US Autism Rates Amongst School-Age Children Rise to 1 in 50

Last year it was 1 in 88, now the figures have been adjusted to 1 in 50. These statistics are rather disturbing considering how rare autism was a few decades ago compared to now. Many will say that autism has always been prevalent among children but due to medical advances we are now more capable in diagnosing these forms of autism but regardless of the advances in technology 1 in 50 children having autism certainly does not seem normal and there must be a reason behind these figures.

New figures for autism prevalence amongst school-age children (2-17 years) in the United States were recently published in a report by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). According to this new estimate, rates of autism amongst the nation’s school children have climbed to 1 in 50, up from an estimated 1 in 88 for 2012, an increase partly represented by a broadening of the definition of autism, as well as increase in the ability to detect it.

“More people than ever before are being diagnosed with an ASD. It is unclear how much of this increase is due to a broader definition of ASDs and better efforts in diagnosis. However, a true increase in the number of people with an ASD cannot be ruled out. We believe the increase in ASD diagnosis is likely due to a combination of these factors.” [CDC]

Now, who is mostly affected, and what could be causing this autism epidemic?

“The prevalence of parent-reported ASD among children aged 6–17 was 2.00% in 2011–2012, a significant increase from 2007 (1.16%). The magnitude of the increase was greatest for boys and for adolescents aged 14–17. Cohort analyses revealed consistent estimates of both the prevalence of parentreported ASD and autism severity ratings over time. Children who were first diagnosed in or after 2008 accounted for much of the observed prevalence increase among school-aged children (those aged 6–17). School-aged children diagnosed in or after 2008 were more likely to have milder ASD and less likely to have severe ASD than those diagnosed in or before 2007.” [CDC]

Obscured somewhat in the reporting of this data is whether or not autism itself is actually on the rise. According to the CDC, in 2000, autism rates for children were 1 in 150. Since then the nation has seen a frightening increase in the number of youth affected, and the impact on families and schools has been staggering.

The causes of ASD are still not clearly identified. More research is demonstrating that food quality may be an important issue, and things like high-fructose corn syrup growing highly suspect. The CDC cites several potential factors that may possibly contribute to this epidemic, including genetic, environmental and biological factors, while also mentioning the controversy over childhood vaccines.

The case against vaccines continues to grow and is clearly worthy of more direct attention than the CDC seems to be giving it. All the while, more and more parents and activists are challenging an ever-increasing schedule of childhood vaccines, and public awareness of this issue continues to rise.

Source

So, in the year 2000 it was 1 in 150, now it's 1 in 50...at this rate we might have autism in 1 out of 2 of our children within the next decade or two if something isn't done to figure out what is causing autism.

The above content certainly isn't definitive or conclusive but does raise some interesting questions such as could our food supply and medical industries be the culprits in this sharp rise in autism?

Personally, I have always believed that vaccines and processed foods have a major part in these statistics and it pains me to see parents giving their children what they consider to be potentially life saving vaccines meanwhile these allegedly "helpful" vaccines could in fact be more harmul than helpful.

There have been many studies on vaccines and their possible link to autism, many of these studies conclude that vaccines are in fact linked to autism but then there is always a counter study to discredit these findings by groups with links to the Big Pharma and vaccine manufacturers. It's amazing what money can sweep under the rug isn't it?

Most people have their minds made up on this topic regardless of which evidence is presented so I will present an older link that provides some supporting evidence that vaccines do in fact cause autism. I am not here to try and change anyone's minds today, I just want to point out the high rate of autism within children and highlight some of the possible causes for the obviously increasing rate.

Vaccines cause autism: Supporting evidence

There are many other studies and pages that list possible links between vaccines and autism. There have even been federal cases where children were awarded millions due to their vaccine induced autism.

Vaccine Court Awards Millions to Two Children With Autism

Something needs to be done about this as it's most likely going to get much worse as time goes by and even according to statistics from the CDC of all groups certainly indicate that it's going to get much worse.

Perhaps they are trying to desensitize us to the rise in autism and want us to consider it as "normal"?

