The elephant in the corner is that the definition of autism changed right about the same time there was a spike in autism cases. If you provide a more inclusive definition, of course you will have more cases. This is hardly rocket science.
I don’t remember anything about autism in the 50’s. Was it called something else then?
“Fake autism” is a great way for parents to receive the benefits of having a “disabled child”; I know parents of a “high-functioning autism” child, and I’ll tell you there is nothing wrong with the kid. He just shows the classic traits of an only child who rarely sees his parents (due to their jobs) and is raised by TV. Nothing unusual in his speech or behavior; he just isn’t accustomed to being around children his own age outside of a school setting, and shows the normal attention deficit of TV kids (where the attention span is approximately the length of a commercial). On the other hand, I’ve interacted with autistic children; there is a huge indisputable difference.
Yes, and as usual, there is money involved. There are many resources available for autism, because it is the hysterical health crisis of the moment. So, some children who are actually retarded or have other problems are labeled autistic, because that’s where the money is.
I watched an online video supposedly showing what signs to look for in your child to determine if he is autistic. It was ridiculous! Everything the child did looked perfectly normal to me and to most of the people who commented after the video. I’m only half joking when I say we need to encourage people to have a bunch of kids so they stop obsessing over their 1 or 2 “designer” children that must conform to the parents’ standards of perfection.
>>The elephant in the corner is that the definition of autism changed right about the same time there was a spike in autism cases....This is hardly rocket science.<<
True, the definition of the condition did change, but why? You should consider the likelihood that a surge in occurrence of a neurological condition would have the medical community examining it more closely. As they did so, they found a spectrum of behavior, not a single pattern of behavior. The third category, besides autism and Asperger’s is labeled PDD (Pervasive Developmental Disorder) but it’s full title is PDD-NOS (Pervasive Developmental Disorder-Not Otherwise Specified). That is, something is wrong, but it doesn’t fit the diagnosis of either autism or Asperger’s (Not Otherwise Specified.)
That diagnosis has only been around for a couple of decades. It didn’t exist earlier, so obviously those cases, if included in the autism count, bear out your point, which is that autism is increasing because of a change in definition.
But the real issue is, are all such cases, including classic cases of autism, increasing exponentially as is being reported by the CDC.
Simply put, it’s not exactly rocket science to acknowledge that something more than a change in definitions could possibly be at work here.