sentences by 12 months and was reading simple books unaided by three years old. I quit my job, breastfed , fed us organic, cut out wheat, disciplined with consistency. Who knows what worked ---or even what was wrong with him???? I think it was the fact that i was with him 24/7 and gently forced eye contact and appropriate responses. He is now a "normal" 10 year old with lots of friends who happens to be obsessed with baseball and science ( he also gets straight A's) . He still hates loud noises but no one would ever guess he had issues as a child. If I had put him in an autism school who knows what that would have done to his development. He is now on track to attend a very prestigious high school. I worry there are other children who may have been in the same situation that are sitting bored to death in an autism classroom and acting out due to boredom not autism

1 in 38 is less than 3%. Not 33% or one third....maybe you have your own place on the spectrum....

Kallie, no appropriately written IEP would lump low functioning with high functioning children with autism. Special ed and IEP's are supposed to work to place the child in the least restrictive environment that meets their needs. This means mainstreaming eduction WITH supports when appropriate to the child's needs.

How do we know autism is not an evolutionary state? A lot of autistic people have amazing focus and concentration.

All through known history, a large portion of highly intelligent people have had certain emotional and social traits that now are given a name. And as more testing and study is done, we find that higher intelligence levels in humans is because their brain is fundamentally broken. Along with the various deficiencies that render us odd and leave us feeling misplaced.

Welcome to my world.

@Genenut.......In theory it IEP's work that way. In reality, they do not. It truly depends on the school they go to. My nephews are in a school, where the IEP's work like they are supposed to. My oldest, she just didn't learn things as fast as the rest of the kids, her IEP and school failed her. It was also a fight to get them to do the IEP.

simply over diagnosis just like ADHD, and depression for thatr matter. a means to sell drugs and get money for research from drug companies. just look at the new "social anxiety disorder" they came up with for selling antidepressants to kids. if your kid is a little shy, he has SAD.

Bob, there are no drugs that treat autism.

a means to sell drugs and get money for research from drug companies.

Ignorance knows no bounds. It's amazing how many people are truly unaware of the disorder and who think that it's all make believe. How sad and pathetic.

Differnet, I am a special ed. teacher and I know of the studies you are referring to. In fact, one student was very significant,due to the sample size. A lot of my autistic kids have older dads.

Kallie, within this year there will not be the label Asbergers. All levels of autism will fall under the label "autism". I can only guess that it's because of the "blurred lines" between the two.

With age comes a LOT of genetic issues. As autism has been tied to genetic mutations and extra DNA additions, deletions, and repetitions in code, it's not a surprise that older parents may be more susceptible to having children with genetic disorders.

However, it is not the age of the parents that is the root cause here, it's the genetic mutations, etc. that occur. My wife's parents had her at 22, her autistic brother at 24. The cause is not simply parental age. You may have more older dads because you live in a certain area where older dads are more common. I'll bet a lot of the other students in the area have older dads as well. An example doesn't make the rule. Let's not get ahead of ourselves and blame parental age, as this is just one of MANY factors that are associated with DNA susceptibility to mutations, etc. Let's not forget, though, that the root cause comes back to the DNA susceptibility to mutations, etc. not simply age of parents. Look further than just the surface to find the real root cause.

Additionally, Down Syndrome is associated with older parental age as well, but we all know the cause is an extra chromosome. Parental age might raise the risk of Down Syndrome, but it's certainly proven not to be the root cause.

Again, question why the risk rises with parental age, don't just assume that it's the root cause, because as we saw with Down, the answer was further than just scratching the surface.

That may be, but it is a fact that sperm and egg quality are not the same for a person in their 40's as it was in their 20's. Personally, I wouldn't want to take the chances, which is one of the reasons I didn't have a third child. I just didn't want to risk it.

This study is much more medically important than it is socially important. That is, it is necessary to be able to understand the entire autism spectrum to truly understand the disorder. From a medical standpoint it is important to know the whole range of symptoms and impacts that result from the disorder, no matter how profound or how slight.

But from a parenting or education standpoint, the low end of the spectrum is far less important, especially where it is nearly indistinguishable from "normal" behavior. A child's mind is a very resilient organism and can rewire itself quite readily when it is given the chance. At the very low ends of the autistic spectrum, natural rewiring will pretty much bring the child back into the fold by puberty. For somewhat worse children a little attention by parents and educators following an early diagnosis will achieve the same thing. As the disorder increases along the spectrum, more and more intervention is required and at the upper ends, there is currently no amount of attention that will bring the child into the so-called "normal" range.

But it is important that studies like this be done because medicine must dig until it finds the limits of the entire spectrum that have the same underlying mechanism, even if no treatment or intervention is required.

Beyond that, I have several observations:

1) We need to stop phrasing possible causes or contributors in such a way that it appears to "blame" one of both parents. (An example, the age of a parent.) And we need to stop blaming outside factors that can then be used to "blame" some parents and "congratulate" others such as the bogus vaccination games. The whole issue of blame is a smoke screen that actually prevents effective diagnosis and intervention. This is an issue that seems to consume Americans --- find some to blame and then forget it.

2) The incidence of autism is not growing and may actually be diminishing slightly. The real issue described by this study is that of diagnosis. More children are being diagnosed because physicians have better and more accurate diagnostic criteria.

3) One of the "treatments" for the low end of autism that has disappeared is strangely, the military. There was a time in my lifetime when schools, courts, and families with children with social disorders such as Asperger's were encouraged to enlist in the military. Counter to what most people think, the military does not teach discipline --- they don't have the time. They teach self-discipline. The structured lifestyle of the military has been, until recent times, seen as a useful social modifier that has improved countless thousands of lives. (This is my own opinion with no scientific data to back it up.)

4) One thing that Americans need to be realizing is that this sort of research now has to be done in other countries and cannot be effectively conducted in this country. This is because so many people have no effective healthcare system in this country. In order to do many kinds of social and medical research, consistent cradle-to-grave medical and educational records need to be available. As of the last census, we don't even have accurate (<10% false or misleading data) demographic data. If we can't even count noses, how can we count ASD noses?

5) Physicians are so oriented toward money that it has warped out entire medical delivery system. Physicians know that numerous, often unnecessary, very short office visits are more profitable than more comprehensive but longer office visits. Today's 3.5 minute office visits are keeping many disorders and diseases from being diagnosed in a timely manner. And the prevalence of expensive drugs as a shortcut form of treatment for everything is also harming patients. Healing is a hands-dirty time-consuming practice of an art. It does not lend itself to brief office visits and an ever-expanding array of pills.

Children are God's perfect creation. We are the stewards of our children. It is one thing to slam systems like Medicaid and school lunch programs. But those doing the slamming need to realize that not doing everything we can for our children is the greatest of all social "sins."

@Buffalo Bob's opinion is a good example of how this country's medical system works. You have lots of people who are poorly informed and poorly educated spouting their personal opinions as somehow equally weighted with research. There is no such thing as "over diagnosis." It is a vacuous contention for a very real situation. Scientists try very hard to understand how things work and how to use that knowledge to give us a better life. But as science is taught less and understood less in this country, the Luddites among us want more and more simplistic answers to every issue and distrust and hate science more and more. This sort of attitude is why this country graduates less than 1/3 of the PhD's in math and science that it needs.

Chris, those on the spectrum , "low lying" as you put it, do not re wire their brains with therapy... They learn to cope. They will always look at the world differently from the rest of us.

Autism therapy is not like physical therapy after orthopedic treatment where when you are discharged from therapy you are good as new.. Its more like those who get training/therapy to use a replacement limb. The replacement limb didn't make them good as new, they learned to cope with the artificial limb and its restrictions/disabilities.

For the record puberty often exacerbates autism as that is when they really miss those non verbal/social cues and they feel more alone and "different" than ever before. And that is for a child with aspergers , what you call the low lying end of the spectrum. Trust me on this one, I'm living the challenge of raising a teen with aspergers and a younger child with hf traditional autism.

