check this out.. rates of autism 1994 -2005 U.S. wide

Discuss autism theories, media stories, and efforts to put ASD on the government agenda here.

Moderator: ModeratorBill

Forum rules
Please limit quotes from articles to five paragraphs. Also, researchers may post study information here.
Guest

Postby Guest » Fri Mar 17, 2006 11:28 am

Erik,

LM, I KNOW that mercury is a trigger for autism,


While some interesting hypotheses exist regarding the possible vaccine connections, I think these type of statements speak for themselves. No one knows. Certainly you don't know.

What does concern me about these absolutist statements (based on almost no evidence) is that, if the hypotheses doesn't withstand investigation, and you are chasing the wrong rabbit, we will find ourselves in a hole with a skunk. Why would other avenues of possibility be studied if Erik already knows that autism is just mercury poisoning?

But if you can't accept the independent epidemilogy, the lab and clinical science and the testimonies of at least hundreds of parents that their kids are mercury toxic and vaccine injured... then there's nothing anyone can say to help you or your child.


Erik, I always appreciate your condescending swipe to parents who actually read outside the party line, and who don't happen to believe you have it all figured out. Sigh, I suppose our children are just hopelessly lost to autism. Have you ever wondered how the children of the parents you accuse of being "half-assed" have fared? You can't accept that any children improve without following your party line, because it does not support what you KNOW to be true. And of course since you have never met them, they don't exist.

I have no patience for those in the "neurodiverse" crowd.


And I have no patience with being accused of being part of the "neurodiverse" crowd -- just because I disagree with much of what you claim to KNOW does not make me "neurodiverse." Plenty of parents have been advocating for autism treatment long before you entered the scene. The fact that someone doesn't agree with you does not necessarily mean that "they don't understand" (as you have often accused posters). I didn't get the impression that the number of excellent questions (most of which went unanswered) on the castration thread were posed by people who had difficulty understanding. There did appear to be some problems with answering, however.

There are plenty of high-profile folks in your camp who have staked their careers, financial futures, and egos on maintaining the party line. They have much to maintain and gain from convincing the public and parents that they have the answer. Many of them are not models of mature or ethical behavior. I have no patience with people who are more committed to proving that they are correct than discovering the truth. This self-serving attitude will ultimately cause more harm than good.

Winnie

Guest

Postby Guest » Fri Mar 17, 2006 11:47 am

But if you're looking for a phone number for a good group home... sorry. I'm looking for a cure, no less


Really, that is not the sort of demeaning reference I would expect from a parent of a child with special needs...hardly that of an advocate.

One thing that we actually do KNOW about autism is that all children do not recover, even those of "diligent" parents who explore every avenue. You might want to keep that in mind.

Winnie

littlebopeep
Posts: 1387
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2006 5:33 pm

Postby littlebopeep » Fri Mar 17, 2006 11:48 am

This person "knows" that trans fat consumption is causing all of this autism.

http://www.autismfries.com/

Guest

Postby Guest » Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:06 pm

DGDavis,

If labwork/hair test has been done on an autisic child and it's determined that a heavy metal excretion problem exists in the child, isn't it the parents responsiblity to deal with this problem as the MEDICAL CONDITION it is?


I can see how it is frustrating that parents are seemingly disregarding lab work when they question some of the treatments. The problem is not that you are not believed, it is with the validity of the tests, labs used, and interpretation.

For instance, parents usually use a chelator prior to collecting urine to test for metals. If we don't have established criteria for conducting this challenge on neurotypical kids, the "provoked" sample may be compared to "unprovoked" norms (or some other set of data that is less than relevant). That is just an example of one of the numerous problems with these tests, labs, and interpretation.

Hair tests are another example of gray, and are not known for their accuracy or validity.

Ever wonder why these tests go to a select few labs? These labs have been doing this for years, and I don't think its just because they are smarter than other reputable labs.

Just throwing out some examples. Not challenging that you received the results.