Or maybe perhaps my tin-foil hat is on too tight today?

Either way, something needs to be done, regrettably all I have are a lot of questions and no real solutions. My only advice for a solution I have would be for everyone, especially parents, to stand up and demand more studies into this issue by various non biased organizations who have no financial motives with no links to Big Pharma (if such an organization even exists).

It does look like a cause-effect relationship where more vaccines = more autism
Substance called mercury has some relationship to autism.

This could be a whole lot of things. As usual, readers may assume the research statistics published are there for a good cause. Maybe they're not. It's generally not good for individuals who are minoritized by a government's statistics. Because then they get trivialized compared to the global population bigger agendas. It's only 2%.

The epigenetics wars are beginning. Of genotypes and phenotypes. They're on the warpath to make some genes improper to express. Just catching up with China's genetic engineering.

They're going to have to do more studies, and big pharma is probably on an agenda for an anti-autism pill, or even vaccine. Because they are already making medicine that gloms onto chromosomes and inhibits gene expression with psychiatric meds, then they're going after the autism genes. The mutant kids are going to be more mutantized through drugs, but I don't think anybody notices.

Look on the bright side, they made this stuff public. Can you imagine all the secret genetic research they aren't disclosing to the public?

Please remember:

- Seatbelts are causing autism, too!

- And if you did an uneven number of breaths three days in a row, daemons will come and give your kids autism, too!

- Did you know that the vibrants of a passing car might tune your brain to autism, too?



What, none of those are proven? DISPROVE THEM FIRST! Otherwise, you know, that causes autism, too.
Yes, autism is a serious problem. Therefore it should be handled with care, professionalism and expertise. Accusing vaccine is neither of those.

Isn't there also a link to having an older father with autism?

www.foxnews.com... -fathers-more-likely-to-have-autistic-grandchildren/

reply to post by davidchin


Your link isn't working for me.

I have never heard of this connection that you mentioned though, so it would be much appreciated if you can fix your link so I can look into this in more detail.

I heard this bit of news on the radio last night and was somewhat surprised with the numbers.
1 in 50 seems high.

Though, I don't think you can say it means MORE children are being diagnosed, or that autism is on the rise.
What those numbers say is that doctors have refined their testing and we are getting a more accurate picture of Autism rates.

Perhaps the number of cases has risen over the years - I haven't seen much in the way of proof for that though - what I find issue with here is this:
If autism is that common, then what does it mean to be autistic?

Bear with me on this.
Throughout our history we have had world changing events take place due to the actions of individuals. Many of these individuals have been "eccentric" to some extent and, often, it's those very eccentricities that have provided the catalyst for these changes.
I ask you to search "Historical figures autism" on Google (or whatever search engine you wish) and take a look at the names that come up - whether they are diagnosed or suspected - as being Autistic.
To name a few of the more significant ones:
Charles Darwin
Albert Einstein
Paul Dirac
Thomas Jefferson
Nikola Tesla
Alan Turing
Michael Ventris

and the list goes on.
Those are just some of the names that are connected, in one way or another, with the sciences.
If you look at the names of people listed as being in the "autism spectrum" in it's entirety you see many of the names are those of artists, musicians, composers, and other fields.

My point here, and I hope it is not misunderstood, is that it seems many of our advancements and defining characteristics as a species, have ties to "autism" in some way.
Whether it be that these people see the world differently or that autism can open to us some of the mysteries of the human mind, in the end the pattern is clear: We, as a people, have benefited greatly from the autistic.

What I fear is that, with the diagnosis rate skyrocketing and treatment becoming more refined and much more successful, are we in danger of losing an important aspect of humanity?

Now, please, don't get me wrong. I am not saying that Autism should not be treated.
What I'm trying to illustrate here is that, without these people and their minds we would be missing something that cannot be replaced.
The same can be said for those with ADD or ADHD, Clinical Depression, Bi-Polar disorder, et al.
If one, once again, searches any of those terms with "historical figures" they will see just how many brilliant, important, creative people have lived with their diagnosis and excelled in their chosen fields. So many amazing and critically important steps for humanity have been achieved by these people

I worry that, if we are treating all of these people and making them conform to society's "behavioral norms", we are also stifling a certain "outside of the box brilliance".
Had Einstein been treated, would he have done the things he did? How about Alexander Graham Bell? Admiral Richard Byrd? Issac Newton? The Wright Brothers? Werner Von Braun? Van Gogh? Bill Gates? Galileo? Ben Franklin? Henry Ford?