As to dumping these kids in the military as a way of "treating them", take a real good look at today's military. Social and communication disabilites dont often mix well with todays military. Hot racking on a sub doesnt allow someone with ASD to get a quiet place to re gather themselves when they get over stimmed.

I know you probably meant well, but I would hate for my child to be subject to another telling him if he had just worked harder in therapy he could have been "normal". he will never be "normal" he will always have autism. And based on their current sensory issues, entering the military would be a disaster for both the military and my children.

Chris, I have taught special ed for almost 30 years, including the gamet of the "spectrum". I have yet to see any "re-wiring" . Very early intervention is the most effective treatment out there. However, the brain goes into "hard-wiring" as it gets older. The book Endangered Minds speaks to this. It is full of medical studies that conclude that the brain becomes "hard-wired", especially in the area of language.

Now I know it is not politically correct to say that "older" people should think long and hard about having children, but they do need to think of the possibilities. On the other hand, I might be out of a job, because a very high percentage of my kids are from , what we call , "the old egg and sperm syndrome". Sorry, but there is a risk that everyone needs to consider. I'm not saying it is a matter of right or wrong, but there IS a risk. Again, you cannot argue with the decline of egg/sperm quality as we get older.I think we all need to be medically informed.

I have never, ever heard of treating autism with military training. The noise itself would terrify many autistic people. Would you have someone by their sides each and everyday to interpret verbal and nonverbal communication?

For the record I was 24 when I had my eldest. ( I was actually 23 for 90% of the pregnancy). no old eggs here.

And not every 45 year old mother has a Down's Sydrome child, BUT the risk is much greater than if she was 25. Just a medical fact, Genenut, just a medical fact. Not all people who stand outside with metal rods in their hands are going to be struck by lightening, but would you do it? No. THe risk is greater. That's the point I'm trying to make. I also have a child who has multiple handicaps. I was not "old" either, but I still know the risks are greater of something going wrong if one is older.

As stated before, older age increases the RISK for certain genetic disorders, but again, it's the genetic mutations, deletions, repetitions, etc. that's the real root cause in most cases. You can have countless examples of older parents having children with disorders, but you also have countless examples of young parents having children with disorders. To focus on age does no one any help. The focus should be on the reason the DNA is different than those "normal" children. It doesn't matter HOW you got the altered genetic code (whether from spot mutations during fetal development or from "old" eggs with questionable genetic code, etc.) -- what matters is the genetic code itself.

Robyn & Genenut: We all know older parents have increased risks for many disorders in their progeny. That doesn't mean that the cause is older age, though. Young parents can have children with DNA alterations too (whether from point mutations or just simply from the combination of the two parental DNA codes). Again, just because older age increases the risk DOES NOT mean that it's a cause.

As for Chris, I also understand the points you were trying to make with diagnoses, but the best way to understand and treat autistic children and adults is to have them properly diagnosed (not screening for certain traits as in this study). This helps researchers find the cause(s) by weeding out those that aren't really ASD, and it helps parents to follow certain therapeutic regimens when their children actually are ASD. There is no medical treatment for autism, so I don't know where you were going with the doctor thing.

Research is good, but bad research (like this study, which was just a survey) only makes the water cloudy and it makes it harder for actual research to be done.

Never said it was a cause, but should be a consideration because of the risks. Parents have every right to know that those risks increase with age. I'm thinking of the futures of parents/children. When you have an increased chance of having a Down Syndrome child, I doubt that you , at that point, care about the why. At that point you just want to make an informed decision. And statistics don't lie, whatever the underlying cause is.

Exactly. Every man and woman knows the risks of birth defects and genetic disorders increases with age. Yes, it is something to watch out for. But it is certainly not the cause of autism's increased prevalence. Drug use and smoking are also risk factors for disorders at birth. Increased age is associated with damage to sperm/egg DNA, as are many other factors. As a prospective parent, yes, you want to weigh the risks. As a researcher and/or parent of an ASD child, you're not going to dwell on your age as the potential cause of the autism, etc. because that doesn't get you anywhere, just like with Down Syndrome. My point was that an increased risk does not mean that it's the cause. Just as with Down, there's likely an explanation (e.g. altered DNA sequences here, extra chromosome in Down) whose risk increases with age, but age is not necessarily the cause. As several here point out, there are plenty of young parents with ASD children, so let's not get stuck on a one-size-fits-all explanation with age. The broader picture is genetic code sequence alterations, SOME of which may be caused by older parents, but the majority of which are not. Making a rule based on a few examples is not a good idea.

Get a grip, people. I will repeat, I never said it was a cause, but a consideration. As I said, age is one of the reasons I decided not to have a third child. I didn't want to take the chance. I, for one am glad I knew that there could be risks. Should the medical reports have lied and said, "The quality of eggs/sperm are the same throughout one's life"?? Or maybe , "nothing" should have been said. Don't we have the right as a public to know that there are risks?

I could have told you that every Down's Syndrome child I have is from a mother over 40, but I didn't because I know you cannot take a few "personal" examples and say "it must be true", However, since others have mentioned their personal experiences, I guess I should have too. I'm not basing my thoughts on the fact that my program is full of children of older parents. I'm basing it on what the medical community is telling us. If you can point out a medical studies that refutes the "quality" issue, please let me know. I would also prefer studies that contain a T-score, which shows statistical significance.

Robyn, we all realize risk grows with age, but you can't just say "look, all of the autistic kids that I know (a really small subset btw) have older parents...it must be because of that". MANY disorders have a higher risk with older parents. We're looking for the distinction with autism, not the generic "disorder risk increases over age 35" pattern that every doctor and the general public knows. We're looking for what's causing the autism, not what's just correlated with it. As with heart attacks and cancer...their risk increases with old age -- but you wouldn't say old age specifically causes it. They're correlated, but something else (whether it's arterial plaque, smoking, etc.) actually is the reason for the disease, which of course is tied to how long you've been on the planet. So before we jump to the "old age" issue, let's dig down deeper and try to find the reason for the correlation (such as genetic anomalies).

We all want to find a reason for autism, but speculating that it has to do with age is not relevant here. Yes, we get it that you didn't want to risk it by having a third child at an older age. But there are millions of people in this country (approx. 3 million if the 1 in 110 statistic is accurate) afflicted with ASD, and they all aren't born to older parents. Many, like Genenut's and my wife's brother, were actually born with parents in their early 20's. As you stated, you want statistical significance. Yet you continue pressing the "old age" factor, which has been proven as NOT being of statistical significance in studies on autism!

Oh, yes there has been a study. It was of statistical significance because ofthe huge sampling. It also supported other smaller studies. That's is the reason i mentioned it. There is a lot of "insignificant"/"anecdotal" research out there. Being a teacher I have had to learn how to read reputable research. And this one WAS significant. I usually don't "spout" of these things unless i have seen the study myself.

It is very easy to look up the reseach. There are several abstracts where you can actually "read" the statistical analysis. Of course, you have to understand statistics, but these abstracts are fairly reader friendly. Being an abstract, they just give the "basic" analysis. It would be very easy to get the full research. Eric searches are good sources for this.

Looked up several papers. All of them state pretty much the same thing: Much like ANY of these disorders (Down, autism, etc.) your risk increases with the age of the parents. What they also say is that this increase in parental age accounts for less than 5% of autism's increase.

Again, the question comes back to WHY. Older parents have sperm/egg DNA that is more susceptible to mutations. So AGAIN it comes back to genetic changes (whether mutations during fetal development, mutations during gamete formation, mutations in egg DNA as the woman gets older since a woman has a finite set of eggs, mutations in sperm DNA during spermatogenesis as a man's sperm is replenished over and over again, etc.). You have to dig deeper than just parental age. Yes, the risk increases, but WHY? Because the genetic code is changing which can create a whole host of problems (not just autism) for the offspring.