Winnie

quantumerik
Posts: 306
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 7:50 am

Postby quantumerik » Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:15 pm

Winnie, I wasn't speaking to you. I know you hate biomedical and play with semantics in these conversations to attempt to derail those you disagree with. So goodbye. Have a nice day.

Erik

Guest

Postby Guest » Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:16 pm

This person "knows" that trans fat consumption is causing all of this autism.


Yep, and they have parent testimony to back it up. So its true. ItsMcAutism!. I smell a law suit! And that data matches the hypotheses as well:

The first reaction I had was "no, that's ridiculous". But then again, why should it be ruled out without seriuos thought. Hasn't there been a massive increase in the amount of fast food fed to toddlers, especially since 1995. Isn't it true that fast food really became immensely popular in the early 1980's.

Wow, something fits the data curve. Nothing else fits the data curve. Fast food fits the data curve for the autism epidemic. Suddenly, this has to be a viable theory. "Oh, my God, could it really be the fries. This is terrible news, how are people going to react to it. I'm going to be called an anti-American or something like that? I can't possibly go online with this theory", I thought.

But I have to go online. It is my responsibility to do it. If I can stop other kids from becoming autistic, maybe millions of them, how can I sit back and do nothing.

But there's just one question: I ate french fries when I was a toddler and small child, I didn't get autism. Yes, kids ate them in the 1960's and 1970's, but not so often. My parents took me to fast food restaurants on SPECIAL OCCASIONS. We went for birthdays, holidays, celebrations for good report cards, etc. That connection between special occasions and fast food was set subconsiously in my brain. Now I'm a parent and I want to have special occasions with my kids all the time. So I took my kids to fast food restaurants on an extremely frequent basis. Could this be true of other parents. Sadly, I think the answer is yes. Kids nowadays are eating massive amounts of this junk. (Note: I later learned that McDonalds switched from a beef lard oil to a trans fat oil in 1991)


I think a thread of all the internet theories and people who know what causes autism (and how to treat it) might be fun :)

lol
Winnie

Guest

Postby Guest » Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:32 pm

Winnie, I wasn't speaking to you. I know you hate biomedical and play with semantics in these conversations to attempt to derail those you disagree with.


I don't hate biomed. I hate autism quackery, psuedo-professionals who profit from other's misfortune based on psuedo-science, party-line hysterics, and egos who claim to KNOW and condescend to anyone who disagrees.

I don't care much for the derailment of logic or often the flagrant disregard for common sense either.

And I will never claim to KNOW all the answers. Frankly, the more I learn, the more aware I am of how little is known, and how many more questions need to be asked and studied.

You have a good day :)

Winnie

BTDT
Posts: 3492
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 8:02 pm

Postby BTDT » Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:33 pm

One of my personal favorites:

http://www.stopabductions.com/

THE THOUGHT SCREEN HELMET STOPS ALIENS FROM ABDUCTING HUMANS. IT'S A TESTED DEVICE THAT WORKS.

“My son has been wearing the helmet since December 2000. A Neurologist and pediatrician both say that he has made dramatic improvement in his behavior, ability to process information, and he gives me eye contact. My son has been open with me about his dreams and abduction experiences. He wears the helmet after school and at night.”

Guest

Postby Guest » Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:45 pm

BDTD

Thanks for the tip. Its really cool that he included the make-it-yourself instructions. My friend said that alien telepathy was interfering with the transfer of invisible energy during her NAET treatments. She is thinking of making a thought-screen canopy to use during treatments, but she is a little concerned about making the aliens angry.

Thanks!

Winnie

livsparents
Posts: 1629
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 10:29 pm

Postby livsparents » Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:45 pm

Winnie, while I'll agree that there are a select few that MAY have their perverbial eggs in one basket with proving the mercury/autism link, I also look at the distinct possibility that IF there is a link to thimeresol, there are far too many corporations, governments and people who would be financially, reputationally and morally bankrupted by that news, so there is potentially even MORE of a likelihood of misinformation from those camps.
I for one am open to all the possibilities of causes for autism. But I am also not going to sit on my hands and wait for those same people potentially with a vested interest of hiding information, to provide me with information to help me. i am going to try all avenues of therapies; OT, Speech, ABA and yes, biomedical to try and help my daughter(s). The clock is ticking...I have to try....EVERYTHING

