Re: Stop Parroting 1 in 150

[Guest guest]

This 1 in 150 number is a bit dated. I first heard it mentioned at Geneva Centre for Autism Symposium about 6 years ago or so. Even back then, various professionals were pegging the numbers as 1 in 150, when the mainstream media were looking at numbers closer to 1 in 250-500 at the same time. It does become disconcerting to see such different numbers being displayed to help describe or define the same event. It makes one wonder where these numbers are being pulled from!

Aasa

Subject: Stop Parroting "1 in 150"To: EOHarm Received: Monday, April 20, 2009, 12:48 AM

I'm calling for all to no longer accept this o-o-o-old "1 in 150" number taken from children born in 1984. Kudos to Unlocking Autism, who took it off their website, in addition to Generation Rescue and Autism One, who I think don't cite this either.We know the children have been counted more than once since then, yet the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention presented this number in 2007.This number is not close to being true and has not been for some time. For our our government to not disclose more recent data paid for by our tax dollars does not make the problem of why so many children are not whole go away.Our community of caregivers, advocates, and professionals needs to stop parroting this lie and stop being polite about accepting it.This should be the easiest issue to remain united about.Alison

[Guest guest]

So what are the real numbers?? Lia

Stop Parroting "1 in 150"

To: EOHarm

Received: Monday, April 20, 2009, 12:48 AM

I'm calling for all to no longer accept this o-o-o-old "1 in 150" number taken from children born in 1984. Kudos to Unlocking Autism, who took it off their website, in addition to Generation Rescue and Autism One, who I think don't cite this either.

We know the children have been counted more than once since then, yet the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention presented this number in 2007.

This number is not close to being true and has not been for some time. For our our government to not disclose more recent data paid for by our tax dollars does not make the problem of why so many children are not whole go away.

Our community of caregivers, advocates, and professionals needs to stop parroting this lie and stop being polite about accepting it.

This should be the easiest issue to remain united about.

Alison

The Average US Credit Score is 692. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps!

[Guest guest]

Lia, you are asking a valid question. Dr. F. Yazbak and Ray Gallup

published a paper in late 2007 refuting this number:

http://www.vacinfo.org/1in67.pdf

They carefully explain how they came up with 1 in 67 based solely upon US IDEA

numbers (children enrolled in public schools). Knowing that our children are

also in private and home schools, and are included in other categories besides

strictly Autism, I'd say this is a conservative number.

Even Baron-Cohen later acknowledged that in the UK the number is 1 in 60, I

believe.

I did a little research for advocating in my own school district. Based upon

December 2008 IDEA numbers, (again very conservative, due to our students being

in other categories for various reasons), we are 50% higher than the CDC quote.

We are 1 in 100 vs. " 1 in 150 " . But again, I know we are higher than that,

probably somewhere in between Dr. Yazbak's 1 in 67 and our AU category of 1 in

100.

Our government dances around and masquerades how serious this health issue is.

The basic problem of the power of government controlling media even about the

rate of autism is just an indication of deeper lying issues about what is

happening to the health of our children.

Autism Speaks and the Autism Society of America need to be on board with my

plea.

Alison

>

>

>

>

> Subject: Stop Parroting " 1 in 150 "

> To: EOHarm

> Received: Monday, April 20, 2009, 12:48 AM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> I'm calling for all to no longer accept this o-o-o-old " 1 in 150 " number taken

from children born in 1984. Kudos to Unlocking Autism, who took it off their

website, in addition to Generation Rescue and Autism One, who I think don't cite

this either.

>

> We know the children have been counted more than once since then, yet the

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention presented this number in 2007.

>

> This number is not close to being true and has not been for some time. For our

our government to not disclose more recent data paid for by our tax dollars does

not make the problem of why so many children are not whole go away.

>

> Our community of caregivers, advocates, and professionals needs to stop

parroting this lie and stop being polite about accepting it.

>

> This should be the easiest issue to remain united about.

>

> Alison

>

[Guest guest]

ok..now.. it has to been more publicized Lia...

Stop Parroting "1 in 150"

> To: EOHarm

> Received: Monday, April 20, 2009, 12:48 AM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> I'm calling for all to no longer accept this o-o-o-old "1 in 150" number taken

from children born in 1984. Kudos to Unlocking Autism, who took it off their

website, in addition to Generation Rescue and Autism One, who I think don't cite

this either.

>

> We know the children have been counted more than once since then, yet the

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention presented this number in 2007.

>

> This number is not close to being true and has not been for some time. For our

our government to not disclose more recent data paid for by our tax dollars does

not make the problem of why so many children are not whole go away.