It's not simply the parental age, but the factors that come with parental age, such as low birth weight, premature or breeched deliveries, low Apgar scores, etc. That's like saying the moonlight is from the moon directly because every time at night when I look at the moon, the light comes from it. Except that the cause of the moonlight is the sun's reflection off of the surface of the moon. DNA damage occurs because of numerous reasons, one of which is parental age. But it's the DNA damage that's the root cause, not the parental age. There are 60-year old men making healthy babies and 20-year old parents with autistic children. It's a function of the individual's DNA, not their age, that's causing the conditions and disorders in the offspring. Is any of this sinking in?

Also, it's not necessarily the parents' DNA that is to blame. Spot mutations, repetitions, etc. occur during fetal development and DNA replication. If these mutations occur in the right places within the DNA, neurological development is altered, and a child may be afflicted with ASD. Also, two healthy parents may combine their DNA to form a (pardon the term) red-headed stepchild...i.e. a child whose traits don't necessarily reflect either of the parents. That's what happens with evolution -- offspring aren't necessarily the same as the parental generation. Traits change, and if the parents have the right set of combined genes, the combination may signal autism. Nobody's fault, just an odd set of genes that cause traits not seen in the parents. There are likely multiple genes involved here, which is likely the cause of the wide variety of levels (whether true autism, Asperger's, PDD-NOS, etc.) and the wide variety of symptoms seen in ASD children. Varying degrees of genetic anomalies equals varying degrees of expression. Again, is this sinking in at all?

What was the coefficent (spelling?) score of the research you saw, because the research I'm talking about is much more than 5percent. In fact , several studies indicate much higher. Did you do an Eric search. I have access to a local university's search engines, which is the full research.

Let me repeat for the third time. I never said that older ages CAUSES autism. BUT I did sight some research that stated that the older the parents, the greater tendency to produce children with autism. I never said that age causes autism. Is that sinking in? Do you understand and can interpret statistical analysis??

Look up the New Zealand research. I couldn't find the analysis breakdown that I saw, but I have a feeling you aren't a "statistics person" anyway.

I couldn't find the analysis breakdown that I saw, but I have a feeling you aren't a "statistics person" anyway

You have a feeling? I only aced the statistics AP test in H.S. and took several college classes on it (all A's).

ONCE AGAIN, I remind you that the risk for MOST of these disorders increases with age of parents. But we're looking at the cause for the increase in JUST autism. It's not as if the incidence of Down and other disorders has increased this much in that timeframe, and that should show you that the increase is coming from something else. I'd love to see those studies where you say older parents is the cause for more than 5% of autism cases...but you can't find them.

Again, we all know it's a risk, but not a cause. We're looking for a cause here. We're looking for what's changed between the early 90s and now that has caused the increase. Older parents are not something new, and the majority of autistic children do not have older parents (i.e. over 35-40 when conceiving). Yes, it's a risk, but because of other factors (i.e. DNA susceptibility to mutations & transcription errors during replication). I keep coming back to the table with Down. Everyone knows the risk of Down increases with age, but age is not the reason it occurs.

It comes to this: If everyone above age 35 stopped procreating, we'd still have autistic children. So please stop going down the path of "older parents" just because you have several anecdotes of this in your life. I have several in my life that say younger parents have autistic children...so that gets us nowhere in finding the cause. Digging deeper into the issue (i.e. WHY does the risk increase as you get older) will find the root cause (i.e. genetic anomalies, etc.), so what you're seeing is a SYMPTOM and not the cause.

But you just dismiss me as a non-expert because of your anecdotal evidence (as if that has any statistical relevance). I'm sorry you feel that way, but there are numerous studies that point to DNA replication errors and certain repetitive sequences in the genetic code as markers for autism. Just Google it and you'll find studies like this:

[S]cientists identified rare genetic variations that were 20% more frequent in children with autism than in children without the disorder. These so-called "copy number variations" (CNVs), which can be missing chunks of DNA or extra copies of sequences in and around genes, occur in less than one in 100 people in the general population. The results...showed that some of the CNVs were inherited while others were found in children but not in their parents.

So sometimes these sequence variations can be inherited, but sometimes they're just a product of replication errors. Either way, there's genetic code variation in everyone, but when this variation is associated with genes for neurological development, autism and other disorders may arise.

If you can google, you can look up studies, Penguin. As I said, look up the New Zealand study. OK, I feel like I'm talking to one of my students-I NEVER SAID AGE CAUSES AUTISM. I SAID IT IS A CONSIDERATION/RISK. Maybe bold letters will help! I also said THAT I WOULD NEVER HAVE BROUGHT UP THIS ISSUE IF I ONLY HAD ANECTODAL MATERIAL. Are you sure you're reading the right posts! I'm serious, because I'm getting bored repeating what i did and didn't say. This is ridiculous. All I can say is this. Older parents might want to consider risks before deciding on whether they should have children. It has also become kind of a trend for older fathers to start (families) over again with second, third wives. Now I didn't make that up, but I am certainly not going to find it for you. Do it yourself. I have too many "old egg/sperm children" to teach. Oh, sorry, not politically correct.

Robyn, once again, you seem to JUST be focused on this one issue, as if other causes couldn't contribute to why older parents are at an increased risk. That's the bone I'm picking with you. Not that the research doesn't exist, etc. All I'm saying is that there are underlying causes for why this phenomenon shows up, and you refuse to acknowledge it.

It has also become kind of a trend for older fathers to start (families) over again with second, third wives.

Here is your typical argument (centered around old fathers). How about going into the fact that older women are having kids too? Nope, you're just about older dads. Women are delaying starting families to get their careers to a high level before raising kids. But you're just focused on the tired "old sperm" theory.

I also said THAT I WOULD NEVER HAVE BROUGHT UP THIS ISSUE IF I ONLY HAD ANECTODAL MATERIAL.

But you refuse to acknowledge that many more young parents than old parents have autistic children. You've claimed it's more than 5% I quoted in a study, yet you don't have evidence to back it up. Wouldn't you think that if it was more than that then we would've figured it out by now?

AGAIN, WE ALL AGREE THERE ARE RISKS TO OLDER PARENTS CONCEIVING CHILDREN. No one is debating that. The question is WHY autism specifically has increased over the past 20 years. If it was mostly older parents contributing to this increase then we would've seen an increase in Down and a whole host of other disorders that are associated with older parents. BUT WE DON'T, AND THAT'S THE POINT. Something else is at play here.

Being that autistic children are mostly born to parents under 35 years of age shows that it is not the "old egg/sperm" theory you're touting. Yes, that can be a risk associated with older parents, but it is not the cause. The research, while valid, does not get to the point of what's causing this increase with older parents. That's like saying that children born in the Chernobyl area are more likely to have birth defects without addressing the fact that the area was hit with a nuclear disaster 20+ years ago.

With older parents, the DNA is more susceptible to changes over the years, and THAT is why older parents are more susceptible to having children with these disorders. The "older parent" theory research does not adequately address the reasons why the risk is greater nor does it get to the bottom of why this phenomenon occurs. It also doesn't get to the heart of the matter, which is why the incidence of autism has increased over the past 20 years. If most of these children had older parents, I could accept that older parents were to blame for the increase. But that's not the case.

The research you keep touting fails to address the cause of this increase, and THAT is what I object to. The research you keep touting fails to address the WHY aspect of the older parent theory, and THAT is what I object to. The research doesn't even scratch the surface (i.e. it's a statistical risk study), and that is why I object to it. Here in NJ, we have one of the highest incidence rates of autism in the country. Does that mean that you're more likely to actually BE autistic if you're born in this state? No. But your kind of study would say yes. When you don't understand the "whys" (i.e. more specialists, more affluent parents willing to pay for answers, greater awareness in metro areas, access to materials, etc.), you're left with only the statistical risk studies, which don't adequately explain why a certain phenomenon is seen.

Did you ever consider the fact that older parents might actually have more worry about the neurological state of their children (and hence would seek out specialists more often) and would have more money (as opposed to younger parents barely making the money to buy diapers) that could explain some of the higher incidence? A statistical risk study like yours wouldn't even consider these factors.