I know...sounds desparate...pathetic...naiive...welcome to our world! I may be living in denile but I'm not ready to sell her up dariver just yet!
Bill

livsparents
Posts: 1629
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 10:29 pm

Postby livsparents » Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:56 pm

But NOT as pathetic as the abductions website, THAT is going too far (all you really need is a thermal screen over you bedroom to keep the aliens away)! I'll give you a LOL on that one...
Bill

Guest

Postby Guest » Fri Mar 17, 2006 1:03 pm

Hi Bill,

i am going to try all avenues of therapies; OT, Speech, ABA and yes, biomedical to try and help my daughter(s). The clock is ticking...I have to try....EVERYTHING


Actually I agree with just about everything you said.

I don't deny that there are many interesting hypotheses and leads out there, and I would agree that governmental agencies and big pharma are not above reproach and have much to lose. And I am a believer in treatment.

I just have a problem with many of the people profitting from our desperation based on spun information, and with the people passing along info to new parents based on political hysterics and propagandized information.

And I'm tired of being accused of being an evil-doer just because I don't accept information at face value, just because someone said it here.

Bill, I've been in your world for quite some time, and much of my opinion base comes from my experiences, and those of other parents, good and bad. From the information end of all this, we cannot further the knowledge base without questioning our own assumptions. Meanwhile, certainly your point regarding proceeding with treatments is well-taken.

Winnie

sashasmom
Posts: 1788
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 7:03 pm

Postby sashasmom » Fri Mar 17, 2006 1:19 pm


(From Crystal's post):

We will see Dr. Bradstreet this summer for IV chelation and he does not take insurance


Hmm, I wonder why he doesn't take insurance. I mean, he's a good guy who only wants to help little children with autism, right?

Hooey indeed.
Winnie


Winnie,

I have absolutely no clue if he is a good guy or not. I have no clue if he just wants to help kids with ASD or not. I've never met the man, haven't dealt with them yet so right now I have no opinion. I do know that Sasha needs IV chelation according to our current DAN! however he does not do IV in his office b/c he doesn't feel experience enough per his quote. He's only been doing DAN! for about 2 years now. Bradstreet is the person who everyone recommends. All parents I talk to who do IV chelation with their child only trust him so I am taking their word for it. I suppose I may have a negative opinion of him once we meet him or it could be a positive. I'm having an open mind about it right now. I know what to expect for costs and I know what to expect to get back from the insurance company and it's not that big of an expense. We have a free condo for the month of August in Melbourne from a local church in the area so it's worth a try.

I can't say that he's a crook just b/c he doesn't take insurance. I'm not saying that is what you are implying either. I'll just have to experience it before I can make an opinion about it. Most insurance companies have their contract agreeed fees with doctors and he may not feel like a 2 hour consultation is worth the $60 insurance pays along with our $25 copayment. Who knows.....

-crystal

dgdavis64
Posts: 5241
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 11:51 pm

Postby dgdavis64 » Fri Mar 17, 2006 6:58 pm

Anonymous wrote:DGDavis,

If labwork/hair test has been done on an autisic child and it's determined that a heavy metal excretion problem exists in the child, isn't it the parents responsiblity to deal with this problem as the MEDICAL CONDITION it is?




Hair tests are another example of gray, and are not known for their accuracy or validity.

Ever wonder why these tests go to a select few labs? These labs have been doing this for years, and I don't think its just because they are smarter than other reputable labs.

Just throwing out some examples. Not challenging that you received the results.

Winnie


Winnie,
So what are you implying here, that the labs are tampering with the test results? What motivation would they have to do that? It's not like they're manufacturing prescription chelators or something.
In my case, I gave my son a hair test and the results revealed extremely low amounts of mercury, lead and other heavy metals. But when I started him on TD DMPS lotion, we had his urine tested (by another lab) and it showed the mercury and lead pouring out.
His tests are all done at different labs and he mostly gets bloodwork now so nothing really expensive lately.

