reliable autism stats?

reliable autism stats?


Greetings, all,

Everywhere in the US media, the current prevalence of autism is typically
cited at 1 in 150, or thereabouts. Now, of course this is bad enough,
considering that this disease was almost unknown a generation ago...

But according to Gallup and Yazbak,

"When 1 in 150 is really 1 in 67"
By Raymond W. Gallup & F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP
* w w w .vaproject.org/yazbak/1-in-150-is-really-1-in-67-20071005.htm

this rate, based on a widely published CDC estimate, is severely
underestimated. As Gallup and Yazbak show, the numbers as recently published
by the U.S. Department of Education should be seen as far more reliable.

[quote]

The U.S. Department of Education has recently released the official figures
for autism/ASD by age and state for school year 2006-2007, in accordance
with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act's requirement that
comprehensive annual reports be published and presented to the United States
Congress.

[unquote]

And so, it looks like the real rate of autism in the US is close to 1 in
67 -- more than twice of what the CDC says, and of what the corporate media
repeats.

[quote]

.. . it is likely that among children born in 2000 who are now registered in
U.S. schools, the prevalence rate of autistic spectral disorders is around 1
in 67, on average. Now that would be a catastrophe of unprecedented
proportions.

[unquote]

So it sure seems like, besides professing to be quite ignorant about the
cause of autism, the US medical authorities also don't even know how much
autism is out there!

Ignorance and incompetence, that's modern medicine for you in a nutshell...

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky -- * w w w .globalserve . net /~yuku

"The only safe vaccine is one that is never used." -- Dr. James R. Shannon,
former director of the National Institute of Health (US).

Re: reliable autism stats?

In article <59692$472796a2$d8fea380$3430@PRIMUS.CA>,
"Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@trends.ca> wrote:

> Greetings, all,
>
> Everywhere in the US media, the current prevalence of autism is typically
> cited at 1 in 150, or thereabouts. Now, of course this is bad enough,
> considering that this disease was almost unknown a generation ago...

Actually it WAS unknown a generation ago. There were no diagnostic
criteria.

Re: reliable autism stats?

Kurt Ullman wrote:
> In article <59692$472796a2$d8fea380$3430@PRIMUS.CA>,
> "Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@trends.ca> wrote:
>
>> Greetings, all,
>>
>> Everywhere in the US media, the current prevalence of autism is typically
>> cited at 1 in 150, or thereabouts. Now, of course this is bad enough,
>> considering that this disease was almost unknown a generation ago...
>
> Actually it WAS unknown a generation ago. There were no diagnostic
> criteria.

Actually, it was known, but called other things. Autism was identified
many years ago, more than a generation.

Re: reliable autism stats?


"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo . com > wrote in message
news:kurtullman-DC6F02.16501330102007@032-478-847.area7.spcsdns . net ...
> In article <59692$472796a2$d8fea380$3430@PRIMUS.CA>,
> "Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@trends.ca> wrote:
>
>> Greetings, all,
>>
>> Everywhere in the US media, the current prevalence of autism is typically
>> cited at 1 in 150, or thereabouts. Now, of course this is bad enough,
>> considering that this disease was almost unknown a generation ago...
>
> Actually it WAS unknown a generation ago. There were no diagnostic
> criteria.

There's been a massive increase in autism in the last 30 years. And now,
according to Gallup and Yazbak, the prevalence of autism in the US is 1 in
67!

"When 1 in 150 is really 1 in 67"
By Raymond W. Gallup & F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP
* w w w .vaproject.org/yazbak/1-in-150-is-really-1-in-67-20071005.htm

This is a terrible tragedy.

So what is the cause of autism? How come the official medicine is clueless?

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky -- * w w w .globalserve . net /~yuku

"I have not seen autism with the Amish," said Dr. Frank Noonan, a family
practitioner in Lancaster County, Pa., who has treated thousands of Amish
for a quarter-century. "You'll find all the other stuff, but we don't find
the autism. We're right in the heart of Amish country and seeing none, and
that's just the way it is."

Re: reliable autism stats?