Again, not attacking you, but your anecdotal evidence has led you down a path to seek out studies that agree with you (a.k.a. confirmation bias). There may be studies that agree with you, but there are plenty that don't, and those are the studies you should review. Surrounding yourself with people and ideas that just agree with you 100% doesn't challenge your thinking, and you don't learn anything by not exploring other ideas or viewpoints.

Yes, all I did was mention that studies suggest that older parents could be at a higher risk. You are the one that jumped off the deep end. In other words, I shouldn't have mentioned this at all. I never said it was the cause -for the 4th time. I never suggested that it was just the age. I certainly did acknowledge that younger parents could have autistic kids. I know that some Down's Syndrome kids are from younger parents. BUT possibly the risk is greater for older parents. How many times do I need to say that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I just said it should be a "talking point", "start off point", etc. Gee, Penguin, you are a piece of work!

Robyn, lay off. You said that since "a lot of your autistic kids had older parents" that it must be involved with autism. I said that it's a correlative factor but not a cause, just like Down syndrome. You've bitched at me for weeks now about how there's "a study", but that proves correlation, not causation. Yes, we all get the fact that as we get older, the quality of DNA gets worse. But that doesn't mean that the "old" factor is the real issue...the quality of DNA is. It's as if you said that older cars get into more accidents because of the wear on their tires...it's the quality of the tires, not the age of the cars, that's the cause. You usually find worse tires on older cars, but the age of the car has nothing to do with the tire quality. What you're seeing is correlation. You cannot, however, make the jump to causation based on your anecdotal evidence. Let's quit while we're ahead...we're saying the same thing. The quality of DNA determines the likelihood for genetic disease, not the age of the parent.

Pleas go to another Doctor. Once you have a diagnosis, the school is legally forced to provide servive, whether a 504 plan or an IEP, Take your child to a neurologist that specialises in this kind of testing, there are standard tests that are very accurate. Good luck

Elizabeth, either demand the school authorize (at their expense ) a full neuroligical evaluation and specifically ask for the ADOS test or find an in network doc who will work with you and have them refer you to a pediatric neurologist and ask for the ADOS.

ADOS is the standard for autism diagnosis.

Beyond that read the book of educational rights your school is required (under fed law)toprovide you. You have appeal rights and dont have to agree to end his services. Dont sign off on ending his IEP or 504 unless you are in agreement with the school.

*hugs*

You are not alone. It took me 4 years AFTER diagnosis of aspergers to get my eldest the IEP he deserved so he could actually learn and pass his classes (I'm not looking for A's in everything just C's so I know he has the basic skills he needs to survive). Schools don't want to label because it costs them $$$ they could spend on other things like rehabbing thier teachers lounge.... or paying for the football team ... *sigh* I've been where you are. Just don't give up the fight. Its what they are counting on.

Can someone explain to me why/when it became the schools responsibility to fix/address health issues (whether mental, or physical) for children?

I have always understood offering special education - so that those who CAN be taught at some level, are still getting educated...but, treating autistic kids is above and beyond a schools ability. Especially when you factor in the reality that there is no hard science on how to "fix" kids with Autism.

My Aunt works as a special ed teacher, and specifically works with an autistic kid who lives in the same neighborhood as she does...I met him 2 years ago, and he's approx 16/17 yrs old. He's never going to "catch up"...he's never going to "be like everyone else"...and he's never going to be "fixed". The best my aunt and the school can do is give the kid a routine, make him feel involved, and hope he has fun.

I guess im happy my aunt is working a situation/environment in which the parent of that autistic kid - isnt expecting HER to do what they cant/wont do for that kid.

Its unrealistic...its your kid, grab the bull by the horns...roll up your sleeves, and figure it out. if you can. stop waiting for others...you'll be waiting until the day you all die.

Gee Jessica, 50 years ago we institutionalized all children with autism or anything else that made them different from " just like everyone" .

200 years ago those in authority didnt think you as a female had a right to an education. They didnt think you had the brain to understand and process any higher education.

I'm glad that some of us (but not you) have evolved and matured enough to realize EVERY child has a right to an education. It may not be the same education for all but a right to an education. I'm sure they give this kid FAR more than just a routine and make sure he has fun and if that is all your aunt does with him she disrespects her charge greatly.

Children with autism can be educated. Children with autism SHOULD be educated. All children deserve an education.

Gerenut - Did you read my entire post? I said that Special Education SHOULD exist...but, where to draw the line between educating - and CURING?

If I have cancer and it affects my ability to get my homework done, should the school pay for my chemo? Why then should it pay for Autism assitance?

I 100% agree with everything you've said...you clearly did not read what I said. There's a difference between educating - and "fixing" the autism. I dont think its a schools job to cure a kid of autism, its not a "learning disability" its a mental health disorder.

Actually autism is a NEUROLOGICAL disability not a mental health disorder. And it is a learning disability same as dyslexia or being blind.

No one is asking their child to be "cured" of autism (except Jenny McCarthy). There is no cure but ABA therapy and speech therapy etc are things the school should offer as they allow the child to receive their education. They are supports.

Is a sign language translator "fixing" a child with hearing difficulties? No , they are facilitating that child's education with supports. Therapy during school for those with autism such as ABA and speech therapy is the same thing.

You fail to grasp what autism is, entails, and what individuals with it need to succeed in life. What they need in the way of supports to be able to access thier federally protected right to an education.

If you disagree with the school's evaluation, you have every right to ask for an independent evaluation, and it would cost you nothing.

wrightslaw.com has a lot of info, Elizabeth Marie.

Genenut: Thank you for this explanation. Job well done, I couldn't have said it better myself.

try living with aspergers... you wont ever use the term MILD with it again.

every diagnosis on the spectrum is a form of autism. Every point on the spectrum is a disability. Some are just far more disabled than others.

everyone has something wrong with them

if we didnt, what would we bitch about?

"my arms are shorter than yours! ha I win the 'im screwed contest'!"

edited to add: Tony - I was actually thinking that some parents might be ignoring the autism, and therefore didnt want to participate...I suppose anything is possible.

Have you ever been around someone with Asperger's Syndrome? Most people do not notice that my son is "different" the first time they meet him. Actually everyone loves my oldest son, he loves rules and expects all his classmates to follow them as well and gets very agitated when they don't! His best friends are his teachers and other adults. He is extremely intelligent! Other kids think he's "neat" because of all the stuff he knows, but he doesn't know how to interact with them. My son cannot just learn a social skill and apply it to a similar one, he needs to learn from each situation (it is new, every time - unless the exact same words/phrases or scenarios are used). He asked his teacher (whom we love and she deals with his special needs so very well) to use the restroom and without thinking she said, "If it's an emergency." Later, that night after I picked him up from the afterschool program I noticed that he smelled (children on the spectrum sometimes how gastroentestinal problems too) and told him to use the bathroom. He admitted that he had a bm in his underwear (he cannot lie). I thought he didn't wipe very well, but he had an actual bm and had sat in it all day! He never thought to ask again to take care of it because to him an emergency is: cutting yourself, breaking a bone, etc. Now that I have explained this saying to him he will remember it, but if the saying is altered or a different idiom is used he will be lost again. This is a learning process for him every day - this is a disorder. He cannot control his moods although he has learned many tricks to help him calm down but even then sometimes too much is just too much. He is oversensitive to sound, and too many people. His b-day parties consist of just us or maybe one other family. This is a disorder, it can be seen as a social disorder, but it needs to be treated as a disorder so that these kids can get the "correction" they need.

Melissa you are doing such a great job! What an amazing teacher that would listen and deal with these issues.

Melissa - I hope you take my question as sincerely as I mean it, i know its hard to tell online sometimes...

do you ever wonder if your son has spent so much time in one area (intellectually) inside his own mind, or however one can term that...that there's not enough time in the day for him to "worry about" or "care about" learning social cues?