I don't believe I've read an explaination from you as to why the CA cases of autism have dropped after the removal of thimerosal in vaccines if no causal link exists. So what's your answer for that?

Beware of the pharma trollbot shills posting from anonymous proxy servers

livsparents
Posts: 1629
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 10:29 pm

Postby livsparents » Fri Mar 17, 2006 7:33 pm

We do need someone outside of the Rimland, Grier, Kirby circle to back this data up. Otherwise, we're going to have doubting Thomas' until autism is irradicated...

Winnie is not questioning the test themselves, just the interpretation of the results. I believe there is something with our children not being ABLE to remove heavy metals because of some deficiency in their genetic makeup. Several studies are looking into this right now, I beleive. We'll have the results soon, provided the funding is coming from the right sources.

Funny how studies like the one released this week about one of the drugs that supposedly remove plaque from arteries, seem to ALWAYS show the drug works wonders and that the company funding the study happens to make it...

Remember, the hippocratic oath DOES NOT APPLY TO CORPORATIONS!
Bill

Winnie

Postby Winnie » Fri Mar 17, 2006 8:41 pm

Diane,

I'll try to explain what I mean.

So what are you implying here, that the labs are tampering with the test results?


I am implying that the interpretation may be invalid. For example, if you give a patient a substance to make him sick (provoke the condition), then collect samples, and then the lab compares those samples to patients who were not given the substance (unprovoked), that may be an invalid comparison. The provoked patients were given a substance that (at least temporarily) created the condition. To my knowledge (and I don't claim medical expertise here), there is no widely accepted data demonstrating levels of excreted metals for NT children after administration of a chelator. I know that some very valid questions regarding the interpretation of testosterone levels were also raised on another thread recently, by posters who know far more than I.

In my case, I gave my son a hair test and the results revealed extremely low amounts of mercury, lead and other heavy metals. But when I started him on TD DMPS lotion, we had his urine tested (by another lab) and it showed the mercury and lead pouring out.


Thats what I'm talking about. I'm not denying that your child did indeed excrete metals. We just don't know to what extent any NT child would also excrete given the same treatment. I have often wondered what results would be returned on a healthy, NT child under the same procedure/test kit, especially if autism was indicated anywhere on the test submission. Food for thought, anyway.

We also don't know if excreting metals is actually "reversing" autism.

What motivation would they have to do that? It's not like they're manufacturing prescription chelators or something.


I really don't have any idea, but I have some concerns. Dr. William Shaw, well known in DAN circles, runs Great Plains Lab (right?). Having hitched his career star to the DAN wagon, I would imagine that the steady flow of test kits might be in his best interests. Does anyone really know who else runs/owns/invests in this very limited circle of labs?

I don't believe I've read an explaination from you as to why the CA cases of autism have dropped after the removal of thimerosal in vaccines if no causal link exists. So what's your answer for that?


Well, I'm not a research statistician, but part of my observation might include the fact that the CDDS began using a more restrictive criteria to determine eligibility for autism services in 2003. Obviously, limiting eligibility would reflect a decrease.

Have you actually looked at the data? Some other very interesting data trends (conveniently omitted from the spin) include significant drops in 2000 and 2001 (2001 was the lowest incidence so far). Haven't seen that explained by the mercury=autism folks either. Also, after the celebrated drop of March 2003, the new cases spiked upwards again (haven't seen that explained yet either). Not really consistent with the mercury theory -- it appears to me that there are other confounding factors at work on the data. Kinda demonstrates how anyone can look at an isolated piece of data and make it anything they want.

Winnie

BTDT
Posts: 3492
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 8:02 pm

Postby BTDT » Fri Mar 17, 2006 11:06 pm

I don't believe I've read an explaination from you as to why the CA cases of autism have dropped after the removal of thimerosal in vaccines if no causal link exists. So what's your answer for that?