Again, the list goes on and on.

I think there is a definite cause and effect relationship between these "disorders" and mankind's furthering achievements in science, art, and beyond.
Will we, if we "correct" these disorders, be dooming ourselves to future generations of stagnation?
Will we be "turning off the light", so to speak?

Obviously there are differing states of Autism - as shown in the Autism Spectrum - and treatment is necessary. That still leaves me wondering what will become of us once we "solve" this "problem"...

If one looks at it in terms of , say, evolution one could couch the argument thusly:
These disorders have, by virtue of their effect on the human mind, allowed us to greatly expand our understanding of the world and universe and make fantastic leaps forward, in much the same way a mutation in an animal can create a creature more able to take advantage of its environment.
One can look at Autism much like the evolution of the Giraffes neck.
Those of us who are not autistic - thereby "normally functioning humans" in society's eyes - are like the animals who can't reach the leaves at the top of trees (those being like the complex science and arts) and thus subsist on what little there is to eat (the status quo, for lack of a better term), without ability or thought of reaching the leaves at the top. While the autistic have been born with a "long neck" (their abilities as demonstrated in the figures named and others that follow from the disorder), thus allowing them to reach that which we cannot.

Do we, for the sake of society and "normalcy" (i.e. functioning within that societal framework) then condition the giraffe to stoop and no longer reach for those high leaves? Or to make it unable to do so?

This is an admittedly clumsy analogy, but I hope I'm able to get my point across.
I agree treatment is needed, but I worry at what cost.

reply to post by Sandalphon


I would like to see a comparison of autism rates with countries that have a lower percentage of their children being vaccinated. My guess (speculation on my behalf) is that the autism rates would be lower in countries with lower vaccination percentages.

While I AM suspicious of vaccines, the reality is that vaccines are very likely safer now than they used to be, yet Autism rates are increasing.

IMHO, one needs to look at the cumulative affects of ALL environmental toxins that children are exposed to, not just vaccines...household cleaners (especially fabric softeners, dryer sheets, soaps and shampoos as the skin is the largest organ), air fresheners, food additives, pesticides, herbicides, traffic pollution, plastics and EMFs.

However, Autism is so mysterious, it has even been attributed in theory to physical movement by the mother while pregnant, given today's sedentary lifestyles.

As a Mom, I try to maintain a household that is as natural as possible in the year 2013 - but it's extremely difficult. Also, I think we need to look to the importance of fish oils and other omega's in the modern diet. Surely the U.S. has some of the lowest levels of western countries and it's so important for brain development and function.

reply to post by kosmicjack


I must admit that I unfairly focused on food and vaccines in my OP when I could have also mentioned other variables such as household chemicals as you mentioned, fabric softener and cleaners are great examples and I completely agree that these are also most likely contributing factors as these are more and more common as our society continues to "evolve".

Another possible contributor that I forgot to mention are plastics and other chemicals that our foods are packaged in. All these various examples could very well be part of the problem, in my opinion they probably are.

That being said, I still think that it's very important not to lose focus on the connection between vaccines and autism as it appears this individual factor is most likely one of the major factors when to autism within our children.

safer vaccines do not matter:
it has been shown that when given 3 or more vaccines at once overloads the system which then is hypersesnitive to itself which causes itself to identify legitimate stuff as the enemy

not to mention what is the testing and approval process for these safer vaccines again?

reply to post by Corruption Exposed

Most people have their minds made up on this topic regardless of which evidence is presented so I will present an older link that provides some supporting evidence that vaccines do in fact cause autism. I am not here to try and change anyone's minds today, I just want to point out the high rate of autism within children and highlight some of the possible causes for the obviously increasing rate.

