Autism Rate Now at One Percent of All US Children?

August 11, 2009

A pair of federally funded studies on autism rates is about to make news -- big

news -- and it isn't good: It would appear that somewhere around one percent of

all US children currently have an autism spectrum disorder. The rate is even

higher among six to 11 year olds and among boys, according to data from at least

one of the new studies.

If you are an expectant parent, or planning to have a child soon, you might want

to sit down before absorbing these staggering statistics, recently released by

the National Survey of Children's Health (NSCH), which is supported by the

Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the US Department of

Health and Human Services.

According to data from the 2007 telephone survey of parents of nearly 82,000 US

children, the odds of a child receiving an ASD diagnosis are one in 63.. If it

is a boy, the chances climb to a science fiction-like level of one in 38, or

2.6% of all male children in America.

But there was also some surprisingly good news. Enormous numbers of children

originally diagnosed with ASD went on to shed their diagnosis as they got older,

parents reported.

Among all children aged two to 17, according to respondents, one in 100

(100-per-10,000) currently have an ASD diagnosis, which is considerably higher

than the previously (CDC) estimated rate of 1-in-150, (or 66-per-10,000).

But researchers were also told by parents that 60-per-10,000 children " had

autism, Asperger's Disorder etc. at some point, but not currently. "

This suggests two rather remarkable things:

1. At some point in their lives, 1-in-63 US children (160-per-10,000) will have

an ASD diagnosis and;

2. Out of every 160 children diagnosed with ASD, 60 of them (37.5%) will somehow

go on to lose that diagnosis.

Among boys, for every 260-per-10,000 male children originally diagnosed with

ASD, 90 of them (34.6%) reportedly do not have the diagnosis now. This still

leaves a monumentally high rate of one in 58 boys with ASD today, or 1.7 percent

(170-per-10,000).

The percentage of girls who apparently lost their original diagnosis was 44..5%.

There was a big difference among age groups as well. Among those children who

still have the diagnosis, the rate of ASD was 40% higher in 6-11 year olds

(140-per-10,000, or 1-in-71) than the current rate of 12-17 year olds

(100-per-10,000, or 1-in-100).

Interestingly, among the youngest children, two to five years old, the rate was

only half that of their six- to 11-year-old siblings, (70-per-10,000

vs.140-per-10,000). Most or all of that may be due to the average age of

diagnosis, which is below five years, though it does bear watching to see if

these younger kids go on to double their rates and " catch up " with the older

ones.

Overall, the 2007 NSCH survey revealed a 100% increase in parent-reported ASD

rates compared to the 2003 NSCH survey (which showed a 50-per-10,000 reported

rate).

The survey was conducted by the Data Resource Center of the Child and Adolescent

Health Measurement Initiative (CAHMI) at the Oregon Health & Science University.

And though the survey used what is considered to be sound methodology for

estimating ASD prevalence, most observers are still anxiously awaiting the

release of even more new statistics -- expected soon from the CDC.

This second autism study, culled from data in the CDC's Autism and Developmental

Disabilities Monitoring network (ADDM), has been eagerly anticipated for quite

some time.

ADDM researchers examine the education and (when possible) medical records of

all eight-year-old children in selected US cities and states. They look only at

eight-year-old cohorts to allow time for all diagnoses to be made, reported and

counted.

So far, ADDM has published data from just two birth cohorts: children born in

1992 (eight-year-olds in 2000) and those born in 1994 (eight-year-olds in 2002).

The 1992 cohort revealed an estimated ASD rate of one in 166, or 60-per-10,000.

For the 1994 cohort, the estimate was revised upward to one in 150, or 10%

higher, at 66-per-10,000.

CDC officials have been analyzing the 1996 birth cohort (2004 data on

8-year-olds) for years. I asked the agency a few months ago about the slow

progress in releasing the numbers and was told that the data were currently

" under review. " No response was given to written questions about data collected

from the 1998 or 2000 cohorts (in 2006 and 2008, respectively).

I also submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the CDC for the raw

data it had collected to date. That request is still pending.

But just the other day, the Adventures in Autism blog reported that CDC was

about to release its 1996 birth cohort data, and that those data would also show

ASD prevalence rates along the lines of 100-per-10,000, or a whopping one

percent of US children.