Put in a more simple term, if I spent 90% of my day learning to play basketball, and nothing else....how proficient would I be intellectually?

Just curious how much you've thought about this angle, and what - personally from your sons experience, causes you lean one way or the other?

My professor, who has a son that's autistic, told me, who has a son with Asperger's Syndrome, that people were using "autistic" as the new age "retard"; you must be one of those people! Bravo! My son has a diagnosis for why he sometimes says really inappropriate things, what is your excuse? You are not a comedian, my advise ... don't quite your day job.

Oh, Melissa. "...don't quite your day job." Now that's comedy. Seriously though, you're on point.

Changed the definition? Really? FYI, the testing criteria for diagnosing austism has been stable for at least 20 years. What has CHANGED is the level of AWARENESS of parents and doctors to recognize autistic characteristics which prompts increased testing. But even that cannot account for the 100 times increase in the rate of diagnosis over the same 20 years. But go ahead and keep spouting off your theories on the subject. I need the amusement.

The spectrum casts a wider net that it did years ago....this article speaks of mild social issues.

Principia

The change was not the Definition, it was the broad spectrum diagnosis. But in the end you are right. With this broad spectrum diagnosis MOST children will have some traits of autism.

The change WAS in the very definition of autism, people. Yes, awareness has increased exponentially as well, but a definition change 20 years ago had a marked effect on the number of children diagnosed with ASD...used to be you had to be Rain Man-like to be labeled autistic. Now, we have Asperger's and PDD-NOS (added 20 years ago), which make up most of the ASD diagnoses nowadays.

To say the change was not the definition is absurd. The DSM-IV changed the very definition of autism. Combined with more awareness, the broad-based definition now in use correlates to the jump in cases.

Hi Elizabeth Marie,

I've read your posts. I have a son diagnosed at the age of 2 1/2 with mild autism. He is now 7, mainstreamed in a religious school (it's very rare to go against the public school route), but receives his services from the public school. He has had 3 evaluations: at age 2 1/2, at age 4 & just this year (his tri-annual withe the school district). Autism has been the conclusion every time, & I've never questioned the diagnosis. However, with this last eval, while it concluded he still qualifies for autism, I have felt for awhile now that there is something else going on. The school district can't do much more than eval, dx & provide the services they are required to provide that they have available. So, after talking with our family doctor (who, fortunately is very concerned with our son and refers him out to specialists when she feels she can't provide guidance) we took him to a University hospital 2 hours away to see a neurologist. We are still awaiting some results, but it was pretty clear to her that he is high-functioning (first time we'd heard anyone call him that) and that there could very well be ADD alongside the autism (which had been my concern for a long time). If the results we're waiting for come back in the way they feel they will, we will explore treatments for ADD.

I share this with you because, since my son entered kindergarten, I have questioned whether or not ADD could be factoring in to some of what is going on with him. Teachers, therapists and school psychologists always said "It's just the autism." Until I sought the advice of a professional versed in autism and ADD, I refused to accept the school professionals' opinions.

Fortunately, our insurance covered part of the visit (we have a high deductible). I understand not everyone has this option and it breaks my heart when people are in that position. Have you considered formally not agreeing to the school district's evals on your son? You can refuse to accept the findings, and I believe when you do, they have to schedule an outside Independent Evaluation. Not sure if you can pick the provider on that. You probably received a guide book to special education law in your state which would explain what the process is should you disagree with the findings of the CSE. This might be the way to get your son another evaluation, independent from what the school does every three years.

We also have 3 children. In the end, for us, we decided that even if we had to take the hit financially, we'd do it to give our son the best shot at getting him the help he needs to allow him to function as best we can in a typical world. As it is, we may be doling out a lot of money for ABA therapy. He did very well when he attended a preschool based on ABA & we saw so much progress. Once that was done, we started noticing some regression. And while he is currently doing well, there are still things we feel ABA would really help him out on. BUT, we will have to find the therapist on our own and maybe even pay for it on our own. I tried to call our insurance to see if they would cover it and they told me they needed some kind of code so they could see if would be considered mental health therapy or some other therapy. Uh, hello? Just tell me is ABA covered for autism and under what part of the insurance. Don't make me have to track down my doctor and get some code from her only for you to tell me "Nope not under that code, try again."

But, we'll persevere and do everything we feel we can, and then when we feel we can't go further, we'll find a way to do it no matter what it takes. When it comes right down to it, we the parents are the biggest advocate for our children and the only ones who will always, without restriction, be looking out for what is in their best interest.

I wish you all the best in your journey to get your son the help he needs!

Elizabeth Marie,

Here is a really great web site with message boards:

http://www.autism-pdd.net/

You can browse comments without registering a screen name, but if you want to leave a comment or post to an existing comment you will have to register a screen name (it's free).

I have found so much good information there from those with children all across the spectrum and with multiple diagnosis. There are many parents/grandparents/teachers & those themselves on the spectrum offering up their own experiences and advice. It's well worth checking out if you haven't already.

Good luck!

a) Autism is FAR more than just a language disorder. My aspie has a vocabulary bigger than most ADULTS (especially on newsvine) but cannot tell by listening to tone of voice or looking at a persons face if they are happy, sad or mad. He cannot judge personal space or his relationship to objects and people around him. And that's just to start. Autism is NEVER just a language disorder. Language is only one part of the disorder as a whole.

B) there are no drugs to treat Autism. Just expensive, often not covered by insurance, therapy. Big Pharma is not making a profit from autism.

Quote: "Big Pharma is not making a profit from autism."

But odds are good they've profited off one of the causes.

Can any of the therapy be done at home, after learning what the professionals are doing?

Jessica it has to be concurrent with their education.

But odds are good they've profited off one of the causes.

John, you obviously have no clue what you're talking about. Hundreds of studies have linked autism to genetic abnormalities. No pharma company has yet profited from that. Your argument is speculative and based in fantasy.

Autism is NEVER just a language disorder. Language is only one part of the disorder as a whole

Amen, Genenut. My wife is currently pregnant with our first, and autism runs in her family, with her brother being classic autistic. I'm hoping we don't have any further run-ins with autism, but if we do, that kid is going to be loved like you wouldn't believe. It's amazing how misunderstood autism still is.

As for this "study", characterizing and labeling children as "autistic" without ever using the DSM definition of autism in S. Korea is not only mind-boggling, it's disingenuous and wrong. If you want to say everyone has similar traits to some degree, fine. But to claim that 1 in 38 have it just based on a form -- ridiculous!

There are no drugs to treat autism. Only expensive not covered by insurance therapy. Take you big pharma conspiracy talk to another board.

I was really commenting on a medical practice, not a conspiracy.

Give me an F'n break yourself. Those 6 and 7yr old are not perfectly normal.

Getting an autism diagnosis is HARD and getting treatment is even harder. If they are getting treatment they NEED it.

You are correct. 1 in 38????? C'mon....where does it end?

"I know of parents with perfectly normal kids who are getting "treatment" because their 6 or 7 year old boys don't "recognize social cues."

I know which social cues you're referring to. That is the educational systems problem, not the parents or the child. The so called "Pass no fail", "No child left behind", has stunted out children. When I was growing up, the schools aided in our learning proper social behavior. Now, schools hardly touch anything except Math and Science classes as the "No child left behind" requires them to do.

Instead of complaining in this forum, complain to you congressmen and get that stupid"No child left behind" out of the picture. That thing has caused more problems than it has helped. That will solve your friend's 6 or 7 yr old boys' problem.

While I understand people's frustration with overdiagnosis, those who are truly autistic or Asperger's (not just those who are diagnosed due to one delay and later in life show no traits) benefit tremendously from behavioral therapy. Anyone who thinks that these kids are "perfectly normal" has obviously never interacted with an autistic or Asperger's. Shame on you for poking fun -- what does that say about you? I pity your ignorance.

