> <i>“It could be that doctors are getting better at identifying these children, there could be a growing number of children with high intelligence [who are autistic], or it could be both,” she said.</i><p>The article doesn't mention that the DSM-5 went into force last year. The criteria for diagnosing Autism has changed since the DSM-IV, and this could also explain the jump in diagnoses.<p>(This is alluded to with the line "Milder forms, such as Asperger’s syndrome, are now considered to fall along the autism spectrum." -- The entry for "Asperger disorder" in the DSM-5 is now replaced with a pointer to see the entry for "Autism".)
There is no "test" for autism, no blood market, no brain scan. What is the false positive number? This sounds like the diagnosis for "hysteria" in women 50 years ago .
I'm weary of diagnosing behaviour that used to be considered within the norm, though maybe at the edge, as a medical condition.<p>Asperger's has no clear measurable part to diagnose, it is not treatable per se, and its symptoms are all within the normal spectrum of human behaviour.<p>There's nothing wrong with saying that a particular kid might need more support, but I wonder where it leads society if all not entirely within the norm behaviours start to be classified and handled as medical problems.
Direct link to the CDC report :<p>Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorder Among Children Aged 8 Years — Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 11 Sites, United States, 2010
Surveillance Summaries
March 28, 2014 / 63(SS02);1-21<p><a href="http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6302a1.htm?s_cid=ss6302a1_w" rel="nofollow">http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6302a1.htm?s_cid=...</a>
The scary part to me is how the CDC chose to frame the new data. They put up a "10 things to know" (1) list to distill the data for the media and readers uninterested in looking at the full study.<p>One item in the top 10 highlights that 46% of these kids have average or above average IQ. What the CDC doesn't highlight in the top 10 is the 31% that are below! and the 23% that are 'borderline'. The glass half full (not even half) optimism dismisses the large amount of these kids who have a very serious condition. Kids that cannot speak, that wander and die, that will require lifelong treatment. Why does the CDC choose to highlight the minority with a future and not the majority that face a rough road ahead?<p>The second issue with the Top 10 is that it only alludes to better diagnosis and awareness as a possibility for increases. It doesn't mention any other possibilities, although most in the community are aware of well-publicized studies pointing to environmental conditions that show connection. (2)<p>1 <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/features/dsautismdata/" rel="nofollow">http://www.cdc.gov/features/dsautismdata/</a>
2 <a href="http://time.com/25424/growing-evidence-that-autism-is-linked-to-pollution/" rel="nofollow">http://time.com/25424/growing-evidence-that-autism-is-linked...</a>
As someone who comes from the "gifted side" of the Autism Spectrum, its not that great. Having a brilliant mind is a great gift - but to be honest I would rather be of normal intelligence and be able to better understand how to be social than anything. Whats a brilliant mind going to do for you if your alone? Humans, even autistic ones are social creatures and require social interaction.<p>I do also agree with other posters that Autism diagnosis are on the rise due to a higher push for screenings of children, and awareness of autism. However I do think it still is possibly on the rise.<p>Aspergers is now Autism. I'm mixed on this, as even Aspergers has a spectrum. I've seen people with Aspergers that are near normal functioning, and those that are completley fixated on Star Trek to the point thats all they care about. I've also seen non verbal classic autistics hold down employment in a competitive employment atmosphere. The aspergers vs classic autistic has nothing to do with functioning level, it has to do with verbal delay (or it used to - its now the same).
Autism is the new ADHD. If 1 and 70 kids have a disorder that wasn't a thing 20 years ago, something is wrong.<p>I had some speech issues when I was a kid that led to shyness and difficulty making friends until I got a bit older. I'm sure that I would have been classified in the spectrum on today's standards. It's a hot diagnosis.
I read somewhere Silicon Valley has the highest Autism rate, it's likely high IQ gene made a difference too?
Speaking from experience, early intervention is extremely effective.
could this be just a shift in how we measure and disagnose behaviors which lie outside the norm?<p>not long ago this behavior was not tolerated at all, and an autism diagnosis was undesirable. now we have more resources to identify and tolerate a broad range of behaviors<p>probably autism has not grown - it is as high (or low) as it has ever been. maybe we can identify autistic behaviors in figure of the past; maybe our own relatives.
Well, how about not diagnosing your kid with autism just because he's an uncontrollable little bastard, just to justify your bad parenting?(This includes ADD, ADHD, ASD).<p>That should bring the stat down.<p>Qualifier: not all obviously, but it has certainly become a way to remove personal responsibility as a parent.