The blogger, Ginger , reported that the CDC's new one in 100 figure had

been mentioned at a recent national meeting of the Autism Society of America. So

I called ASA President and CEO Lee Grossman to ask him about it.

It was Grossman himself who brought up the new studies, while introducing the

keynote panel at the ASA meeting in St , IL the week of July 20.

" I told people we were about to get hit by two separate studies that will be

published in the near future, " he said. The National Survey of Children's Health

data will be published in September and the CDC's 1996 birth cohort data will

also appear in print -- in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report --

" probably before the end of summer, although that is not yet official, " he told

me.

Grossman said his sources were " good people " that he trusts, working within the

CDC's ADDM network, which he termed the " gold standard " of US autism

epidemiology.

According to his sources, the 1996 birth cohort will reveal ASD prevalence rates

that are " consistent with other national large-scale study figures, and I assume

that includes a study from the UK, " Grossman said. That study put the UK rate at

1-in-83.

The CDC researchers also told Grossman that there were " some similarities " to

what was found in the NSCH survey, even though NSCH and ADDM are " two extremely

different instruments. "

Assuming that the new CDC figures show a significant increase in diagnoses

between the 1994 and 1996 cohorts, the overarching question, of course, will be,

" why? "

" Did the numbers really go up, or is it better data collection? I don't know the

answer, " Grossman told me. " Are we monitoring it better and finding more kids? I

suspect we are, though it is hard to say. " He added that ASA was working with a

few school districts that provide statistics on ASD rates, " and their numbers

are closing in on one in 100 as well. "

One possible explanation for at least some of the increase is that ADDM

researchers became more proficient at obtaining the necessary records across

their analyses of the 1992, 1994 and 1996 birth cohorts. For example, in the

1994 cohort, the ASD rate in New Jersey (where access to both medical and school

records was possible) was 93-per-10,000, while in Alabama (where access to

school records was not available) the rate was about one-third of that, at just

33-per-10,000.

Is it possible that CDC researchers somehow gained access to school records for,

say, Alabama children born in 1996 that they did not have for kids born there in

1994, thus driving up the numbers? Of course it is, though we must wait for the

published report to find out.

Another plausible explanation for some, if not all of the increase, is the

expansion of the ASD classification within the public schools to include not

only full-blown autism, but also milder forms of ASD such as Pervasive

Developmental Disorder -- Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS) and Asperger's

Syndrome.

This has long been the argument of those who do not believe that the real number

of ASD cases has increased -- they insist that the rise is simply an artifact of

wider diagnostic criteria, greater awareness and/or more ASD services on offer.

I am certain that the expansion of ASD criteria in the early 1990's contributed

to the increase in reported diagnoses during that time, though I am not

personally convinced that this can account for the entire growth of cases..

And I do not believe that autism rates have always been one in 100, or one in

71, as currently reported by parents of six- to 11-year-olds in the NCHS study.

So, what else could help explain at least part of the ASD increase? I believe

that environmental factors are at play. And rising levels of toxic exposures

among pregnant women, unborn children and young infants must be fully examined.

Which leads us to vaccines: Could they be responsible, at least in part, for

contributing to the rising ASD numbers?

" A person with an autism spectrum disorder has a number of underlying and

seemingly unnoticed immunological, inflammatory or mitochondrial issues

happening, and there could be any number of factors that trigger this, " Lee

Grossman told me, reflecting a growing consensus among autism groups and

researchers. " And it is certainly plausible that vaccines are one of those

triggers. "

The whole debate over why the numbers are going up, Grossman added, " is sad.. "

He lamented the fact that " people are trying to limit the debate and the

science. But until we know what is going on, we should treat everything as a

plausible factor, and study it to the point where we have a much better

understanding. For example, why do some people have a severe reaction to

vaccines and why do some not have that reaction? To me, it is appalling that

those studies have not happened. "

If there is an environmental component to autism, hopefully scientists will want

to know which exposures might have increased between, say, 1992 and 1996.

One possible answer is the Hepatitis B vaccine, (which also contained 25

micrograms of mercury containing thimerosal).

Introduced in 1991, it was the first vaccine ever given on a population basis to

newborn babies (within the first three hours after delivery) in human history.

But according to the CDC's National Immunization Survey (which also includes

parental telephone interviews), only 8% of infant children received the Hep B

vaccine in 1992, when that birth cohort showed an ASD rate of 60-per-10,000.