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> "Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo . com > wrote in message
> news:kurtullman-DC6F02.16501330102007@032-478-847.area7.spcsdns . net ...
>> In article <59692$472796a2$d8fea380$3430@PRIMUS.CA>,
>> "Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@trends.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Greetings, all,
>>>
>>> Everywhere in the US media, the current prevalence of autism is typically
>>> cited at 1 in 150, or thereabouts. Now, of course this is bad enough,
>>> considering that this disease was almost unknown a generation ago...
>> Actually it WAS unknown a generation ago. There were no diagnostic
>> criteria.
>
> There's been a massive increase in autism in the last 30 years. And now,
> according to Gallup and Yazbak, the prevalence of autism in the US is 1 in
> 67!

Incorrect. There has been a massive broadening of the diagnostic
criteria, recognition that Autism is a spectrum disorder, and
significant diagnostic re-assignment.

>
> "When 1 in 150 is really 1 in 67"
> By Raymond W. Gallup & F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP
> * w w w .vaproject.org/yazbak/1-in-150-is-really-1-in-67-20071005.htm
>
> This is a terrible tragedy.
>
> So what is the cause of autism? How come the official medicine is clueless?
>
> Yuri.
>
> Yuri Kuchinsky -- * w w w .globalserve . net /~yuku
>
> "I have not seen autism with the Amish," said Dr. Frank Noonan, a family
> practitioner in Lancaster County, Pa., who has treated thousands of Amish
> for a quarter-century. "You'll find all the other stuff, but we don't find
> the autism. We're right in the heart of Amish country and seeing none, and
> that's just the way it is."
>
>

Re: reliable autism stats?

> Incorrect. There has been a massive broadening of the diagnostic
> criteria, recognition that Autism is a spectrum disorder, and
> significant diagnostic re-assignment.


So the CDC reports that 1 out of 6 children in the USA now has some
form of developmental disorder is
bogus? You dont think that having 1 out of 6 children in your country
is a crisis? An epidemic?


On Nov 1, 11:26 pm, Mark Probert <markprob...@lumbercartel . com > wrote:
> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> > "Kurt Ullman" <kurtull...@yahoo . com > wrote in message
> >news:kurtullman-DC6F02.16501330102007@032-478-847.area7.spcsdns . net ...
> >> In article <59692$472796a2$d8fea380$3...@PRIMUS.CA>,
> >> "Yuri Kuchinsky" <y...@trends.ca> wrote:
>
> >>> Greetings, all,
>
> >>> Everywhere in the US media, the current prevalence of autism is typically
> >>> cited at 1 in 150, or thereabouts. Now, of course this is bad enough,
> >>> considering that this disease was almost unknown a generation ago...
> >> Actually it WAS unknown a generation ago. There were no diagnostic
> >> criteria.
>
> > There's been a massive increase in autism in the last 30 years. And now,
> > according to Gallup and Yazbak, the prevalence of autism in the US is 1 in
> > 67!
>
> Incorrect. There has been a massive broadening of the diagnostic
> criteria, recognition that Autism is a spectrum disorder, and
> significant diagnostic re-assignment.
>
>
>
>
>
> > "When 1 in 150 is really 1 in 67"
> > By Raymond W. Gallup & F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP
> > * w w w .vaproject.org/yazbak/1-in-150-is-really-1-in-67-20071005.htm
>
> > This is a terrible tragedy.
>
> > So what is the cause of autism? How come the official medicine is clueless?
>
> > Yuri.
>
> > Yuri Kuchinsky -- * w w w .globalserve . net /~yuku
>
> > "I have not seen autism with the Amish," said Dr. Frank Noonan, a family
> > practitioner in Lancaster County, Pa., who has treated thousands of Amish
> > for a quarter-century. "You'll find all the other stuff, but we don't find
> > the autism. We're right in the heart of Amish country and seeing none, and
> > that's just the way it is."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Re: reliable autism stats?

Kevysmom wrote:
>> Incorrect. There has been a massive broadening of the diagnostic
>> criteria, recognition that Autism is a spectrum disorder, and
>> significant diagnostic re-assignment.
>
>
> So the CDC reports that 1 out of 6 children in the USA now has some
> form of developmental disorder is
> bogus? You dont think that having 1 out of 6 children in your country
> is a crisis? An epidemic?