Well, that’s because they haven’t dropped. Here’s an explanation from none other than David Kirby of EOH fame in reply to an email from blogger Citizen Cain:
http://citizencain.blogspot.com/2005/08 ... p-guy.html

Anyway, you are absolutely correct. I checked into what you were saying, and indeed, even though ALL new entries into the system in California have dropped in recent quarters, in the 3-5 year old range, they have actually ticked upward in some of them, including the last two.

According to the figures as I see them (They were provided to me by Rick Rollens of California; please tell me if your figures show otherwise), in the 2nd quarter of 2005, a net gain of 449 3-5 year old autism cases entered the DDS system: an increase of 36 cases over the first quarter of 2005, which had 413 entries (or, more correctly, net gain). This inturn represented an increase of 49 more cases over the 4th quarter of2004, which had a total of 366 new entries.

Meanwhile over the same period, among the six-to-nine year olds, the numbers went up slightly, and then back down again, as follows: 4th quarter 2004: 699 cases; 1st quarter 2004: 701 cases; 2nd quarter 2005: 642 cases.

I discovered this prior to going on MTP, and, had it come up, I would have gladly discussed it, as I am certainly not afraid of the truth.

But in this case, the truth is a little murky, and it is why I ALWAYS warn caution when the numbers game comes up (yes, even on the HuffingtonPost). The bottom line is that it is just too early to tell if we are seeing a trend or not, in my opinion. Here is why:

Quarterly numbers always vacillate. There is never a uniform number of entries each quarter of the year, and they almost always change from quarter to quarter. Here are the recent numbers as provided to me. Again, please let me know if your numbers show differently:

QUARTER ____3-5 y/o ____6-9 y/o
____________Entries ____entries
3/03_________ 519 ______792
4/03 _________383 ______786
1/04 _________327 ______691
2/04 _________336 ______713
3/04 _________386 ______708
4/04 _________366 ______699
1/05 _________413 ______701
2/05 _________449 ______642

As you can see, among the 3-5 year olds, there was a big drop in new cases between the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2003, it dropped again the next quarter, and then went back up the next. In fact, on this chart, the 3-5 year old new entries have gone up four times and gone down three. Among the 6-9 year olds, the change has been positive twice and negative five times. In both cases, however, entries in the 2nd quarter of 2005 are still lower than the third quarter of 2003.

Much more importantly, however, is the question of when thimerosal actually began to disappear from childhood vaccines sitting on the shelves of doctors' offices and clinics in California. It is a myth that "most" mercury came out in 1999. It wasn't even until July of 1999 that the government suggested that manufacturers begin to remove the mercury "as soon as possible." Factories did not get approval for, and begin making thimerosal-free vaccines until 2000 at the earliest (Except for Merck, which got approval in Sept. 1999 to make Hg-free Hep-B vaccine, though it is not clear when this new formula actually appeared on the shelves of doctors offices).

On Meet the Press, Dr. Fineberg said that some mercury containing pediatric vaccines expired in 2003. I have reason to believe it was later than that, as many vaccines without thimerosal were not even produced until 2001 or 2002, and most vaccines have a shelf life of about three years from manufacture, it is my understanding. (Again, correct me if I am wrong). Plus, it takes quite some time for new lots to work their way through the distribution system, and new stocks arenot ordered until old stocks begin to run low, as far as I can discern.

By this account, there were still mercury-containing vaccines on the shelf, potentially at least, until very recently. This matter is being investigated right now by the United States Senate, and we should have an answer soon, even if the Senators must subpoena the information (which they will, their staffs have indicated).

But let's take Dr. Fineberg at his word for now. He said at least some mercury containing vaccines (we don't know how many because the FDA won't say) expired in 2003. Meanwhile, 3-5 year old children entering the system now were born no later than June, 2002. In fact, we don't have the breakdown of individual birth cohorts, but one would imagine that there were more five year olds (born in 2000, when many kids were still getting the full amount of mercury in their shots) entering the system last quarter than three year olds, born in 2002. However, early intervention programs are lowering the age of diagnosis, and perhaps this ratio is changing as well.

