The 12 Days of Skyhorse Publishing Day 1 Cooking With Leo
The 12 Days of Skyhorse Publishing Day 2 Vaccines A Reappraisal

Grim News from CDC as Developmental Disabilities continue to Rise

Lost boyThere wasn't much (any?) fanfare on the local or national news about the grim announcement from America's CDC: NCHS Data Brief ■ No. 291 ■ November 2017 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Health Statistics Estimated Prevalence of Children With Diagnosed Developmental Disabilities in the United States, 2014–2016

Disability Scoop reports: An increasing number of American children have developmental disabilities, the federal government says, even as autism and intellectual disability rates remain largely steady. Between 2014 and 2016, the prevalence of developmental disabilities among kids ages 3 to 17 increased from 5.76 percent to 6.99 percent, according to figures released Wednesday from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The rise stems from an uptick in children diagnosed with a developmental delay other than autism or intellectual disability, the federal agency said.

Take a look at the statistics and charts in the CDC report - the prognosis for males is poor as disabilities are on the rise faster for boys than girls.  If you're a teacher, coach, therapist or any professional who works with kids, what are you seeing in your field? Are the boys less able to perform, function, succeed? What about the girls? I know from my experience teaching karate, the girls overall are more prepared to learn, better able to focus and can process commands and make their bodies do what we ask faster. Choosing left or right arm or leg comes quicker. Making adjustments is easier. Behavior is superior.

The ghost of America's future is rattling the chains. The  media isn't paying attention.


Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Greg@John Stone

John, if you get a chance, let me know if I am thinking things correctly.  I am finding further problem with this survey.


I already mentioned how perplexing it is for the CDC to claim with this survey there was no significant increase in autism prevalence over the three years (2014-2016) when the actual rate went from 1 in 45 in 2014 to 1 in 36 in 2016, yet a significant increase for other disabilities is claimed when the actual increase went from 1 in 17 in 2014 to a mere 1 in 14 in 2016.  Yet, what does the claim that there was a significant increase in other disabilities really mean?  Taken at face value it seems to be suggesting that there was a significant increase in kids being diagnosed with other disabilities -- AND WHO DIDN'T HAVE AUTISM.  Reviewing the survey, I found a certain 'quibble' in the data that leads me to question this leap, particularly the emphasised clause.

Consider, for example, a survey where parents were interviewed to report on the health outcomes of 100 kids:  In the first year of the survey, of 100 kids, 2 were found to have autism, and 3 kids were diagnosed with other disabilities that weren't autism.  Repeating the survey in the second year, 3 kids were diagnosed with autism and 9 were diagnosed with other disabilities that weren't autism.  Is it then not accurate to conclude that there was a significant increase in kids being diagnosed with autism -- AND WHO DIDN'T HAVE AUTISM?


It would be wrong to jump to that conclusion if further perusing the data it was found that the kids being diagnosed with other disabilities also had autism.  In that case, the proper conclusion would be that there was a significant increase in autistic kids being diagnosed with other disabilities.  Consider when we re-examine this hypothetical survey's data it is found that in year one the tally for total kids with a disability is 4, and in the second year it is 6.  Yet, how can this be?  In the first year there are 2 autistic kids, and 3 with other disabilities so the total should be 5 -- not 4!.  Likewise in the second year, there are  3 kids with autism and 9 with other disabilities, so the total should be 12 -- not 6. 

The answer to this puzzle is the categories are not exclusive, and there is overlapping going on.  The same kids that were found to have autism  were the same kids being diagnosed with other issues.  It's not a case of there being a significant increase in kids who didn't have autism being diagnosed with other issues, but healthcare officials 'significantly' slapping autistic kids with other diagnosis over the years.

Reviewing the actual CDC survey, the data seems to suggest this overlapping, and indicating that the categories are also not exclusive.  For instance, for 2014 it reports percentages of 2.24 kids diagnosed with autism, 1.10 diagnosed with intellectual disabilities, 3.57 diagnosed
with 'Other development delay', and the total it provides for 'Developmental disability' which it describes as a composite for all the disabilities is 5.76. Yet, how can this be?  Adding the categories separately the total or 'composite' should be 6.91.  This seems to  indicate that there is overlapping of the categories, they're not exclusive! Some of the kids that were diagnosed with autism were the same ones being found to have other issues.  This same pattern can be found for 2015 and 2016.

Interestingly, the previous survey that reported the 1 in 45 prevalence rate, specified that the category of 'other developmental delay' included kids diagnosed with autism and other issues.  The overlapping was acknowledged.  Things, however, remains murky with this current survey.  The overlapping is not acknowledged and I don't know whether it was accounted for.  On the surface it appears as yet another example of the CDC attempting to mislead -- and in this case pointing to a bogus finding that's really not what it's implied to be.  

John Stone

Greg

I wouldn’t like to go much further on this than I have already written - of course, there could be several different rates within a 15 year cohort hence the distinction between prevalence and incidence. If you look at my articles going back particular over the last 12 months there seems little doubt the problem is escalating at incredible speed presently in the U.K. We know this because we have the education statistics.