Penquin

No argument with what you are saying....but 1 in 38?? There is an autism empire out there..or we are facing the most monumental health crises to ever hit the US..world.....minor social impairment cannot be treated as a disability and that looks like where we are headed.

except what this study actually said was that 1 in 38 had traits of autism, not that they had autism. For every child diagnosed with autism you can find a handful of close relatives with some but not enough traits to be diagnosed with autism.

Exactly, Genenut. This was a paper-and-pen exercise, not a diagnostic study. If you focus on one thing too much (even if it's just work), that could be counted as a "trait". Bogus criteria leading to bogus results.

There is an autism empire out there..or we are facing the most monumental health crises to ever hit the US..world

Or the large change in diagnostic criteria 20 years ago bumped up the number of people that would be covered under the definition. Remember, MOST people that get a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder are labeled as PDD-NOS or Asperger's, NOT true autism (PDD-NOS and Asperger's only came into the definition 20 years ago, thus the "increase" in the rate). The rate of true autism have remained steady. Also note that the number of "retarded" people has DECREASED, meaning that we used to classify autistics as retarded decades ago. Reclassification, more people falling under the definition due to change...no wonder there was an increase.

And as for the 1 in 38 -- take that with a grain of salt...all studies point to about 1 in 110-150...one paper exercise in S. Korea doesn't negate all the real prevalence studies.

No even those with aspergers have a form of autism which affects them their entire life. Try getting a job when you cant read facial expressions, cant tell when someone is upset or just joking around. Try keeping a job when you cant judge personal space and keep getting too close to your co workers making them uncomfortable. Try holding down a job when the lights or noise level of the office makes you physically uncomfortable to the point of pain due to sensory issues. They need help too.

Those with autism are NOT mentally ill. Autism is a neurological disability, not a mental health illness.

I was diagnosed with aspberger's syndrome, and I don't feel that it has destroyed my life - only made it different. It is true that I have few friends, but I don't spend every day lamenting that issue. Instead, I've developed alternative interests and have become content with the way that I am despite these issues.

Mental illnesses are also neurologically based, so I don't see any differentiation between the two diseases.

The problem I have with expanding autism to also include aspberger's syndrome is that everyone has something wrong with him or her. You might have back pain, Mike is color blind, and John has asthma. There is nobody without some chronic condition or another. If we start placing undue emphasis on people who don't respect others' personal space, then we belittle those who suffer from eczyma or who have kidney stones.

Yes, it is tragic that some people cannot read facial cues as well as others, but we need to keep the bigger picture in mind. If I had a choice between being unable to read facial expressions or developing skin cancer, I would certainly choose the former.

you may have been lucky to never have encountered it but those with back pain, asthma or being color blind seem to get their disability accepted far more readily and accommodations made for them easier than those with any form of autism.

I'm not asking for undue emphasis, just the same level of accommodation they would give to a blind person, or the asthmatic , etc. allow those with autism in any form to live with a chance to succeed in this world.

Thank you for helping our children. You are right none of these children with ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorders) are the same. My oldest has Asperger's and as Genenut has pointed out - once you live with it, it is NOT mild, and they do have so much trouble fitting in. To get a job, later in life, they will need the ability to work with others, to read social cues (especially just to land the job during an interview), and many other issues that those people that are not around it do not "get". My son has an excellent classroom teacher (she sits with him for field trips and listens to all his facts), amazing special education teachers, a wonderful speech therapist and helpful administration that all care deeply about my son. When he has a "bad" day - we all have a bad day, but we NEVER finger point, we are a TEAM! My son is included in this team - he has even written an autobiography about his Asperger's - he is only 9 years old!- and has shared it with his after school program. When one of the teachers told him she loved it and asked why he wrote it, he replied, "Because, afterall, people need to know about Asperger's Syndrome and I want to do 99 good deeds in my life, and this is one!" : ) He is a great child, who is not disabled, but differently abled.

Amen -- it's sad to see ignorant people discuss (here and elsewhere) that these kids should be confined to homeschooling, special ed classes, etc. (i.e. the adage "not in MY school" when discussing the necessity for some kids to have aides, etc. to assist with their needs). As if they're kid is more deserving of an education than an ASD child. Same can be said of the peanut allergy children...parents of "normal" kids will do anything for their own, but will throw the children with special needs, allergies, etc. to the wolves, not ready to accept that they need special precautions, aides, etc. to get their education.

contact the local school in your area. The school system should be able to start the testing process and if she is on the spectrum or has add/adhd ,be able to start providing services through the pre-school setting. The earlier therapy starts the better the outcome.

Your doctor may also be able to refer you to the appropriate agency to start the testing process.

I would start with the school though. They tend to only want to listen to their own evals unless forced otherwise and there are plenty of things to fight about with the school, if you dont have to fight about the diagnosis thats one less fight to do.

Unfortunately, I don't trust the schools, that she would be attending, in this area. They did not want to acknowledge that my oldest and my nephews had a problem. The schools only wanted them out of the schools. They were all labeled as problem children, not children with disabilities. Most schools don't acknowledge mental disorders of any kind, which is why so many slip through the cracks.

How do I broach the subject with her medical doctor and get the doctor to listen? Some of the doctor's now-a-days have such a know-it-all attitude. If they don't see it, it's not there type mentality.

I found it easiest during a well child visit. Her doctor should be looking for these issues himself but he only sees her for a few minutes once a year at this point and may not see the same things you do. Just bring it up at any point during the exam. That's what he is there for.

I would use the word meltdown instead of temper tantrum. Because that is what those with autism do. They cant handle it anymore and meltdown. Temper tamtrums have a large measure of control on the part of the one throwing one. They know what they are doing. The scariest thing I've every seen was my 5 year old "disconnect" and just start hitting out (and biting and kicking) and me trying to hold him still until he could gain control back without him hurting me and me not hurting him in the process. And knowing that other than waiting for them to "come back" there isn't much more you can do for them. And that 5 minutes after the meltdown they are back to "normal" and don't understand why you are so upset with them or about them. (during a full on meltdown they tend to not remember what goes on, its a true disconnect).

Maybe you could help me describe this to the doctor better.

She will give a frustrated scream, sometimes will kick and hit the floor, sometimes throw things, then shuts down. She won't respond to anyone, other than me, in anything other than grunts and growls. She does get more violent if anyone other than me tries to calm her, or tries to keep her from getting to me.

My family was saying, at first, that she acts this way, only because she's spoiled. Now, they're saying she's like her cousins. But, I know things aren't always as they appear.

That is exactly what you need to tell the doctor and ask for an evaluation. If he wont , go to another doctor in the same practice. a GP or PCP is not qualified to make this determination. There are many things this could be (not just autism) and a PCP or GP cant make the final diagnosis.

If you arent comfortable discussing this frankly with your doctor you need to find one you are comfortable discussing things with. the doctor patient relationship only works when both sides are comfortable discussing problems with each other.

Our insurance requires a GP to give a referral before it's covered. I have no issues with being willing to describe everything, to anyone, who may be able to help. How do you bring it up to the GP? Do you say you are concerned about her behavior, and want to have her evaluated?

Exactly -- you need to go to your GP and get a referral to a psychiatrist/psychologist. As Genenut said, it may not be autism, ADHD, or anything, but you need to know. The longer it goes untreated (even if it's just childhood tantrums), the more help you'll need to correct it. Early intervention is best.

I'm working with family members, to help them identify her triggers. I do run into a lot of resistance with them. They only want to see her behavior as being spoiled and being around Mommy too much. I know it would help her more if we got her evaluated. It will help everyone else to understand, and in turn help her.

Do not expect others to understand (even family). There will be insensitive comments and odd stares. There is nothing that you can do about that. No, it is not right BUT teaching your child how to deal with these situations in a positive manner will benefit them in the future. My son while in regular school, is the odd duck. He says and does odd things and those things cause stares or comments by people. I do not feel that I have the time or patience to educate every person that I come in contact with as to what Autism is and how it affects my son.