Anyway, my point is that we don't yet know what the California numbers are telling us, and I never said we did. I have said they are "dropping" (they are, though I will certainly point out this new, and perhaps confounding, development). I have said they are "interesting" and"intriguing" and "bear watching." But I never held them out as proof of anything. Check the record and check the book, where I discuss other
possible reasons for the change in numbers, both up and down.

My guess, and it is admittedly a guess, is that MOST 3-5 year olds entering the system today, on average received relatively high levels of mercury in their vaccines. If the FDA would release the pertinent information, we would know exactly how much that was.

BTDT
Posts: 3492
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 8:02 pm

Postby BTDT » Fri Mar 17, 2006 11:17 pm

And there are even more problems with the CDDS data. This is a reply to an email from Joseph, a blogger at http://autismnaturalvariation.blogspot.com, from Paul Choates who is in the Data Extraction Dept. at CDDS. I have put some of the more pertinent points in bold.

http://autismnaturalvariation.blogspot. ... -imho.html
CA DDS has client evaluations (CDERs) on all clients over age three in our service delivery system. There is no requirement for California residents with autism or other developmental disabilities to be served by our system, participation is voluntary. Thus we do not have information on the prevalence of autism in the general population, we only have information on those who come to us for our services. It is unknown how our population reflects trends in the larger population, as the number of clients seeking our services is a function of a number of internal and external factors. You may surmise that as our services to a certain population become more widely known there may be a change in population of those requesting services. We pay service providers to provide services to eligible consumers, so service systems may have incentive to promote who comes to us for services. We are an entitlement system, so there is no other requirement, such as income level, only that a person meet our disability requirements:



http://www.dds.ca.gov/statutes/
laws_main.cfm



Lanterman Act
California Welfare and Institutions Code
Division 4.5. Services for the Developmentally Disabled
Chapter 1. General Provisions
4512. As used in this division:
(a) "Developmental disability" means a disability that originates before an individual attains age 18 years, continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual. As defined by the Director of Developmental Services, in consultation with the Superintendent of Public Instruction, this term shall include mental retardation, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism. This term shall also include disabling conditions found to be closely related to mental retardation or to require treatment similar to that required for individuals with mental retardation, but shall not include other handicapping conditions that are solely physical in nature.


(l) "Substantial disability" means the existence of significant functional limitations in three or more of the following areas of major life activity, as determined by a regional center, and as appropriate to the age of the person:
(1) Self-care.
(2) Receptive and expressive language.
(3) Learning.
(4) Mobility.
(5) Self-direction.
(6) Capacity for independent living.
(7) Economic self-sufficiency.


This was changed from “at least one” of the major areas of life activity about two years ago in an effort to stem some of the rapid population growth to those with the highest need for service.



As for those who do come to us for service we have a date of determination of autism, there is such a date on over 98% of the autism consumer records. See page three of the CDER:

http://www.dds.ca.gov/FactsStats/pdf/
DS3753_CDER.pdf



I’m sure you have seen the “limitations” document

http://www.dds.ca.gov/factsStats/pdf/
CDER_QtrlyReport_Consideration_
Limitations.pdf



As to whether a client is on active caseload we have a Client Master File that has a status type. We maintain monthly copies of all CMF and CDER records back to 1992.

'0'= 'Diag and Evaluation'

'1'= 'High-Risk Infant'

'2'= 'Active Client'

'3'= 'at Risk Person (parents of potential clients)'

'4'= 'Inactive'

'5'= 'Closed Transfer'

'6'= 'Closed not DD'

'7'= 'Closed Deceased'

'8'= 'Dev Center Client'

'9'= 'Closed Other'

'S'= 'Closed - Out of State'

'D'= 'Closed - Not Determined'



So we have the status of every client by month from 1992 forward.



The majority of our clients come to us in age 0-2 through our High-Risk Infant program (Early Start), but autism diagnoses are usually made in the clients 3-5th year. Thus clients come to us often before they are assessed as autistic. This creates a problem with saying how the current population is growing; on the quarterly report we calculate net change of consumers with autism assessments. The numbers in our quarterly report reflect changes in active population who are assessed, so it is a mix of net inflow and outflow, combined with change in assessment with age.



