Perhaps I should have been more clear here; when I said it was
somewhat circular, I was thinking really of the wider picture rather than the assertion in itself. The circularity lies in the way that the claim has been that rates of autism are rising because we are making more effort to detect it, and that this has been an unrecognised problem in the past, and also saying that because we are now recognising a problem that was previously unrecognised, we should continue to make more effort to detect it. This includes broadening and changing the basis on which diagnosis is made, and intensifying screening for it, which ensures that there will indeed be an increase in rates due to improved diagnosis (creating a self-fulfilling prophecy), but also, by moving the goalposts, this makes it effectively impossible to reliably assess whether the problem itself is actually increasing or not.
It's interesting that this process seems to have now run its course, and the move now, in the latest DSM changes, is to
narrow the definition of autistic spectrum diagnosis again, with the aim of reducing the numbers diagnosed. This will again muddy the waters and make it more difficult to determine whether the rate has risen and is now declining, whether the real problem is increasing, or whether the true rate remains unchanged. So long as the goalposts are being constantly moved, it will be difficult to prove that the true rate is rising, because the counter-argument can always be made that this may be due to the changing diagnostic practices.
SOC's comments are very reasonable, and I would have to accept that there very probably
has been an increased emphasis on diagnosis, in recent years at least, which makes it difficult to say whether the rate really is rising or not. You're right, SOC, I haven't researched this extensively and my remarks were based mainly on my distrust of those with vested interests who influence the agenda in other areas. I probably shouldn't have got so carried away without evidence to back it up, I accept that. Still, my suspicions remain the same...I guess what I've seen in relation to ME/CFS has just undermined my faith in the official 'scientific' line in general, and any kind of apparent denialism automatically looks suspicious now.
And now you haven't provided evidence either
just more personal assertion and anecdote.
Correct, none of us had provided any evidence, I was really referring to your complaint that silverblade hadn't. But it would be good to have a look at some of the evidence on this specific question of the rising or stables rates of autism...I hope silverblade will cite the study he mentioned if he can find it.
Only scanned it, I don't intend to spend much time on this, as you know we have other things to be doing. One thing struck me as odd:
The historical rate of autism is about 4 per 10,000 and the more recent estimates are in the range of 15-20 per 10,000 (30-60 per 10,000 for all pervasive developmental disorders of which autism is one type). (Rutter 2005)....Rutter, in order to test this latter hypothesis that increased diagnostic rates were due largely to changes in diagnosis and surveillance, reviewed literature that contained sufficient information to assess true historical rates of autism. He found that applying modern criteria to these historical records yields similar rates of diagnoses: 30-60 per 10,000
It appears from this that, in 2005, Rutter made the case that the historical rate, when re-examined using the new criteria, was roughly the same as the current rate at the time: 0.3-0.6%. The traditional historical rate of 0.04% was because children were being diagnosed differently in those days; in reality it had always been 0.3 - 0.6%. What seems odd to me about this is that we now often hear of modern diagnosis rates of the order of 1 in 70 (1.4%) or, in the article about Utah, a claimed 1 in 30 (3.3%). When we hear of these sort of figures (and I've read figures over 1% often enough in the press that I assumed that was roughly the accepted rate now), are these figures dramatically overstating the current rates, or have the diagnostic criteria themselves continued to change dramatically in the last few years? Will there be another study like Rutter's to show that under the new diagnosis conditions the 'true rate' was always 1-3% after all, and not 0.3-0.6% as he thought in 2005 when the modern diagnosis rate was 0.3-0.6%? I suppose that if the figures for diagnosis really have risen that much in recent years, that might explain why the DSM are about to rewrite the criteria to get the numbers back down again...
What 'scientific finding' does it refute ? the scientific finding is that diagnosis rates have increased.
I was referring to the refutation of the scientific findings claimed by the article about Utah: "many studies that show higher rates of autism with greater exposure to flame retardants, plasticizers like BPA, pesticides, endocrine disruptors in personal-care products, heavy metals in air pollution, mercury, and pharmaceuticals like antidepressants". The claim that real rates have not increased would refute that there is any connection between any of these environmental factors and autism. Again, I don't know what studies the article was referring to, but I'd be interested to see them.
Overall, my conclusion is that there are many claims that autism is rising and that this is caused by exposure to synthetic chemicals and/or vaccines; the dominant scientific view seems to be that rates aren't really rising at all; and the problem here is that what constitutes the dominant scientific view, especially in the UK media, as well as the research agenda itself, is very heavily influenced by organisations like the SMC who happen to be funded by the businesses that produce the synthetic chemicals and the vaccines. So the sad fact is that we can't really trust the dominant view, and when they argue that the rates aren't really rising at all...well, I'm afraid that the massive conflicts of interest involved in modern science mean that I just don't believe it in an argument like this any more. Sad, because I may be throwing out the baby with the bathwater occasionally, but I'm afraid that the whole basis of much modern scientific research is corrupted by huge financial interests, and I'd feel naive if I took it all at face value...I feel very sceptical indeed on an issue like this when I'm told that rates aren't rising at all and there's 'nothing to see here...'.