Donna, do try to read for comprehension. (Comprehension means
understanding what you read).

I was specifically referring to the so-called Autism epidemic. It does
not exist.

The "increase" is an illusion. There is no change in the number of
people who have problems. They used to be called "retarded" etc. Now
they are correctly diagnosed as autistic.

Furthermore, there are those who had previously undiagnosed learning
problems. Now, with greater awareness and aggressive identification of
why children are not learning, there is an illusory increase.

I know you did not understand that. Please have a first grader explain
it to you.


>
>
> On Nov 1, 11:26 pm, Mark Probert <markprob...@lumbercartel . com > wrote:
>> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>>> "Kurt Ullman" <kurtull...@yahoo . com > wrote in message
>>> news:kurtullman-DC6F02.16501330102007@032-478-847.area7.spcsdns . net ...
>>>> In article <59692$472796a2$d8fea380$3...@PRIMUS.CA>,
>>>> "Yuri Kuchinsky" <y...@trends.ca> wrote:
>>>>> Greetings, all,
>>>>> Everywhere in the US media, the current prevalence of autism is typically
>>>>> cited at 1 in 150, or thereabouts. Now, of course this is bad enough,
>>>>> considering that this disease was almost unknown a generation ago...
>>>> Actually it WAS unknown a generation ago. There were no diagnostic
>>>> criteria.
>>> There's been a massive increase in autism in the last 30 years. And now,
>>> according to Gallup and Yazbak, the prevalence of autism in the US is 1 in
>>> 67!
>> Incorrect. There has been a massive broadening of the diagnostic
>> criteria, recognition that Autism is a spectrum disorder, and
>> significant diagnostic re-assignment.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "When 1 in 150 is really 1 in 67"
>>> By Raymond W. Gallup & F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP
>>> * w w w .vaproject.org/yazbak/1-in-150-is-really-1-in-67-20071005.htm
>>> This is a terrible tragedy.
>>> So what is the cause of autism? How come the official medicine is clueless?
>>> Yuri.
>>> Yuri Kuchinsky -- * w w w .globalserve . net /~yuku
>>> "I have not seen autism with the Amish," said Dr. Frank Noonan, a family
>>> practitioner in Lancaster County, Pa., who has treated thousands of Amish
>>> for a quarter-century. "You'll find all the other stuff, but we don't find
>>> the autism. We're right in the heart of Amish country and seeing none, and
>>> that's just the way it is."- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>

Re: reliable autism stats?


"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel . com > wrote in message
news:obRWi.77$Cc.50@trndny09...
> Kevysmom wrote:
>>> Incorrect. There has been a massive broadening of the diagnostic
>>> criteria, recognition that Autism is a spectrum disorder, and
>>> significant diagnostic re-assignment.
>>
>>
>> So the CDC reports that 1 out of 6 children in the USA now has some
>> form of developmental disorder is
>> bogus? You dont think that having 1 out of 6 children in your country
>> is a crisis? An epidemic?
>
> Donna, do try to read for comprehension. (Comprehension means
> understanding what you read).
>
> I was specifically referring to the so-called Autism epidemic. It does not
> exist.

Well, that's another way of looking at it... Deny that the problem even
exists!

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky -- * w w w .globalserve . net /~yuku

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary
depends upon his not understanding it!" -- Upton Sinclair

Re: reliable autism stats?

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> "Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel . com > wrote in message
> news:obRWi.77$Cc.50@trndny09...
>> Kevysmom wrote:
>>>> Incorrect. There has been a massive broadening of the diagnostic
>>>> criteria, recognition that Autism is a spectrum disorder, and
>>>> significant diagnostic re-assignment.
>>>
>>> So the CDC reports that 1 out of 6 children in the USA now has some
>>> form of developmental disorder is
>>> bogus? You dont think that having 1 out of 6 children in your country
>>> is a crisis? An epidemic?
>> Donna, do try to read for comprehension. (Comprehension means
>> understanding what you read).
>>
>> I was specifically referring to the so-called Autism epidemic. It does not
>> exist.
>
> Well, that's another way of looking at it... Deny that the problem even
> exists!