By 1994, the number of children receiving Hep B vaccine had reached just 27% --

and the cohort showed an ASD rate of 66-per-10,000.

But the Hep B coverage rate had risen to 82% by 1996, when that cohort's ASD

rate exploded to around 100-per-10,000.

Correlation, obviously, does not equal causation. And no one is suggesting that

Hepatitis B vaccine is the singular " cause " of autism. But the uptake rate of

that particular immunization is at least one environmental factor that did

demonstrably change during the period in question.

In addition, some recent studies and Vaccine Court decisions have supported the

contention that Hepatitis B vaccine can damage myelin -- the nervous system's

main insulating component -- at least in certain genetically susceptible adults

and infants.

A study published last October in the journal Neurology found that children who

received the Hepatitis B vaccine series were 50% more likely to develop " central

nervous system inflammatory demyelination " than children who did not receive the

vaccine.

Most of this increase was due to the Engerix B brand of the vaccine,

manufactured by the UK's GlaxoKline. That brand increased the risk of

demyelination by 74%, and patients with confirmed multiple sclerosis were nearly

three times more likely to develop the disorder.

" Hepatitis B vaccination does not generally increase the risk of CNS

inflammatory demyelination in childhood, " the authors concluded. " However, the

Engerix B vaccine appears to increase this risk, particularly for confirmed

multiple sclerosis, in the longer term. Our results require confirmation in

future studies. "

In another Vaccine Court Case, Banks v HHS, the Special Master ruled that a

young boy named Banks suffered from a similary demyelinating disease

called " acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) following the measles,

mumps, rubella vaccine, which " led inexorably " to his development of PDD-NOS, an

autism spectrum disorder.

In 's case, the myelin repaired itself, but the CNS damage was permanent.

Most children with ASD do not show current signs of myelin damage, though many

of them test positive for antibodies to myelin basic protein, suggesting that

demyelination may have played a role at one point, as it did in the Banks

case.

Another item that will surely spark fiery debate is the reason why so many

previously diagnosed children with ASD are currently not holding that diagnosis.

There are three main possible explanations:

1) Many children never had an ASD to begin with, and were simply " misdiagnosed. "

2) Some children naturally " recovered " from ASD on their own without treatment,

(though Lee Grossman and many others told me they have never seen this happen).

3) Interventions including behavioral therapy, dietary changes and biomedical

treatments actually work, and it is possible to recover a child from the grips

of ASD.

One thing is certain however: No matter what the explanations for the increase

-- and for the extraordinary " recovery " rate of children diagnosed with ASD --

the current US ASD level is still somewhere around 1% -- and 1.4%

(140-per-10,000) among kids aged six to 11, if the NCHS study is to be believed.

Let's assume that the 140-per-10,000 rate is the most accurate: This would make

the " autism is genetic and has always been with us at these levels " crowd appear

to be pathetic, if not downright laughable.

Why? Because reputable studies from the 1980s showed that the actual rate of

autism was about two per 10,000 children, not 140 per 10,000. If those studies

were wrong, and if the rate was the same then as it is now (as many scientists

contend), that would mean that doctors, educators and statisticians are now

7,000 percent more proficient at diagnosing and counting autism than they were

before.

According to this logic, out of every 140 children who had an ASD in the 1980s,

138 of them went (and continue to go) undiagnosed, uncounted and untreated by

medical and educational professionals.

If I were a medical or public health professional, that is a fact that I would

not be keen on broadcasting.

And if the actual rate of autism in America is truly 1%- or 1.4% - then as ASA's

Grossman said: " People ain't seen nothing yet. "

" Everyone is going to cover this story, and the reality is that nobody is doing

anything about the increase in autism, " Grossman commented. " But when you get to

a figure of 1% of the population, hopefully you'll get attention, and have

people begin to act to help those with autism today with funding of services and

support, and to get a better handle on how to spend research money. "

Grossman said it was " terrible " that research into the causes of autism has been

so heavily weighted towards genetics, at the expense of studying environmental

factors.

" But now, many people believe that autism is associated with environmental

triggers, " he told me. " And my message is: 'Wake up.' But if this doesn't wake

people up, then I don't know what will. "

I, for one, concur with Lee Grossman.