>

> Our community of caregivers, advocates, and professionals needs to stop

parroting this lie and stop being polite about accepting it.

>

> This should be the easiest issue to remain united about.

>

> Alison

>

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

It wasn't. Most autism advocates have ignored this. I'm not attacking autism

organizations wishing to work with our government. I want to open up our eyes

and gather together, at least for this basic issue: we do have an epidemic.

Let's start there.

Alison

>

>

> ok..now.. it has to been more publicized Lia...?

[Guest guest]

well.. I can start on my facebook.. I need to change that 1 in 150.. and also my home voicemail... I give a speech as part of my 'Hi.. we are not home now.. ".... lia

Re: Stop Parroting "1 in 150"

It wasn't. Most autism advocates have ignored this. I'm not attacking autism

organizations wishing to work with our government. I want to open up our eyes

and gather together, at least for this basic issue: we do have an epidemic.

Let's start there.

Alison

>

>

> ok..now.. it has to been more publicized Lia...?

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

A GREAT example of grassroots activism!

>

>

> well.. I can start on my facebook.. I need to change that 1 in 150.. and also

my home voicemail... I give a speech as part of my 'Hi.. we are not home now..

" .... lia

[Guest guest]

It's a difficult number to define. Some kids born today, may not be diagnosed

with Asperger's (for example) until they are perhaps age 16 (year 2025). Some

people like to include ADHD, while others do not. If we're going to count, we

should agree upon what we're counting, and for which age group. Should we also

allow for undiagnosed cases - some agree with this, others do not.

>

>

> Subject: Stop Parroting " 1 in 150 "

> To: EOHarm

> Received: Monday, April 20, 2009, 12:48 AM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> I'm calling for all to no longer accept this o-o-o-old " 1 in 150 " number taken

from children born in 1984. Kudos to Unlocking Autism, who took it off their

website, in addition to Generation Rescue and Autism One, who I think don't cite

this either.

>

> We know the children have been counted more than once since then, yet the

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention presented this number in 2007.

>

> This number is not close to being true and has not been for some time. For our

our government to not disclose more recent data paid for by our tax dollars does

not make the problem of why so many children are not whole go away.

>

> Our community of caregivers, advocates, and professionals needs to stop

parroting this lie and stop being polite about accepting it.

>

> This should be the easiest issue to remain united about.

>

> Alison

>

[Guest guest]

Lee Grossman said " 1 in 67 " at the January IACC meeting based on ASA data but I

have not seen this published yet.

I quote Bock's numbers often " 1 in 3 children are on the spectrum of the

4A epidemic (allergies, asthma, ADD and Autism) " because I personally believe

that these are all related. There are common lab biomarkers which are

consistent in many of these kids (low glutathione, low methionine, low CD4

counts, high IgE, etc)

The FEA reported " 1 in 6 children with developmental delay "

but those numbers have since been removed from the website.

You are correct, however, these numbers are outdated and physicians report many

more cases.

Not to mention how many cases are not reported.

-

>

> I'm calling for all to no longer accept this o-o-o-old " 1 in 150 " number taken

from children born in 1984. Kudos to Unlocking Autism, who took it off their

website, in addition to Generation Rescue and Autism One, who I think don't cite

this either.

>

> We know the children have been counted more than once since then, yet the

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention presented this number in 2007.

>

> This number is not close to being true and has not been for some time. For

our our government to not disclose more recent data paid for by our tax dollars

does not make the problem of why so many children are not whole go away.

>

> Our community of caregivers, advocates, and professionals needs to stop

parroting this lie and stop being polite about accepting it.

>

> This should be the easiest issue to remain united about.

>

> Alison

>

[Guest guest]

I always quote 1 in 67 (per Yazbak/Gallup report) and say that the 1 in 150 are from old data dating back to 1999/2000.

Theresa A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!

[Guest guest]

Hi Lia,

When quoting the number you use, make sure you state " in the US " , as numbers

vary from country to country. That's not a worldwide stat.

Where I live in Canada, the recent stat is 1 in 123 people.

The number for kids breaks down to 1 in 82 (14 and under).

76% of those with ASD in my area are aged 15 or over.

>

>

> well.. I can start on my facebook.. I need to change that 1 in 150.. and also

my home voicemail... I give a speech as part of my 'Hi.. we are not home now..

" .... lia

>

[Guest guest]

Someone on this list (was it Dad4Kids?) posted the nitty gritty about

the birth cohort that the CDC used to come up with the 1 in 150

number. The data is older than we think, and if I recall correctly,

the statistic was out of date even when it was first used. Dad?