Knowledge is not static (and, in your case, static is not knowledge) and
it has become known that the alleged epidemic is questionable at the least.

Do try to understand that the "epidemic" began around 1991, when the US
Department of Education mandated that LEA's actually look to see why
kids were not learning. Then, of course, there was the understanding the
Autism is not a one size fits all diagnosis, but a spectrum disorder.
This lead to significant diagnostic reassignment.

If any of these concepts are too hard for you to understand, I will not
think less of you (it is very hard to think less than zero of someone).

Re: reliable autism stats?


"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel . com > wrote in message
news:gD4Xi.703$lx.162@trndny05...
> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>> "Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel . com > wrote in message
>> news:obRWi.77$Cc.50@trndny09...
>>> Kevysmom wrote:
>>>>> Incorrect. There has been a massive broadening of the diagnostic
>>>>> criteria, recognition that Autism is a spectrum disorder, and
>>>>> significant diagnostic re-assignment.
>>>>
>>>> So the CDC reports that 1 out of 6 children in the USA now has some
>>>> form of developmental disorder is
>>>> bogus? You dont think that having 1 out of 6 children in your country
>>>> is a crisis? An epidemic?
>>> Donna, do try to read for comprehension. (Comprehension means
>>> understanding what you read).
>>>
>>> I was specifically referring to the so-called Autism epidemic. It does
>>> not exist.
>>
>> Well, that's another way of looking at it... Deny that the problem even
>> exists!
>
> Knowledge is not static (and, in your case, static is not knowledge) and
> it has become known that the alleged epidemic is questionable at the
> least.
>
> Do try to understand that the "epidemic" began around 1991, when the US
> Department of Education mandated that LEA's actually look to see why kids
> were not learning. Then, of course, there was the understanding the Autism
> is not a one size fits all diagnosis, but a spectrum disorder. This lead
> to significant diagnostic reassignment.
>
> If any of these concepts are too hard for you to understand, I will not
> think less of you (it is very hard to think less than zero of someone).

A clear case of Denialism...

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- * w w w .globalserve . net /~yuku

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather
scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean --
neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make
words mean so many different things."
-- Lewis Carrol, "Through the Looking Glass"

Re: reliable autism stats?

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> "Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel . com > wrote in message
> news:gD4Xi.703$lx.162@trndny05...
>> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>>> "Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel . com > wrote in message
>>> news:obRWi.77$Cc.50@trndny09...
>>>> Kevysmom wrote:
>>>>>> Incorrect. There has been a massive broadening of the diagnostic
>>>>>> criteria, recognition that Autism is a spectrum disorder, and
>>>>>> significant diagnostic re-assignment.
>>>>> So the CDC reports that 1 out of 6 children in the USA now has some
>>>>> form of developmental disorder is
>>>>> bogus? You dont think that having 1 out of 6 children in your country
>>>>> is a crisis? An epidemic?
>>>> Donna, do try to read for comprehension. (Comprehension means
>>>> understanding what you read).
>>>>
>>>> I was specifically referring to the so-called Autism epidemic. It does
>>>> not exist.
>>> Well, that's another way of looking at it... Deny that the problem even
>>> exists!
>> Knowledge is not static (and, in your case, static is not knowledge) and
>> it has become known that the alleged epidemic is questionable at the
>> least.
>>
>> Do try to understand that the "epidemic" began around 1991, when the US
>> Department of Education mandated that LEA's actually look to see why kids
>> were not learning. Then, of course, there was the understanding the Autism
>> is not a one size fits all diagnosis, but a spectrum disorder. This lead
>> to significant diagnostic reassignment.
>>
>> If any of these concepts are too hard for you to understand, I will not
>> think less of you (it is very hard to think less than zero of someone).
>
> A clear case of Denialism...

Please learn the meaning of words before you use them.