" I'm hopeful that this unfortunate statistic, and the terrible growth in autism,

will finally get people to act to do something about autism, " he said.. " And by

that, I mean the fine folks in government who are not responding in the ways

that they should. "

Love, Gabby. :0)

http://stemcellforautism.blogspot.com/

http://www.facebook.com/gabby911

http://twitter.com/stemcell4autism

" I know of nobody who is purely Autistic or purely neurotypical. Even God had

some Autistic moments, which is why the planets all spin. " ~ Jerry Newport

August 14, 2009

I am sorry - I will say that first, because I am probably going to annoy/piss

off/or anger a number of people on this page - but I have to respond to this...

At the very bottom of this - there is a trio of possible explanations - why why

why is that not the LEAD of this information - because really the point is:

1. That a LOT of children are mis-diagnosed, for many many financial reasons -

it benefits insurance companies, school districts, psychologists, counselors,

etc etc etc and above all drug companies to have more and more children

diagnosed with SOMETHING - to have the spectrum expanded more and more and more

to include any and all things no matter what.

2. That some children recovered from ASD on their own - without treatment - I'm

sorry again - what is NOT counted in this group is the parents -and grandparents

who taught the child, who work with them - as all parents used to - the teachers

who worked with a child who was struggling a little - to get them up to grade

level - WITHOUT putting a label on them - or sending them to special ed or extra

classes that would create a label on them for life..

I have watched for 2 years as my niece was bounced from place to place - after

being speech delayed - due to a one-time high fever that affected her brain

function - watched 'experts' who spent 20 minutes with her diagnose her as

PDD... because she would not interact with them - because she was 2, and didnt

know them?? 20 years ago that was a shy child - not one with a " disorder " - and

their parents gradually taught them how to interact more - not by taking them to

classes, not by putting them in therapies, and training, and worrying about

whether they would ever function, because they are " autistic " -- but by taking

them out, having expectations for them, modeling the behavior they expected, and

accepting nothing less than that - by spending time -

Yes, I know - I am going to be put out there as the evil one who doesnt

understand challenges, and who is heartless.. nothing is further from the truth

- I have watched my sister, and my nieces father, and ALL of the extended family

teach her to talk, work through her tantrums with her, her frustration - that

YES, at times can mimic autistic behavior. We even tried putting her in a class

for PDD/ASD children - anyone want to know what happened? she mirrored THAT

behavior - the rocking started, the tantrums got worse, WHY? because that was

behavior that was accepted as part of the spectrum in the classroom - that it

would stop when the child was ready, etc etc. When we pulled her out - and

restructured her expectations, all behaviors that would have been considered

'spectrum' stopped. It takes work, it takes dedication.

Am I saying there are no autistic children - NO - there absolutely are! But -

just as with diabetes 10 years ago - when you change the definition, or the

parameters, then you can say " Look, the rate is rising " - and get more money.

Wake up - Work with your children who are just barely on the 'spectrum' - don't

just accept the diagnosis - look at the child - they are more than the label -

they are yours - and you are responsible - ultimately for making them functional

in society - which will make them happy - i promise you! The tantrums will slow

and stop when they understand the rules of life.. it is the not knowing that

will cause a toddler to flip out mysteriously.

Thank you for listening - and again - I say this not to hurt, but to say -

PLEASE PLEASE do NOT accept numbers and labels - they are CHILDREN - and they

need your time - and your love- and your discipline- not a label and a

counselor, psychologist, therapist, etc.

Best to all.

LT

>

> A pair of federally funded studies on autism rates is about to make news --

big news -- and it isn't good: It would appear that somewhere around one percent

of all US children currently have an autism spectrum disorder. The rate is even

higher among six to 11 year olds and among boys, according to data from at least

one of the new studies.

> If you are an expectant parent, or planning to have a child soon, you might

want to sit down before absorbing these staggering statistics, recently released

by the National Survey of Children's Health (NSCH), which is supported by the

Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the US Department of

Health and Human Services.

> According to data from the 2007 telephone survey of parents of nearly 82,000

US children, the odds of a child receiving an ASD diagnosis are one in 63.. If

it is a boy, the chances climb to a science fiction-like level of one in 38, or

2.6% of all male children in America.

> But there was also some surprisingly good news. Enormous numbers of children

originally diagnosed with ASD went on to shed their diagnosis as they got older,

parents reported.

> Among all children aged two to 17, according to respondents, one in 100

(100-per-10,000) currently have an ASD diagnosis, which is considerably higher

than the previously (CDC) estimated rate of 1-in-150, (or 66-per-10,000).