John

Greg

John, based on what you know and read, what are your best educated guesses for autism prevalence in US and UK, for kids under 17? We're talking official diagnosis.

Cheers, Greg

Science is pure.  People are corrupt.

John Stone -

Assuming both that the ingredients for autism are in place by the third birthday, and an exponential rate of growth in prevalence with time as previous data has suggested, the figures presented give a base constant for growth (i.e. the figure a in a^x) of 0.9, which leads to the year groups aged three and four being 4.3 times more likely to have ASD than those ages eighteen and nineteen.

That is of course a crude calculation and not a substitute for more meaningful data, but it is highly plausible.

The date are here:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db291_table.pdf#1

Grace Green

John and Greg, I wonder also about the reliability of these diagnoses, given that it is a fairly subjective decision. I've had two piano pupils, for example, brothers, the older one had a diagnosis of Aspergers but his mother told me he didn't talk until nine years old (so not Aspergers then!) and the younger had no diagnosis but to me clearly had Aspergers. I think doctors can also play around with the ADD, ADHD PDDNOS etc., to water down the statistics.

Hans Litten

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5133049/Aluminium-vaccines-cause-autism.html

The Daily Mail has published the Exley blockbuster .

John Stone

Hi Greg

The statement that there has been no significant increase in the prevalence of autism between 2014 and 2016 seems to be patently false, rather than slippery language. The incidence of autism may not have increased for some years according to these figures and may be running at just under 3% but the prevalence will have gone up because two years of older students with a lower incidence will have been lost to the cohort and more will have come in with higher incidence. That’s my explanation of what you can see. But Zablotsky et al entered the field two years ago having massaged the 1 in 6 figure given by Boyle et al for developmental disability in 2011 down by approx. 2/3.

I also note that autism incidence in the U.K. seems still to be dramatically rising, so there are questions whether we are seeing the true picture here - although it is plenty grim enough.

Greg

Hi PatriciaIt is not a static report at all. ASD has gone up from 2.24% to 2.76%. That is a rise of 23% in two years but it is probably several times that at the lower end of the cohort.


John, you raised a good observation, and I have to question why the CDC would suggest no significant increase in autism diagnosis over 3 years (2014 - 2016).  The precise claim is.....

During 2014–2016, there was a significant increase in the prevalence of children who had ever been diagnosed with any developmental disability. This increase was largely the result of an increase in the prevalence of children diagnosed with a developmental delay other than autism spectrum disorder or intellectual disability. There was not a significant change in the prevalence of diagnosed autism spectrum disorder or intellectual disability over the same time period.

But the actual numbers reveal that in 2014 the percentage of kids with 'any disability' was 5.76 (1 in 17) and it increased to 6.99 (1 in 14), whereas for autism in 2014 the percentages was 2.24 (1 in 45), and it increased to 2.76 (1 in 36).  Does this not contradict the claim, and reveal an actual bigger jump for kids diagnosed with autism relative to the one for kids diagnosed with 'any disability' over those 3 years?

John, I am not an expert on statistics and I hope someone will correct me if I am thinking this wrong, but I think the CDC is using statistical terminology to confuse and suggest that there was no overall increase in autism over those three years, and when that wasn't the case -- there was!

Consider that the term 'significant' has a precise statistical definition, which is a 'real' effect that is not due from chance.  Significant results are contingent on sample size.  The larger the sample size, the more likely you are to get a significant result. 

How does this pertain to study?  It means there was an increase, just that the sample size was not large enough to determine whether it was a significant one, not occurring due to  chance.  Yet, this is a far cry from saying there wasn't.  Consider the example where you walk outside and calculate an autism rate for the first 100 kids that you run into.  Your sample size may be too small to say that that result is significant, but it doesn't mean there was no result.  You could repeat the exercise with a million kids -- a sample size large enough to obtain a significant finding -- and still end up with a rate of 3 autistic kids per 100.


For kids with 'any disability' we are likely dealing with a large enough sample size to yield a significant result. Yet, strictly speaking, again, we're not talking about the size of the increase or whether it is greater than the one for autistic kids over those three years -- but whether it is significant.

Angus Files

Japan is voluntary schedule below slightly behind Europe

https://www.jpeds.or.jp/modules/en/index.php?content_id=7

Pharma for Prison

MMR RIP

John Stone

Patricia

There is quite a lot to work out here, and I am not sure I know the answers. You would expect diagnosis to be more complete for an older group, so looking at that aspect of the data that might indicate no change (at about 3% with the group that were 3-7 in 2016 eventually catching up those that were 8-12) but on the other hand, this must be a lot higher than the group that have just left the cohort - but the data is broken down differently from Zablotsky's 2015 publication so there is no direct comparison. Also there is a considerably jump between the 13 to 17 group and the 8-12.

Patricia O'Connell

Perhaps static was a poor choice of words in my prior post. It was meant as a relative term. The CDC asserted that ASD rates remained "largely steady" which I don't believe for a moment. My point was that, given the diagnostic criteria changes for ASD in DSM-5 as of 01/01/2014, the increase in ASD numbers may be understated.

