In 2000- they found 6.7 out of every 1000 eight-year-olds had autism- this is about 1 in 150
In 2002- they found 6.6 out of every 1000 eight-year-olds had autism- this is about 1 in 150
In 2004- they found 8.0 out of every 1000 eight-year-olds had autism- this is about 1 in 125
In 2006- they found 9.0 out of every 1000 eight-year-olds had autism- this is about 1 in 110
In 2008- they found 11.3 out of every 1000 eight-year-olds had autism- this is about 1 in 88
Unfortunately, RD removed the post after I pointed out what the correct figure was but before I could fully document why her number was wrong, but the main issues, so that others may not make similar errors, were the following:
- She only observed 2 data points out of the 5 given. Her start point was 2002 and her end point was 2008. I never got a straight answer as to why she did not start with 2000 and use the full range of the data (I assume it was because a decrease in the autism rate between 2000 and 2002 went against the point she was trying to make)
- She extrapolated that there was a 72% increase in the autism rate between 2002 and 2008, a fact that is actually true but misleading, and used that to determine that autism rates were increasing by 13% each year. The calculated a projected 2022 rate based on a 13% yearly increase.
Here is the truth: This data says little to nothing about the future of autism rates!
The sampling is relatively small, doesn't take into account the changing definition of autism or new diagnosing techniques, and has no apparent trend. To give you a better idea, here is another way to look at the data:
2000—0.67%
2002—0.66% down .01% from 2000
2004—0.80% up .14% from 2002
2006—0.90% up .10% from 2004
2008—1.13% up .23% from 2006
This shows the percentage of eight-year-olds with diagnosed autism in each surveillance year (these numbers are each found by dividing the number of children per thousand by 1000[i.e. 6.7/1000=0.0067] and then multiplying that number by 100 to get the percent [i.e. 0.0067x100=0.67%])
We see two things from this new way of looking at things. First of all, the total percent of change from 2000 to 2008 is .46%. When divided by 8 this number becomes 0.0575% per year in increase on average. But looking at the data we see only that the rate appears to be increasing at a rate of less than .25% but more than -.01% every two years. The range appears rather large considering how small the autism rate currently is, but we would need much more data to determine if that were the case.
The problem with RD (and I will use her numbers here, not mine) is that she lays one statistic on top of another which very easily confuses people. The statistic 1.13 is, in fact, a 72% increase over .66 (1-1.13/.66) but this is a percent of change, not the actual change that occurred over the 6 years. The actual change is .47% (1.13-.66). This means the yearly average percent of change was about 12% but yearly average rate of change is just .0783% using RD's own numbers.
Now to throw out some bullshit statistics of my own. If I were to assume that the average yearly rate of change I calculated earlier (with my own numbers, not RD's) would hold true for the next 14 year, which they won't for so many reasons I won't bother mentioning, here is what 8-year-old autism rates would look like over the next 14 years:
2009—1.1875% which is 11.9 out of 1000 and equates out to 1 in 84.0336
2010—1.245% which is 12.5 out of 1000 and equates out to 1 in 80
2011—1.3025% which is 13.0 out of 1000 and equates out to 1 in 76.9231
2012—1.36% which is 13.6 out of 1000 and equates out to 1 in 73.5294
2013—1.4175% which is 14.2 out of 1000 and equates out to 1 in 70.4225
2014—1.475% which is 14.8 out of 1000 and equates out to 1 in 67.5676
2015—1.5325% which is 15.3 out of 1000 and equates out to 1 in 65.3595
2015—1.5895% which is 15.9 out of 1000 and equates out to 1 in 62.8931
2017—1.647% which is 16.5 out of 1000 and equates out to 1 in 60.6061
2018—1.7045% which is 17.0 out of 1000 and equates out to 1 in 58.8236
2019—1.762% which is 17.6 out of 1000 and equates out to 1 in 56.8182
2020—1.8195% which is 18.2 out of 1000 and equates out to 1 in 54.9451
2021—1.877% which is 18.8 out of 1000 and equates out to 1 in 53.1915
2022—1.9345% which is 19.3 out of 1000 and equates out to 1 in 51.6929
This means, to contrast RD's 1 in 9 figure, that my doomsday prediction is that in 2022 one out of every fifty-two 8-year-olds will be diagnosed as autistic. That is still less than 2% of the 8-year-old population, but it is not a number that I would ever want to see a reality. When I gave RD my figures earlier today she said "What does it matter if the number is 1 in 9 or 1 in 51?"
The truth is that there is a huge difference between a 10% chance and 2% chance, even in a mock situation 10 years in the future. RD's outrageous numbers do nothing more than stir up panic and anger in a crowd that is already on edge from dealing with a child with autism. If my numbers are bullshit then her numbers are elephant shit and, when dealing with a lazy and/or uneducated audience, these numbers are nothing but inflammatory propaganda to support the cause against vaccines.
The cool reality, in my eyes, is that autism is on the rise. Better reporting/diagnosis and the expansion of the definition of Autism (creation of the term ASD- Autism Spectrum Disorder) can account for a large amount of the increase from the first reporting date in 1980 where it was said 1 in 10,000 people were autistic. But now, with these conditions in place for over a decade, we should be seeing a leveling out of the number of cases. Instead the numbers appear to be continuing to rise and this suggests that there is something else causing it.
The reason why is still unknown. It could be environmental, dietary, evolutionary, or there is a chance it could be related to a vaccine as many people think. The truth is we don't know, but when it comes to vaccines we must weigh our odds and determine the best choice for ourselves and our children. The reality is this, before the MMR vaccine 2.6 million people died each year as a result of measles, in 2008 only 164,000 people died and most of those were children in developing countries where the vaccine is not yet available or widespread. Mumps can cause deafness or meningitis (a swelling/infection of the brain or spinal column) but is not typically fatal, nor is the rubella virus unless it is contracted congenitally while in utero in which case the prognosis is bad. Rubella used to have wide spread outbreaks on a regular basis until the vaccine was introduced and now cases are nearly non-existent in developed countries where the vaccine is wide spread. Compare all those odds to the less than 1% chance, if that since no link has ever been proven, of your child getting autism. Also, consider small pox, which now exists only in a frozen lab somewhere because of widespread vaccination, and the millions of people who are alive because of it.
I would not wish autism on any parent, but it is irresponsible to not vaccinate your child for fear of one disease when the disease you leave your child exposed to could be so much worse, especially when your fear is not grounded on any solid facts. Anyone who believed, or still believes, RD's inflated numbers gets a whopping 8 on the FT scale in my book. Anti-vaccine nut jobs in general get a 6 because anyone who will criticize the medical community's use of vaccines without obtaining any solid evidence, and no your gut feeling doesn't count as evidence, to contradict them needs to pull their head out of their ass and stop blaming everyone else for their problems.
No comments:
Post a Comment