From Wikipedia:

* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism

Denialism describes the position of governments, business groups,
interest groups, or individuals who reject propositions that are
strongly supported by scientific or historical evidence and seek to
influence policy processes and outcomes accordingly.[1] The term has
been used in relation to 'holocaust denial', 'AIDS
reappraisal',[2][3][4][5][6] and 'climate change denial'[7][8][9] and
the creation-evolution controversy.[10]

The terms "denialism", "denialist" and "denier" are generally viewed by
those so labeled as pejorative since they carry the implication that the
person or group denies scientific or historical truths. Those to whom
the term 'denialists' is applied have used terms such as 'revisionist',
'skeptic', 'contrarian', or 'dissident' to describe their own position.



Yep, that fits you.

Re: reliable autism stats?

On Nov 2, 2:25 pm, Kevysmom <bluebun...@gmail . com > wrote:
> > Incorrect. There has been a massive broadening of thediagnostic
> > criteria, recognition that Autism is a spectrum disorder, and
> > significantdiagnosticre-assignment.
>
> So the CDC reports that 1 out of 6 children in the USA now has some
> form of developmental disorder is
> bogus? You dont think that having 1 out of 6 children in your country
> is a crisis? An epidemic?

Like I said, it has been due, in part, to diagnostic re-assignment.
Here is a very recent study showing how it happens:

J Autism Dev Disord. 2007 Nov 2; [Epub ahead of print]
Trends in Autism Prevalence: Diagnostic Substitution Revisited.
Coo H, Ouellette-Kuntz H, Lloyd JE, Kasmara L, Holden JJ, Lewis ME.
Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Queen's University, c/
o Ongwanada Resource Centre, 191 Portsmouth Avenue, Kingston, ON,
Canada, K7M 8A6.

There has been little evidence to support the hypothesis that
diagnostic substitution may contribute to increases in the
administrative prevalence of autism. We examined trends in assignment
of special education codes to British Columbia (BC) school children
who had an autism code in at least 1 year between 1996 and 2004,
inclusive. The proportion of children with an autism code increased
from 12.3/10,000 in 1996 to 43.1/10,000 in 2004; 51.9% of this
increase was attributable to children switching from another special
education classification to autism (16.0/10,000). Taking into account
the reverse situation (children with an autism code switching to
another special education category (5.9/10.000)), diagnostic
substitution accounted for at least one-third of the increase in
autism prevalence over the study period.

Note the words: "Diagnostic substitution accounted for *at least* one-
third of the increasde in autism prevalence..."

ONE-THIRD
33 1/3 precent
One out of three.

If you need further explanation of the significance of 1/3rd, as a
kindergarten student.

Re: reliable autism stats?


"Mark Probert" <mark.probert@gmail . com > wrote in message
news:1194102420.498989.152630@57g2000hsv.googlegroups . com ...
> On Nov 2, 2:25 pm, Kevysmom <bluebun...@gmail . com > wrote:
>> > Incorrect. There has been a massive broadening of thediagnostic
>> > criteria, recognition that Autism is a spectrum disorder, and
>> > significantdiagnosticre-assignment.
>>
>> So the CDC reports that 1 out of 6 children in the USA now has some
>> form of developmental disorder is
>> bogus? You dont think that having 1 out of 6 children in your country
>> is a crisis? An epidemic?
>
> Like I said, it has been due, in part, to diagnostic re-assignment.
> Here is a very recent study showing how it happens:
>
> J Autism Dev Disord. 2007 Nov 2; [Epub ahead of print]
> Trends in Autism Prevalence: Diagnostic Substitution Revisited.
> Coo H, Ouellette-Kuntz H, Lloyd JE, Kasmara L, Holden JJ, Lewis ME.
> Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Queen's University, c/
> o Ongwanada Resource Centre, 191 Portsmouth Avenue, Kingston, ON,
> Canada, K7M 8A6.
>
> There has been little evidence to support the hypothesis that
> diagnostic substitution may contribute to increases in the
> administrative prevalence of autism. We examined trends in assignment
> of special education codes to British Columbia (BC) school children
> who had an autism code in at least 1 year between 1996 and 2004,
> inclusive. The proportion of children with an autism code increased
> from 12.3/10,000 in 1996 to 43.1/10,000 in 2004; 51.9% of this
> increase was attributable to children switching from another special
> education classification to autism (16.0/10,000). Taking into account
> the reverse situation (children with an autism code switching to
> another special education category (5.9/10.000)), diagnostic
> substitution accounted for at least one-third of the increase in
> autism prevalence over the study period.
>
> Note the words: "Diagnostic substitution accounted for *at least* one-
> third of the increasde in autism prevalence..."
>
> ONE-THIRD
> 33 1/3 precent
> One out of three.
>
> If you need further explanation of the significance of 1/3rd, as a
> kindergarten student.