If you have a diagnosis. Do the research to see what the traits are. Your child may not have every one of them. I identified the triggers through observation. Objective observation. Meaning that I sat back and watched my son's interactions with his environment and did not make excuses like "well he does like those shoes", "that person shouldn't have gotten so close" etc. Keep a observation diary noting what happened, reactions, and any other differences. I did this for about 3 months and noticed a pattern. That pattern helped me identify the triggers. Keep in mind that it is merely speculation about the definite triggers. Observation just leads to a host of possibilities, which is better that I ever received from the doctors. You know your son better than anyone else. Let the doctors know what you are doing BUT stand your ground about what you feel is right. If you see that sensory intergration works for you then do it.

I agree. If he/she doesn't like loud noises or McDonald's, etc., avoid those triggers, while at the same time help to understand what does make him/her tick (i.e. are they fascinated by music, art, etc.) and interact with the child via these subjects. Finding out what makes them tick builds positive interaction with a child that may shut you out from many other things. Also, behavioral therapy may be able to temper some of the extreme behaviors (obviously never will go away completely), and this may tone down the episodes when they do occur. I've found that through my wife's family's interaction with her autistic brother that family members are positive when they have a full understanding of what the condition entails. Ignorance is based on misunderstanding of the condition, and needs to be addressed so that your family can build a positive environment around the child.

You may be right, as far as incorrectly labeling. I have seen this happen. But, it happened because a school and daycare said the child was not acting like normal children. This caused that child to be put on medication that was not needed. However, that was when schools and daycare made recommendations to a doctor about the problem, suggesting the child needed medication, or to be fixed.

I'm not looking to fix my child. I'm looking for ways to help identify her specific problem so that we can help her. The daycare she was going to did not have the staff, ability, or knowledge, on how to handle her when she has these meltdowns. And I know for fact, that unless diagnosed, schools and daycare will label her as being a problem child. That is wrong. When I was in school, I remember them trying to find out what may be wrong with a child instead of putting them in ISD and labeling them as a problem.

It's not just a widening, but a definition change that grouped several disorders under one name -- autism. Even though "true autism" hasn't increased, the Asperger's and PDD-NOS diagnosis is now classified as ASD, thus people think that the prevalence of autism is increasing exponentially. It's not. We've just grouped several similar disorders all under one name. While it's similar to ADHD in that the awareness of autism has grown over the past 2 decades and it's become the diagnosis-du-jour, it's quite dissimilar from ADHD because it's not just a "kid has tantrums and must be ADHD" situation. The child has to fit certain diagnostic criteria. Are some overdiagnosed? Surely. But it's not as if a doctor is going to call a hyper kid autistic just because he throws an occasional tantrum.

Not suggesting that a tantrum will cause a diagnosis, but the numbers quoted are ridiculous....If our country has a condition requireing ongoing treatment/therapy for 1 in 38 or even 1 in 50 then we have a meltdown in our society both economically and socially....I dont buy it.

Society's expectation of "normal" has changed dramitically over the last 50 years. We now expect that everyone should fit into our modern society that requires a high level of communication ability. Many people did not fit that expectation in 1960 and they dont fit it now. Now , however, we expect that everyone should fit into our very homogenous society. The expectation to fit the norm has risen the related level of disappointment when they dont fit has risen as well. The expectation that the medical/ educational establishment should fix things has also risen.

While I agree that the expectation is that everyone wants their children to be "normal", and that the definition of what constitutes normal has changed, we're also suffering from a want to understand what is "wrong" with our children when they exhibit odd ("abnormal") behavior. Hence the rising incidence of ADHD dianoses in the 90s...some diagnoses were legit, but many were just a lack of discipline, etc. Parents want their children to be "normal" so much that they actively seek a medical diagnosis for what's "wrong" than actually try to work on correcting slight odd habits (tantrums, etc.). Don't get me wrong -- there are many children out there who actually need the diagnosis to get help, school assistance, etc., but many parents are so focused on diagnosing an issue that may be easily resolved in the home just so they can have an explanation (that doesn't involve their fault) for their child's abnormal behavior. Case-in-point: many children labeled as ASD to explain a certain trait or two later in life go on to be "normal"...were they really ASD before? Not likely. Was it a good way to get assistance and explain away a few behavioral traits? Sure. Overdiagnosis may help the child get therapy, but it doesn't help us find the cause of autism, ADHD, etc. if we have these "false positive" cases clouding the waters.

Actually, with enough therapy and/or supports those with HF autism or aspergers can look/act "normal" in adulthood which is why some dont get diagnosed until in thier 40's or later.

There is no cure but they can learn to live with thier limitations and develope coping strategies.

For an autism dx it takes more than just 1 trait. See below:

[The following is from Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM IV]

(I) A total of six (or more) items from (A), (B), and (C), with at least two from (A), and one each from (B) and (C)

• (A)1. marked impairments in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body posture, and gestures to regulate social interaction
  2. failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level
  3. a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people, (e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)
  4. lack of social or emotional reciprocity ( note: in the description, it gives the following as examples: not actively participating in simple social play or games, preferring solitary activities, or involving others in activities only as tools or "mechanical" aids )
• 
  
  (B)1. delay in, or total lack of, the development of spoken language (not accompanied by an attempt to compensate through alternative modes of communication such as gesture or mime)
  2. in individuals with adequate speech, marked impairment in the ability to initiate or sustain a conversation with others
  3. stereotyped and repetitive use of language or idiosyncratic language
  4. lack of varied, spontaneous make-believe play or social imitative play appropriate to developmental level
• 
  
  (C)1. encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus
  2. apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals
  3. stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)
  4. persistent preoccupation with parts of objects
  

ii

(A) qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:
(B) qualitative impairments in communication as manifested by at least one of the following: (C) restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and activities, as manifested by at least two of the following:

(II) Delays or abnormal functioning in at least one of the following areas, with onset prior to age 3 years:

(A) social interaction
(B) language as used in social communication
(C) symbolic or imaginative play

(III) The disturbance is not better accounted for by Rett's Disorder or Childhood Disintegrative Disorder

Genenut -- exactly. The draft DSM-V actually wants to make the threshold for an autism diagnosis only one of these traits, which would again open the floodgates for an increase in "autism" diagnoses. Children that would be included in this new definition might actually have a different condition (as these traits aren't exclusive to ASD), and now we'd be mislabeling them as autistic. We went from underreporting autism incidence to possibly overreporting it, and in the process causing many misdiagnoses (if the new definition takes hold). I think this (again, if it goes through) would be a huge travesty.

Genenut

So 2-3 percent of our boys meet those criteria....I dont think so....I smell an industry in the making.

So 2-3 percent of our boys meet those criteria....I dont think so....I smell an industry in the making.

Please go somewhere else to spout your nonsense. A) The accepted statistic is 1 in 110, nowhere close to 2-3 percent. One study based on a paper survey does not negate all ACTUAL research and diagnoses. B) You've obviously never met an autistic child, because if you did, you wouldn't feel the need to make fun of ASD nor would you believe that it's not real, and C) There are NO drugs for ASD, meaning there's no benefit to pharma companies to make it up.

It really saddens me that you have nothing better to do than type nonsensical conspiracy theories on web pages. You really don't have a life, do you?

A. Cambridge University study prevalence of 1.57 per 100 of all children, 1 in 38 boys. Rates in California have increased 8 fold. Autism advocacy group say rates increasing by 15 to 17 % per year.

B. My next door neighbor has a 16 year old with moderate autism. My daughters neighbor has a 5 year old with severe autism

Please cite any time that I have "made fun" of someone with autism or autism in general. You are confusing my skepticism of the prevalence of autism with what you call "making fun".

C. I dont understand your reference to "big pharma". I fully support what you call big pharma. They work hard to develop new drugs that are beneficial to society and they deserve to be rewarding financially when they do so. There are of course bad actors in "big pharma" as there are in any industry.

Please cite an reference to conspiracy or collusion in my posts.