False scientists

Japan has officially withdrawn MMR? When do they administer hep B vaccine? Is it mandatory for school attendance?

John Stone

Hi Patricia

It is not a static report at all. ASD has gone up from 2.24% to 2.76%. That is a rise of 23% in two years but it is probably several times that at the lower end of the cohort.

Patricia O'Connell

My concern is that the static report of ASD diagnoses may be smoke and mirrors, a la the redefinition of polio. DSM-5 was introduced 01/01/2014. Practitioners had the window from 01/01/2014 to 10/01/2016 to transition from the ICD-9 to ICD-10 diagnostic codes which totally revamped the diagnostic criteria for autism, eliminating subtypes and lumping everything under ASD. I used to think this change in ICD codes did not change the overall numbers, but now I'm thinking this change may have effectively excluded some folks that were previously considered on the spectrum but now eliminated, thus artificially lowering the total count. Are there any psychologists or psychiatrists that could comment?

John Stone

So this is what it states in relation to the Boyle paper which gave the 1 in 6 figure:

"The prevalence of developmental disabilities described in this report is lower than findings
described in previous reports using NHIS data (1). This report uses a more restrictive definition
for a developmental disability that does not include conditions such as attention-deficit/
hyperactivity disorder or learning disabilities, which may account for differences in estimates. A
similar definition was used in a 2015 National Health Statistics Report (2)."

So, perhaps the Boyle figure would also be much higher after more than six years.

Basically, Boyle's figure using different criteria in 2011 was about 3 times higher than Zablotsky in 2014. Boyle's figure may now be 1 in 5, 1 in 4.

Richard

Just wait until 5G wireless is introduced, it's supposedly coming to a few cities by the end of the year. The millimeter waves used with this technology have the potential to be an order of magnitude worse for health than current technologies. Millimeter waves are used as a crowd control weapon by the millitary. Combined with vaccines, disturbed microbiota and all the other effects of modern living I can only imagine this rate going up even faster in the next five years.

John Stone

Bob,

I am puzzling over this - this in itself is a huge rise measured by the same criteria - but the 1 in 6 figure given in a 2011 by Coleen Boyle et al is actually already ~17%, and obviously the present trend is not downwards. I don’t know whether the Boyle paper was an attempt at over-estimation to anticipate an expected trend which we are perhaps now reaching among the youngest children.

bob moffit

"The rise stems from an uptick in children diagnosed with a developmental delay other than autism or intellectual disability, the federal agency said."

What does the CDC mean by "developing delay" other than autism or intellectual disability?

At one time ... the CDC gave the NUMBER .... 1 in 6 Children as being developmentally delayed.

Does the CDC's new PERCENTAGE increase from 5.76 to 6.99 percent .. in the prevalence of development disabilities among kids 3 to 17 .. between 2014 and 2016 .. mean MORE than 1 in 6 Children are now developmentally delayed?

Hans Litten

Japan has withdrawn both the MMR & Gardasil.
So we know at least to some degree honest Governments still exist somewhere .
But why not in Europe ?

Gary Ogden

I recently read an article about the U.S. Army. They are unable to make their recruiting goals for this year, so they've lowered their standards once again, primarily by removing mental-health dis-qualifiers. The future is here.

John Stone

I fear this is much more catastrophic even than it immediately looks. This is a more than 20% increase over two years, but what it means - with a rolling cohort of 15 years - is that the jump will be much steeper among younger children: the longer the child been in the system the longer the opportunity for a diagnosis, most of the new cases will come from the young end and may signify an increase of above 100%, but as diagnosis among that group will be incomplete there will be more to come. Meanwhile, the CDC pretend that nothing is happening. I think we can dismiss the pretence from these people that more recognition is a good thing - it is just a ploy - they don't want to recognise anything really because in the end it discloses a problem, and government liability. The number of disabled children suddenly doubles, and no one is called to account.

Hans Litten

Where does this vaccine butchery end ? The endless lies and thievery by the western nations .

http://vaccineimpact.com/2017/730000-filipino-children-receive-faulty-dengue-vaccine-which-causes-dengue-rather-than-preventing-it/

In a story that is being mostly censored in the U.S. media, vaccine manufacturer Sanofi Pasteur has admitted that their vaccine for dengue (a deadly tropical disease spread mostly by mosquitoes) is defective.

In a press release from France, the pharmaceutical company admitted that the vaccine is harmful to those not previously infected with dengue, and could cause children not previously infected with dengue to contract a severe case of the disease.

Based on up to six years of clinical data, the new analysis evaluated long-term safety and efficacy of Dengvaxia in people who had been infected with dengue prior to vaccination and those who had not.

The analysis confirmed that Dengvaxia provides persistent protective benefit against dengue fever in those who had prior infection.

For those not previously infected by dengue virus, however, the analysis found that in the longer term, more cases of severe disease could occur following vaccination upon a subsequent dengue infection.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)