[Guest guest]

The 1 in 150 came from the autism study the cdc did in Brick NJ in 1998 that my

son was a part of

>

> Someone on this list (was it Dad4Kids?) posted the nitty gritty about

> the birth cohort that the CDC used to come up with the 1 in 150

> number. The data is older than we think, and if I recall correctly,

> the statistic was out of date even when it was first used. Dad?

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Actually the 1 in 150 number came from data from children who

were 8 yrs old in 2002, born in 1994. 14 states were involved and the 1

in 150 was an average of the number from different states. NJ was the

highest 1 in 94 I think. The CDC's 1st press release came out with the 1 in 166

and a few weeks later realized, from the same data, that it was really 1 in

150. So this data is entirely driven from children in the 8yr old

category in 2002, a 7yr old average figure not indicative of each state. -

PS…I thought the brick township numbers were higher.

From:

EOHarm [mailto:EOHarm ] On Behalf Of groots94

Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 2:52 PM

To: EOHarm

Subject: Re: Stop Parroting " 1 in 150 "

The 1 in 150 came from the autism study the cdc

did in Brick NJ in 1998 that my son was a part of

>

> Someone on this list (was it Dad4Kids?) posted the nitty gritty about

> the birth cohort that the CDC used to come up with the 1 in 150

> number. The data is older than we think, and if I recall correctly,

> the statistic was out of date even when it was first used. Dad?

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

1 in 150 is a seven year old number. They don't want to

update the numbers because they will be worse.

Pamela

From:

EOHarm [mailto:EOHarm ] On Behalf Of Aasa

Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 11:27 PM

To: EOHarm

Subject: Re: Stop Parroting " 1 in 150 "

This 1 in 150 number is a bit dated. I first heard it

mentioned at Geneva Centre for Autism Symposium about 6 years ago or so. Even

back then, various professionals were pegging the numbers as 1 in 150, when

the mainstream media were looking at numbers closer to 1 in 250-500 at the

same time. It does become disconcerting to see such different numbers

being displayed to help describe or define the same event. It makes one

wonder where these numbers are being pulled from!

Aasa

From: MomOf3AU

Subject: Stop Parroting " 1 in 150 "

To: EOHarm

Received: Monday, April 20, 2009, 12:48 AM

I'm calling for all to no

longer accept this o-o-o-old " 1 in 150 " number taken from children

born in 1984. Kudos to Unlocking Autism, who took it off their website, in

addition to Generation Rescue and Autism One, who I think don't cite this

either.

We know the children have been counted more than once since then, yet the

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention presented this number in 2007.

This number is not close to being true and has not been for some time. For

our our government to not disclose more recent data paid for by our tax

dollars does not make the problem of why so many children are not whole go

away.

Our community of caregivers, advocates, and professionals needs to stop

parroting this lie and stop being polite about accepting it.

This should be the easiest issue to remain united about.

Alison

[Guest guest]

Look at these two, published more recently than the study about 1 in 67:

http://jabs.org.uk/documents/1_in_88.doc_REVISED_07_02_08.doc

and the latest (Fall 2008)

http://jabs.org.uk/documents/Nearly_298000__Final.doc

Alison

>

> Actually the 1 in 150 number came from data from children who were 8 yrs old

> in 2002, born in 1994. 14 states were involved and the 1 in 150 was an

> average of the number from different states. NJ was the highest 1 in 94 I

> think. The CDC's 1st press release came out with the 1 in 166 and a few

> weeks later realized, from the same data, that it was really 1 in 150. So

> this data is entirely driven from children in the 8yr old category in 2002,

> a 7yr old average figure not indicative of each state. -

>

>

>

> PS.I thought the brick township numbers were higher.

[Guest guest]

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dd/report.htm

the study was for all children ages 3-10 diagnosed autistic living in Brick in 1998