> But researchers were also told by parents that 60-per-10,000 children " had

autism, Asperger's Disorder etc. at some point, but not currently. "

> This suggests two rather remarkable things:

> 1. At some point in their lives, 1-in-63 US children (160-per-10,000) will

have an ASD diagnosis and;

> 2. Out of every 160 children diagnosed with ASD, 60 of them (37.5%) will

somehow go on to lose that diagnosis.

> Among boys, for every 260-per-10,000 male children originally diagnosed with

ASD, 90 of them (34.6%) reportedly do not have the diagnosis now. This still

leaves a monumentally high rate of one in 58 boys with ASD today, or 1.7 percent

(170-per-10,000).

> The percentage of girls who apparently lost their original diagnosis was

44..5%.

> There was a big difference among age groups as well. Among those children who

still have the diagnosis, the rate of ASD was 40% higher in 6-11 year olds

(140-per-10,000, or 1-in-71) than the current rate of 12-17 year olds

(100-per-10,000, or 1-in-100).

> Interestingly, among the youngest children, two to five years old, the rate

was only half that of their six- to 11-year-old siblings, (70-per-10,000

vs.140-per-10,000). Most or all of that may be due to the average age of

diagnosis, which is below five years, though it does bear watching to see if

these younger kids go on to double their rates and " catch up " with the older

ones.

> Overall, the 2007 NSCH survey revealed a 100% increase in parent-reported ASD

rates compared to the 2003 NSCH survey (which showed a 50-per-10,000 reported

rate).

> The survey was conducted by the Data Resource Center of the Child and

Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative (CAHMI) at the Oregon Health & Science

University. And though the survey used what is considered to be sound

methodology for estimating ASD prevalence, most observers are still anxiously

awaiting the release of even more new statistics -- expected soon from the CDC.

> This second autism study, culled from data in the CDC's Autism and

Developmental Disabilities Monitoring network (ADDM), has been eagerly

anticipated for quite some time.

> ADDM researchers examine the education and (when possible) medical records of

all eight-year-old children in selected US cities and states. They look only at

eight-year-old cohorts to allow time for all diagnoses to be made, reported and

counted.

> So far, ADDM has published data from just two birth cohorts: children born in

1992 (eight-year-olds in 2000) and those born in 1994 (eight-year-olds in 2002).

The 1992 cohort revealed an estimated ASD rate of one in 166, or 60-per-10,000.

> For the 1994 cohort, the estimate was revised upward to one in 150, or 10%

higher, at 66-per-10,000.

> CDC officials have been analyzing the 1996 birth cohort (2004 data on

8-year-olds) for years. I asked the agency a few months ago about the slow

progress in releasing the numbers and was told that the data were currently

" under review. " No response was given to written questions about data collected

from the 1998 or 2000 cohorts (in 2006 and 2008, respectively).

> I also submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the CDC for the raw

data it had collected to date. That request is still pending.

> But just the other day, the Adventures in Autism blog reported that CDC was

about to release its 1996 birth cohort data, and that those data would also show

ASD prevalence rates along the lines of 100-per-10,000, or a whopping one

percent of US children.

> The blogger, Ginger , reported that the CDC's new one in 100 figure had

been mentioned at a recent national meeting of the Autism Society of America. So

I called ASA President and CEO Lee Grossman to ask him about it.

> It was Grossman himself who brought up the new studies, while introducing the

keynote panel at the ASA meeting in St , IL the week of July 20.

> " I told people we were about to get hit by two separate studies that will be

published in the near future, " he said. The National Survey of Children's Health

data will be published in September and the CDC's 1996 birth cohort data will

also appear in print -- in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report --

" probably before the end of summer, although that is not yet official, " he told

me.

> Grossman said his sources were " good people " that he trusts, working within

the CDC's ADDM network, which he termed the " gold standard " of US autism

epidemiology.

> According to his sources, the 1996 birth cohort will reveal ASD prevalence

rates that are " consistent with other national large-scale study figures, and I

assume that includes a study from the UK, " Grossman said. That study put the UK

rate at 1-in-83.