Two interesting facts that have been documented are that 1) the nature of the served autistic population as reflected in the CDER has changed, and 2) that much of the growth is localized geographically, chiefly in a handful of Los Angeles area centers. It used to be that MR was highly co-morbid with Autism, but the rate of MR in the newer population is dropping. In LA area centers the Autistic population has grown to around 25% of the caseload, in central and Northern California the proportion averages around 10%. I’ll attach a chart showing the rate at the centers. This information is the same as what is presented in the quarterly report. The quarterly report is available online for the past few years, but is available in hard copy back to the early 90’s. We maintain a dataset that has the data from the quarterly report table 1 “Statewide” and table 34 “Autism” from 7/92 forward. I’ll attach the data and the MR proportion and geographic charts.

BTDT
Posts: 3492
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 8:02 pm

Postby BTDT » Fri Mar 17, 2006 11:26 pm

This is the information that is in the CDDS "limitations" document mentioned in Paul Choate's email in my above post.:

http://www.dds.ca.gov/factsStats/pdf/CD ... ations.pdf
Data Interpretation Considerations and Limitations
Although information published by DDS in the Quarterly Client Characteristics Report is often used by media and research entities to develop statistics and draw conclusions, some of these findings may misrepresent the quarterly figures.

The following information is provided to help users of the Quarterly Client
Characteristics Report understand what changes in the numbers represent. When comparing numbers reported in one quarter to numbers reported in another quarter, the following factors should be considered.

Increases in the number of persons reported from one quarter to the next do not necessarily represent persons who are new to the DDS system. This is because:

• Individuals may not have a Client Development Evaluation Report (CDER)
on file for months or even years after entering the system.

• Individuals who already have a CDER may have new data, including clinical
data, entered at a later date.

Differences in the numbers from quarter to quarter reflect the net changes between individuals who are newly reported (i.e., included in the later report but not included in the earlier report) and individuals who dropped out (i.e., included in the earlier report but no longer included in the later report).

Newly reported may include:
• Individuals newly entering the system who have a CDER
• Individuals already active in the system who have a CDER in the current
quarter but did not have a CDER in the prior quarter
• Individuals already in the system who have a CDER and active status1 in
the current quarter whose status was closed2 or inactive3 in the prior quarter
• Individuals who had changes made to their CDER in the current quarter that
resulted in them being reported under new categories

Dropped out may include:
• Individuals who were included in the prior quarter but are not included in the current quarter due to a change in status (e.g., from active status to inactive or closed status)
• Individuals who had changes made to their CDER in the current quarter that resulted in them no longer being reported under certain categories

1Active status for purposes of the Quarterly Client Characteristics Report includes persons with CDERs who are currently being served by DDS in a State Developmental Center or in a community setting, including the home of parent.
2Closed status includes persons who moved out of state, died, were determined ineligible, or could not be located/chose not to continue pursuing eligibility determination.
3Inactive status includes persons who were determined eligible but currently do not want
services.

Guest

Postby Guest » Sat Mar 18, 2006 12:06 am

Thanks BTDT. How very interesting that even David Kirby has a problem with the data, and that even he is not claiming a causal link.

What is also interesting is that you will not find that information anywhere on this site. Anywhere. Obviously information not consistent with the party line is ignored, even if it comes from your own party. Is that "fair" autism media???

This precisely demonstrates the problem I have with high-profile persons passing clearly biased information to parents and remaining unchallenged. Many parents just blindly accept whatever Erik (or any high-profile camp for that matter) tells them to believe, and though they claim to be "open-minded," many parents never actually check facts or read anything inconsistent with what they want to believe. Instead they just repeat whatever the "leader" tells them they should believe, and insist that anyone who questions the party line is evil and ignorant.

Diane wrote:

I don't believe I've read an explaination from you as to why the CA cases of autism have dropped after the removal of thimerosal in vaccines if no causal link exists. So what's your answer for that?


Diane, you may have gotten a little more answer than you bargained for, but I'm interested in your answer "for that" too.

Winnie


Return to “Autism Articles, Studies & Politics”