We live in a world of limited resources that are quickly becoming even more limited. The mania around autism (see A. above) will consume resources that could be applied to children who do have autism or any of a number of disabilities, or for that matter children who are gifted or simply children who are average. The application of those resources to autism will create a support industry and a related advocacy group. That is the way the world words.

Again, you can pick your numbers from whereever you choose. The numbers are staggering and the rate of increase is even more staggering using any of those numbers. But really?

And yes I do have a life that include family complete with several children, work, paying taxes...all those things that you apparently think only apply to yourself.

Madness, the study referenced in this article stated 1:38 had TRAITS of autism. Not that they had autism , just some traits of autism.

The official recognized rate of DIAGNOSED autism is still 1:110 , 1:70 boys.

For every person diagnosed with autism you will find many close family members with some traits of autism but who do not have autism.

Please see Cambridge University study conducted in Britian. This is not the Korean study.

A. Cambridge University study prevalence of 1.57 per 100 of all children, 1 in 38 boys.

Looking up this study, it showed the following: 1 in 106 kids with diagnosed autism (no surprise, this backs up the 1 in 110 ratio found in U.S.). They then took SURVEYS of PARENTS to ask about traits of their children. Any parents (not doctors, but parents) who listed a trait as being associated with their kids was automatically labeled undiagnosed autism. Not after being examined by doctors, just by a frickin' survey! This is a ridiculous (and unscientific) method that yields a meaningless statistic. If a parent stated that his/her child sometimes has trouble paying attention, BAM, undiagnosed autism. Ridiculous, right? Not a good study at all. This is similar to the Korean study here. Trait surveys do not diagnose autism.

My next door neighbor has a 16 year old with moderate autism. My daughters neighbor has a 5 year old with severe autism

And yet you think it's a conspiracy to fund a new industry? That's even worse if you actually know afflicted children and still label it as a contrived condition!

Please cite an reference to conspiracy or collusion in my posts.

Whether in jest or not, your allusion to "smell an industry in the making" (thus the mention of big pharma, that others have cited as saying they're behind it to get money and "profits" in a conspiracy theory, yet no drugs exist) and other posts where you're misusing statistics and quoting poor studies shows that you think it's contrived. A problem you're aware of, have neighborhodd evidence of, and yet you think it's contrived to be worse than it is. Yikes.

The mania around autism (see A. above) will consume resources that could be applied to children who do have autism or any of a number of disabilities, or for that matter children who are gifted or simply children who are average. The application of those resources to autism will create a support industry and a related advocacy group.

So we shouldn't get to the root cause of autism and should divert money to simply "dealing with it" via support and advocacy groups? So some are more worthy of research dollars than others? No matter what their true diagnosis, children with special needs need to get therapy and help in school to get the education that they deserve (and legally have the right to). I'm sure you don't think that deaf and blind people shouldn't be given adequate support to get an education, so why make the distinction with ASD students? My brother-in-law was mainstreamed, graduated from high school, and had an aide throughout, which helped him to be attentive in school and understand the subject matter. I don't see why you're against that.

For every person diagnosed with autism you will find many close family members with some traits of autism but who do not have autism.

This is not exactly true in every case. While it's true that you're more likely to have family members with traits if you're on the spectrum, simple genetic deletions, mutations, repetitions in DNA code during fetal development can cause a child to be autistic. It's not simply the traits of relatives that are passed down through the DNA -- changes can happen, and when they do in the right areas of the DNA, it can cause a child to exhibit traits not seen in previous generations (thus the complaint from parents that insist that it must be from vaccines, etc. because they've never experienced it in their families -- although to some degree they probably have an "eccentric" uncle or other relative in their family who's actually ASD). In some families, it just occurs over time, and in others, it occurs as a spot mutation. You don't necessarily inherit the genes...sometimes there are mutations during development and other times the DNA combinations from the parents' DNA causes a trait not seen in previous generations (like popping up of red hair when all previous generations have been brown or blonde).

Again, you can pick your numbers from whereever you choose. The numbers are staggering and the rate of increase is even more staggering using any of those numbers. But really?

All peer-reviewed studies have shown approx. 1 in 110 for the last 10-15 years. Again, the "increase" you speak of relates to back from the 80s and early 90s, when A DIFFERENT DEFINITION OF AUTISM was used in diagnosis. That's like saying you were measuring apples back in the 80s, and now you're measuring apples, pears, and all other similar fruit...of course there's going to be an increase if you expand the diagnostic criteria. The trick is to look at data SINCE the definition change...and you'll see a steady 1 in 110 ever since.

The Cambridge University study is not published only the prelim findings, but in some way you can totally negate any conclusions they have drawn. I would assume that they used a methodology to accomodate the survey aspect of the study. I am not a research specialist, perhaps you are. And possibly the folks at Cambridge University are simply a bunch of idiots. Although I would assume that they are not based upon the reputation of the univeristy.

Please show me where I stated or inferred that autism is a contrived condition. You seem to want to paint me as someone who is unwilling to support programs that help children or adults who have disabilities. I suffered from a seizure disorder as a child until puberty. I personally experienced being different from other kids. My parents and I lived it. I am very liberal in my social politics and fully support funding for social programs.

Again, pls indicate where I indicated conspiracy or where I have criticized big pharma.

I am suggesting that some of the forces at work are economic in nature. Parents of children with autism adovocate for their cause. Over time more and more programs will be made available for the condition. Inevitably, diagnosis of the condition will increase to allow people to avail themselves to the programs. Autism will increase. At the same time the numbers in other categories will decrease i.e. ld children. That is not a conspiracy or some type of collusion, it is human nature. The label will change, nothing else.

In many ways I agree what you stated in your previous post. The level of autism has probably remained fairly static. The labels have changed. But the mania will create its own energy. Diagnosis will continue to increase.

I do not understand your quote regarding autistic people having close family member etc. I am not aware of any info related either in agreement or against.

The Cambridge University study is not published only the prelim findings, but in some way you can totally negate any conclusions they have drawn.

Cambridge study published in 2009. Get up-to-date info.

I would assume that they used a methodology to accomodate the survey aspect of the study.

ASSUME??? You haven't read anything about the study then. They had the 1 in 110 (thereabouts) ratio, then surveyed parents for traits seen in their children, then called them undiagnosed autism, according to the study's own words. When we're talking about the fact that only a trained professional has the ability to diagnose what autism is and what it is not, and we're asking parents to then fill out a survey to diagnose these children, we're dealing with apples and oranges. The word you used (assume) actually comes into play here, because these "researchers" assumed that each child who the parents labeled with certain traits actually was autistic. I'll betcha that at least one of those children was not autistic, but was counted as one.

Also, 100 children were involved at the base of the study. 60 who were diagnosed autistic, 40 who weren't but who the researchers counted as autistic based on their parents' surveys, which led them to the conclusion that 2 out of every 5 children who have autism aren't diagnosed, which led them to believe that their increased statistic was accurate. So you're basing your 2-3 percent statistic that you say applies to a global population on a flawed study involving 100 kids, 40 of whom WERE NEVER EXAMINED? Yikes.

If you were going to accept this study, wouldn't you at least want to examine the 40 (actually 41, but I rounded) who had traits according to their parents' surveys?

I am not aware of any info related either in agreement or against

There are multiple studies confirming that you're multiple times more likely to have a second autistic child if you've got an autistic child already.

Please show me where I stated or inferred that autism is a contrived condition

Again I point to your posts mocking the condition as "smell an industry in the making" and the like. Mock all you want...autism is real.

Inevitably, diagnosis of the condition will increase to allow people to avail themselves to the programs

Right there was a perfect example. As if doctors are conspiring to diagnose this in increasing numbers. Again, the incidence HAS REMAINED STEADY over the past 10-15 years, with NO INCREASE. Still 1 in 110, just like always. You act as if parents and doctors actually want autism to flourish! WTF?

Diagnoses will not continue to increase (past their current level) unless the definition changes (again). You act as if it's increasing beyond 1 in 110, yet you also say it's "remained fairly static". Which is it?