Autism? Nothing to worry about! Mark Probert has now solved the problem by
demonstrating that it doesn't exist!


Yuri.



Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- * w w w .globalserve . net /~yuku



"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so,

it might be, and if it were so, it would be; but as it

isn't, it ain't. That's logic!"

-- Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking Glass"

Re: reliable autism stats?

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> "Mark Probert" <mark.probert@gmail . com > wrote in message
> news:1194102420.498989.152630@57g2000hsv.googlegroups . com ...
>> On Nov 2, 2:25 pm, Kevysmom <bluebun...@gmail . com > wrote:
>>>> Incorrect. There has been a massive broadening of thediagnostic
>>>> criteria, recognition that Autism is a spectrum disorder, and
>>>> significantdiagnosticre-assignment.
>>> So the CDC reports that 1 out of 6 children in the USA now has some
>>> form of developmental disorder is
>>> bogus? You dont think that having 1 out of 6 children in your country
>>> is a crisis? An epidemic?
>> Like I said, it has been due, in part, to diagnostic re-assignment.
>> Here is a very recent study showing how it happens:
>>
>> J Autism Dev Disord. 2007 Nov 2; [Epub ahead of print]
>> Trends in Autism Prevalence: Diagnostic Substitution Revisited.
>> Coo H, Ouellette-Kuntz H, Lloyd JE, Kasmara L, Holden JJ, Lewis ME.
>> Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Queen's University, c/
>> o Ongwanada Resource Centre, 191 Portsmouth Avenue, Kingston, ON,
>> Canada, K7M 8A6.
>>
>> There has been little evidence to support the hypothesis that
>> diagnostic substitution may contribute to increases in the
>> administrative prevalence of autism. We examined trends in assignment
>> of special education codes to British Columbia (BC) school children
>> who had an autism code in at least 1 year between 1996 and 2004,
>> inclusive. The proportion of children with an autism code increased
>> from 12.3/10,000 in 1996 to 43.1/10,000 in 2004; 51.9% of this
>> increase was attributable to children switching from another special
>> education classification to autism (16.0/10,000). Taking into account
>> the reverse situation (children with an autism code switching to
>> another special education category (5.9/10.000)), diagnostic
>> substitution accounted for at least one-third of the increase in
>> autism prevalence over the study period.
>>
>> Note the words: "Diagnostic substitution accounted for *at least* one-
>> third of the increasde in autism prevalence..."
>>
>> ONE-THIRD
>> 33 1/3 precent
>> One out of three.
>>
>> If you need further explanation of the significance of 1/3rd, as a
>> kindergarten student.
>
> Autism? Nothing to worry about! Mark Probert has now solved the problem by
> demonstrating that it doesn't exist!

Do learn how to read for comprehension. I never said it does not exist.
I have said, and shown, that there is no epidemic, i.e. more cases. The
number of cases is the same, but they are now being recognized as
autism. That is what this study showed.

Re: reliable autism stats?

On Nov 1, 4:24 pm, "Yuri Kuchinsky" <y...@trends.ca> wrote:
>
> So what is the cause of autism? How come the official medicine is clueless?

Take a look at the definitions of autism; as with many other
psychiatric disorders, it is very difficult to identify what's causing
them. You can't see anything like you see a brain tumor, you can't
measure anything like you can measure your blood pressure, there are
no comprehensible risk factors like obesity or smoking.