> The CDC researchers also told Grossman that there were " some similarities " to

what was found in the NSCH survey, even though NSCH and ADDM are " two extremely

different instruments. "

> Assuming that the new CDC figures show a significant increase in diagnoses

between the 1994 and 1996 cohorts, the overarching question, of course, will be,

" why? "

> " Did the numbers really go up, or is it better data collection? I don't know

the answer, " Grossman told me. " Are we monitoring it better and finding more

kids? I suspect we are, though it is hard to say. " He added that ASA was working

with a few school districts that provide statistics on ASD rates, " and their

numbers are closing in on one in 100 as well. "

> One possible explanation for at least some of the increase is that ADDM

researchers became more proficient at obtaining the necessary records across

their analyses of the 1992, 1994 and 1996 birth cohorts. For example, in the

1994 cohort, the ASD rate in New Jersey (where access to both medical and school

records was possible) was 93-per-10,000, while in Alabama (where access to

school records was not available) the rate was about one-third of that, at just

33-per-10,000.

> Is it possible that CDC researchers somehow gained access to school records

for, say, Alabama children born in 1996 that they did not have for kids born

there in 1994, thus driving up the numbers? Of course it is, though we must wait

for the published report to find out.

> Another plausible explanation for some, if not all of the increase, is the

expansion of the ASD classification within the public schools to include not

only full-blown autism, but also milder forms of ASD such as Pervasive

Developmental Disorder -- Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS) and Asperger's

Syndrome.

> This has long been the argument of those who do not believe that the real

number of ASD cases has increased -- they insist that the rise is simply an

artifact of wider diagnostic criteria, greater awareness and/or more ASD

services on offer.

> I am certain that the expansion of ASD criteria in the early 1990's

contributed to the increase in reported diagnoses during that time, though I am

not personally convinced that this can account for the entire growth of cases..

> And I do not believe that autism rates have always been one in 100, or one in

71, as currently reported by parents of six- to 11-year-olds in the NCHS study.

> So, what else could help explain at least part of the ASD increase? I believe

that environmental factors are at play. And rising levels of toxic exposures

among pregnant women, unborn children and young infants must be fully examined.

> Which leads us to vaccines: Could they be responsible, at least in part, for

contributing to the rising ASD numbers?

> " A person with an autism spectrum disorder has a number of underlying and

seemingly unnoticed immunological, inflammatory or mitochondrial issues

happening, and there could be any number of factors that trigger this, " Lee

Grossman told me, reflecting a growing consensus among autism groups and

researchers. " And it is certainly plausible that vaccines are one of those

triggers. "

> The whole debate over why the numbers are going up, Grossman added, " is sad.. "

He lamented the fact that " people are trying to limit the debate and the

science. But until we know what is going on, we should treat everything as a

plausible factor, and study it to the point where we have a much better

understanding. For example, why do some people have a severe reaction to

vaccines and why do some not have that reaction? To me, it is appalling that

those studies have not happened. "

> If there is an environmental component to autism, hopefully scientists will

want to know which exposures might have increased between, say, 1992 and 1996.

> One possible answer is the Hepatitis B vaccine, (which also contained 25

micrograms of mercury containing thimerosal).

> Introduced in 1991, it was the first vaccine ever given on a population basis

to newborn babies (within the first three hours after delivery) in human

history.

> But according to the CDC's National Immunization Survey (which also includes

parental telephone interviews), only 8% of infant children received the Hep B

vaccine in 1992, when that birth cohort showed an ASD rate of 60-per-10,000.

> By 1994, the number of children receiving Hep B vaccine had reached just 27%

-- and the cohort showed an ASD rate of 66-per-10,000.

> But the Hep B coverage rate had risen to 82% by 1996, when that cohort's ASD

rate exploded to around 100-per-10,000.

> Correlation, obviously, does not equal causation. And no one is suggesting

that Hepatitis B vaccine is the singular " cause " of autism. But the uptake rate

of that particular immunization is at least one environmental factor that did

demonstrably change during the period in question.

> In addition, some recent studies and Vaccine Court decisions have supported

the contention that Hepatitis B vaccine can damage myelin -- the nervous

system's main insulating component -- at least in certain genetically

susceptible adults and infants.

> A study published last October in the journal Neurology found that children

who received the Hepatitis B vaccine series were 50% more likely to develop

" central nervous system inflammatory demyelination " than children who did not

receive the vaccine.

> Most of this increase was due to the Engerix B brand of the vaccine,

manufactured by the UK's GlaxoKline. That brand increased the risk of

demyelination by 74%, and patients with confirmed multiple sclerosis were nearly

three times more likely to develop the disorder.

