New CDC Autism Numbers Coming Soon; Rate Increase to over 1 in 100 Expected

Looks like there's going to be a new way to become part of the "1%" and it doesn't look good. From The Canary Party:

Officials at the Centers for Disease Control have promised to release their most recent autism prevalence numbers sometime “in the spring,” which officially begins today. Most likely the release will give rates from the 2008 report of the Autism Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network on eight-year-old children born in 2000.

Over two years ago the CDC reported autism rates of 1 in 110 in children born in 1998. Early reports indicate that rates for children born in 2000 have risen above 1 in 100. According to sources, the new rates could be announced as early as next week.

Chairman of the Canary Party Mark Blaxill said, “We’ve been waiting for years to get these numbers from the CDC, but most of all we’ve been waiting for health authorities to face the reality of the American autism epidemic. Something terrible has happened to a generation of American children and the CDC refuses to declare autism a public health emergency.”

In order to assess the new report, the Canary Party urges the public to consider the following:

• These statistics are many years behind the current situation. Since the onset of autism begins in infancy, before three years of age, these statistics are effectively a decade old.
• Utah, one of the ADDM reporting sites, has already published their results for the 2000 birth year. The risk for autism in eight-year-olds born in Utah in 2000 was 1 in 77. This is a 73% increase from Utah’s 2002 ADDM statistics, which showed a rate of 1 in 133 for children born in 1994.
• Autism was reported as a new condition in American children born in the 1930s. For many years reported U.S. autism rates were low, not much higher than 1 in 10,000. Starting with children born around 1990, autism rates began exploding. Some authorities attribute this increase to the inclusion of Asperger’s syndrome in official diagnostic criteria, but Asperger’s syndrome only makes up a modest portion of total autism cases and cannot explain such sudden and large increases.
• The ADDM Network has never reported breakdowns within the autism spectrum, making comparisons to past prevalence reports difficult. Without the ability to separate rates of Asperger’s syndrome from other autism categories, the CDC has failed to address the impact of Asperger’s syndrome on autism time trends.
• The ADDM Network reporting sites have also changed frequently, making comparisons even with the CDC’s own autism reports difficult. High prevalence sites like New Jersey were removed from the ADDM Network and lower prevalence states like Florida were added. These shifts make the increases appear less alarming than they truly are. Nevertheless the last CDC report showed an increase of 57% in just four years.
• The ADDM Network reports begin with children born in 1992, so they miss the crucial inflection point in autism rates around 1990. Yet the CDC’s own statistics from New Jersey, an early ADDM site, show rates for autistic disorder rising from ZERO in the 1988-89 birth years to 1 in 128 by 1993.

The only plausible explanation for these rapid increases is a change in the environment affecting millions of American children. A recent study on California twins — the largest autism twin study ever conducted — reported that the environment explained over 60% of autism causation, and by some estimates over 90%.

The Canary Party calls for all Americans to watch for the new autism rates and demand action from public health authorities.

Comments

[Allison]

Wasn't 1990 the year the government mandated that pediatricians put 2 year olds on low fat diets? Correlation, maybe?

[Jasana]

I'm with you Benedetta.

[Questions]

"For many years reported U.S. autism rates were low, not much higher than 1 in 10,000"

Which years were these? Can you cite which studies showed 1:10,000?

[Shelly]

PBS just re-ran Frontline's Vaccine Wars this week - curious timing.......

[maggie]

Well I can't stop thinking about that doctor from the cdc who was arrested for beastiality and child sex crimes last year. After I saw that, all I could think of was... wow....If that is the kind of people they are hiring, then that explains a lot.

[cmo]

I wonder if the CDC will announce the new Autism rates on a Friday afternoon at 4:45 PM ?

Too late to make the Friday news and ...the best time of the week to announce something that one hopes will get swept under the rug.

Place your bets...

[Anne McElroy Dachel]

It is expected that the CDC will have little interest in why the numbers continue to soar. They will try to trivialize this increase by saying it’s just more greater awareness and an expanded spectrum. They have never used the word “crisis” with the word autism.

We are beyond crisis. Autism is a health care emergency happening everywhere. It threatens the future of our country while the CDC continues to declare autism’s cause a mystery.

They have no right to tell us anything. They have failed our children during twenty-five years of the epidemic.

I couldn't have said it better than this site, Autism Jabberwocky: The CDC's Forthcoming Autism Prevalence Estimate http://autismjabberwocky.blogspot.com/2012/03/cdcs-forthcoming-autism-prevalence.html

"As for the reasons the CDC gives, well, I expect those to be almost identical to the one's from three years ago. They will say something along the lines of more awareness, more people willing and able to make a diagnosis, an increase in available services, better counting, and maybe, just maybe a small real increase in the rate.

"Or in short, I fully expect 2012's announcement to be almost identical to the one in 2009. The CDC will announce a major increase in the autism rate, use the same tired lines to try and explain the increase, and tell us not to worry because they know is it an 'urgent' health concern."

Anne Dachel

[KEA]

Mfisher: From what I've read by Tony Attwood, Aspergers is diagnosed between 8 and 11. Our son (b. 2004) was diagnosed at 7. Before that, he appeared to have symptoms of ADHD, OCD and ODD. Since he started talking at 9 mo and talked in full sentences at 18 mo, I just thought he was very smart. By 3 I breathed a sigh of relief that we had dodged the autism bullet. What a shock it was when the doctor diagnosed Aspergers at 7. It makes perfect sense now, but nobody, including the pediatrician, suspected it when he was younger.

[Bob Moffitt]

•These statistics are many years behind the current situation. Since the onset of autism begins in infancy, before three years of age, these statistics are effectively a decade old."

Why should the CDC statistices be "effectively a decade old".

Perhaps its because thimerosal was supposedly removed from childhood vaccines a decade ago .. and .. the CDC was desperate to create a decades distance between removing thimerosal and any significant decrease in autism rates that immediately followed.

In any event, the cynic in me expects the CDC will release their most recent autism rate .. late on a Friday afternoon .. perhaps preceding Easter weekend.

[Stagmom]

If CDC had any sense of humor they'd issues the numbers on PASSOVER. Hug your firstborn sons, friends. Because we know damn well there ain't gonna be a resurrection any time soon between the "don't cure anything" crowd and the "let's find drugs to tamp down the behaviors associated with biological pain" crowd. I need a chocolate bunny. Stat.

[Natasa]

If the rates have increased we should expect CDC to release the report in late afternoon just before Easter Weekend.

[Mfischer]

I just don't get it. Children born in 2000 are 12yo not 8. Why does it take so long to report this information. I am assuming that most children with autism are diagnosed by the time they are 3 or 4 that would mean to me that we should be reporting now on children born in 2007. Aren't there any computers at the CDC?

[Hmmm]

Local PBS outlet airing Vaccine Wars tonight. Prepping for the new stats release and/or Walker Smith ruling damage control or both?

[Jen]

So they've just started keeping track of prevalence since hep b'ing babies at birth? That's convenient...

[Benedetta]

How come the CDC has been so hush, hush about this? How come they have not given us a clue what to expect?
This is the first report that suggest that the numbers will be higher.

CDC; This is what you get when you ignored my children in the 80s.
CDC you should have shown a little interest way back then, instead of telling me, and telling the docs to tell me that vaccines had nothing to do with nothing!

The government needs to fire everyone at the CDC and close the doors and reopen with new people somewhere else.