There are other possibilities
An Immune Disorder at the Root of Autism

IN recent years, scientists have made extraordinary advances in understanding the causes of autism, now estimated to afflict 1 in 88 children. But remarkably little of this understanding has percolated into popular awareness, which often remains fixated on vaccines.
Eleanor Davis

So here’s the short of it: At least a subset of autism — perhaps one-third, and very likely more — looks like a type of inflammatory disease. And it begins in the womb.

It could be that we're too clean - and getting cleaner all the time

Hygiene hypothesis

In medicine, the hygiene hypothesis states that a lack of early childhood exposure to infectious agents, symbiotic microorganisms (e.g., gut flora or probiotics), and parasites increases susceptibility to allergic diseases by suppressing natural development of the immune system. It is hypothesized that the TH1 polarized response is not induced early in life leaving the body more susceptible to developing TH2 induced disease.[1] The rise of autoimmune diseases and acute lymphoblastic leukemia in young people in the developed world has also been linked to the hygiene hypothesis.[2][3]

There is some evidence that autism may be caused by an immune disease;[4] One publication speculated that the lack of early childhood exposure could be a cause of autism.

Asthma is on the rise, and many other autoimmunity issues as well - more so in the industrialized nations than anywhere else

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


Thanks for the links with alternative possibilities

I will do my best to thoroughly look into them as soon as possible.

I have a little bit of aspergers and honestly i kinda of like it. Seriously, but the only problem is that people that follow the masses and that cannot think for themselves and follow the NORM think its weird. Helps me be more independent honestly. I heard on a podcast that autism might be a form of brain evolution. Especially how a lot of kids these days are idiot savants. Something to think about.

People assume, shagging = child, end of story.

Shagging = body, but it does not necessarily equal a human animated body.

Where does the animating energy come from? Do people who demand children ever ask this prior to shagging?

Do people ever ponder the notion that there is NOT an infinite number of human animating energies willing to get into a body on earth?

Do people ever ponder what kind of animating energy they might get, as in maybe it won't be a human souled expression?

If the body isn't animated by a human soul, what animates it? And could it be that that animating energy is a first time body being, and could it be that this person will experience earth in a totally different way - as in uber basic?

Those who take the few-minute-shagging-to-child-conception, are you asking, "hey, what if we get a first time animating energy, and not the perfect model/athlete/Einstein/lawyer animating, can we deal with that, are we prepared to deal with that?"

My guess is, even if folks did ask the questions, they'd be rather upset that they might not be entitled to an animating energy other then what they want. There are simply not an unlimited number of animating energies available, and if the childhood/life you are offering up in your possible family is something akin to "super low rent" I expect your chances of getting a volunteer go down.

reply to post by crankyoldman


thank you for proving another one of my posts

reply to post by ManFromEurope


Your smart-azz attitude isn't amusing. My son has autism and if you've done any research then you would see that it is indeed a possibility that the thimerosal could be a contributing factor.

Well, there is a large "control group" to look at already in the US... the Amish!
They do not, I believe, have their children vaccinated and it's a pretty closed community, so check the autism rates of the Amish against those outside. Might be an eye opener!

Another aspect, would be to look at the increased diagnosis and subsequent drug sales by the big pharmaceutical corporations. After all, the more people that are diagnosed with some affliction, rightly or wrongly, the more drugs they sell. Just sayin'.

Originally posted by solizer
I have a little bit of aspergers and honestly i kinda of like it. Seriously, but the only problem is that people that follow the masses and that cannot think for themselves and follow the NORM think its weird. Helps me be more independent honestly. I heard on a podcast that autism might be a form of brain evolution. Especially how a lot of kids these days are idiot savants. Something to think about.

And a cyber high-five to you! Every 'test' i've taken for aspergers says I have it. Has it been diagnosed by a doctor? Hell no! I don't trust those drug pushers with anything but broken bones, wounds, and appendicitis.

I agree with everything you said, concerning the 'norm'.

big pharma is probably on an agenda for an anti-autism pill, or even vaccine

Oh the irony.