> " Hepatitis B vaccination does not generally increase the risk of CNS

inflammatory demyelination in childhood, " the authors concluded. " However, the

Engerix B vaccine appears to increase this risk, particularly for confirmed

multiple sclerosis, in the longer term. Our results require confirmation in

future studies. "

> In another Vaccine Court Case, Banks v HHS, the Special Master ruled that a

young boy named Banks suffered from a similary demyelinating disease

called " acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) following the measles,

mumps, rubella vaccine, which " led inexorably " to his development of PDD-NOS, an

autism spectrum disorder.

> In 's case, the myelin repaired itself, but the CNS damage was

permanent. Most children with ASD do not show current signs of myelin damage,

though many of them test positive for antibodies to myelin basic protein,

suggesting that demyelination may have played a role at one point, as it did in

the Banks case.

> Another item that will surely spark fiery debate is the reason why so many

previously diagnosed children with ASD are currently not holding that diagnosis.

> There are three main possible explanations:

>

> 1) Many children never had an ASD to begin with, and were simply

" misdiagnosed. "

> 2) Some children naturally " recovered " from ASD on their own without

treatment, (though Lee Grossman and many others told me they have never seen

this happen).

> 3) Interventions including behavioral therapy, dietary changes and biomedical

treatments actually work, and it is possible to recover a child from the grips

of ASD.

> One thing is certain however: No matter what the explanations for the increase

-- and for the extraordinary " recovery " rate of children diagnosed with ASD --

the current US ASD level is still somewhere around 1% -- and 1.4%

(140-per-10,000) among kids aged six to 11, if the NCHS study is to be believed.

> Let's assume that the 140-per-10,000 rate is the most accurate: This would

make the " autism is genetic and has always been with us at these levels " crowd

appear to be pathetic, if not downright laughable.

>

> Why? Because reputable studies from the 1980s showed that the actual rate of

autism was about two per 10,000 children, not 140 per 10,000. If those studies

were wrong, and if the rate was the same then as it is now (as many scientists

contend), that would mean that doctors, educators and statisticians are now

7,000 percent more proficient at diagnosing and counting autism than they were

before.

> According to this logic, out of every 140 children who had an ASD in the

1980s, 138 of them went (and continue to go) undiagnosed, uncounted and

untreated by medical and educational professionals.

> If I were a medical or public health professional, that is a fact that I would

not be keen on broadcasting.

> And if the actual rate of autism in America is truly 1%- or 1.4% - then as

ASA's Grossman said: " People ain't seen nothing yet. "

> " Everyone is going to cover this story, and the reality is that nobody is

doing anything about the increase in autism, " Grossman commented. " But when you

get to a figure of 1% of the population, hopefully you'll get attention, and

have people begin to act to help those with autism today with funding of

services and support, and to get a better handle on how to spend research

money. "

> Grossman said it was " terrible " that research into the causes of autism has

been so heavily weighted towards genetics, at the expense of studying

environmental factors.

> " But now, many people believe that autism is associated with environmental

triggers, " he told me. " And my message is: 'Wake up.' But if this doesn't wake

people up, then I don't know what will. "

> I, for one, concur with Lee Grossman.

> " I'm hopeful that this unfortunate statistic, and the terrible growth in

autism, will finally get people to act to do something about autism, " he said..

" And by that, I mean the fine folks in government who are not responding in the

ways that they should. "

>

> Love, Gabby. :0)

> http://stemcellforautism.blogspot.com/

> http://www.facebook.com/gabby911

> http://twitter.com/stemcell4autism

>

> " I know of nobody who is purely Autistic or purely neurotypical. Even God had

some Autistic moments, which is why the planets all spin. " ~ Jerry Newport

>

August 14, 2009

I rarely post here, because writing in English it's very hard for me (I'm in

Argentina, a Spanish-speaking country) but I wanted to say THANK YOU, LT, for

your post!

I couldn't agree more. I cannot imagine how someone could be annoyed for your

words.

I'm going to print your message and put it in my wall. Of course I'm going to do

*anyting* to help my child, but I'm confident your words will put some common

sense in my mind in those moments I'm going mad an start to lack of perspective.

Thanks, again!

María Cecilia

[ ] Re: Autism Rate Now at One Percent of All US

Children?