The rate of autistic disorder in Brick Township was 4.0 per 1,000 children. The rate for the spectrum of autism disorders obtained in this investigation was 6.7 per 1,000 children. These rates are higher than previously published rates. However, there is much controversy about the actual rate of autism. Considerable debate has focused on the actual prevalence of autism and whether the prevalence has increased during the past 20-30 years (Fombonne, 1996; 1999; Gillberg & Wing, 1999). Nearly all recent studies (Table 6) suggest that the prevalence of autism is considerably higher than the rates of 0.4 to 0.5 per 1,000 that were originally described. These early rates were based on narrowly defined criteria for autism that included two essential features--a profound lack of affective contact and elaborate repetitive and ritualistic behaviors (Kanner & Eisenberg, 1956). More recent diagnostic criteria for autism, based on the DSM-IV (1984) or the International Classification of Diseases Tenth Revision (ICD-10, 1992), are considerably broader incorporating the clinical recognition that the hallmark features of autism–impaired social interactions, inability to communicate, and repetitive or restrictive behaviors–can occur in a wide range of severity levels with several different manifestations (Wing, 1993; Filipek, et al., 1999). Recent reviews of the prevalence of autism (Fombonne, 1999; Gillberg & Wing, 1999) suggest that a conservative estimate of the prevalence of autistic disorder from studies published in the 1990's is about 1 per 1,000 children. For the entire spectrum of autistic disorders, the rate of 2 per 1,000 that was obtained by Wing and Gould (1979) is cited most often. However, a few recent studies have shown rates that are considerably higher than the above estimates. Specifically, studies conducted in Japan and Sweden showed rates of autism ranging from 2.1 to 6.0 per 1,000 children (Honda et al, 1996; Arvidsson et al., 1997; Kadesjo and Gillberg, 1999). Although each of these studies included relatively small populations, which would have facilitated more intensive case finding methods, the small sample sizes also resulted in statistically unstable prevalence rates as reflected by wide confidence intervals. However, a study recently completed in the United Kingdom, with a considerably larger population, reported a provisional rate of 3.1 per 1,000 children for autistic disorder and 5.8 per 1,000 children for ASD (Baird et al., in press). One reason for the higher rates in these studies may be their more intensive case-finding methods that included screening the entire population. As discussed below, intense case finding activities may have contributed to the high rate in Brick Township. Another important point to consider when interpreting the rate found in Brick Township is the lack of U.S. data on the prevalence of autism, although there is no reason to believe that the rate in U.S. populations should differ appreciably from other population groups. The data used by Gillberg and Wing (1979) to derive their estimate of 1 per 1,000 for the prevalence of autism is based on studies conducted outside of the United States. The two U.S. studies that satisfied the criteria to be included in the review--population-based screening followed by a clinical evaluation--obtained rates of 0.3 per 1,000 (Burd et al., 1987; Ritvo, et al, 1989) and are considered outliers by most investigators (Gillberg & Wing, 1999). The low rates in these U.S. studies probably result from their exclusive reliance on referred cases from sources that provided services to children with autism, rather than actively reviewing all potential source records as in the Brick Township investigation.

Other U.S. data sources seem to support the idea that the prevalence of autism is higher than previously thought, although how much higher is still uncertain. A recent report released by the California Department of Developmental Services (DDS) showed a large increase from 1987 to 1998 in the number of children with autism for whom the DDS provided services. We estimated a prevalence rate from the California DDS data of 1.5 per 1,000 4-9 year old children (95% CI=1.45-1.54) in 1998 by using the number of children aged 4-9 years receiving DDS services for autism in 1998 as the numerator and the U.S. census estimate of the number of children in this age range living in California in 1998 as the denominator. This rate is probably an underestimate because this service system is unlikely to identify all children with autism. CDC has recently completed data collection for a large prevalence study in metropolitan Atlanta. Although case review and data analysis are ongoing, provisional rates of autistic disorder based on the number of cases reviewed (40% of total), and assuming a similar rate of case confirmation for the remainder, range from 2 to 3 per 1,000 3- to 10-year-old children. The combination of the Atlanta and California data suggest that the rate of autistic disorder in the United States is substantially higher than the 1 per 1,000 estimate of Gillberg and Wing (1999), although how much higher and how the rates vary across different subpopulations is yet to be determined.

Another data source that might add some perspective to the Brick Township rates is the New Jersey special education data for autism. The percentage of children provided special education services by Brick Township was not unusual compared to other towns in New Jersey during 1997. In the annual reporting for federal funding under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, there were over 100 towns in New Jersey that reported a higher percentage of children in autism special education classes than reported in Brick Township (Factor-Litvak, personal communication). However, the special education data have to be viewed with caution because school placement is based on the educational needs of the child rather than exclusively on underlying diagnosis, and classification practices may vary among school systems. For example, in Brick Township, only 50% of children with an ASD and 66% of those with autistic disorder had autism listed as their special education designation for services

[Guest guest]

Don’t you mean 15 or under?

---------------

Ezor

sezor@...

From: EOHarm

[mailto:EOHarm ] On Behalf Of happietrout

Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 12:51 PM

To: EOHarm

Subject: Re: Stop Parroting " 1 in 150 "

Hi Lia,

When quoting the number you use, make sure you state " in the US " , as

numbers vary from country to country. That's not a worldwide stat.

Where I live in Canada, the recent stat is 1 in 123 people.

The number for kids breaks down to 1 in 82 (14 and under).

76% of those with ASD in my area are aged 15 or over.

>

>

> well.. I can start on my facebook.. I need to change that 1 in 150.. and

also my home voicemail... I give a speech as part of my 'Hi.. we are not home

now.. " .... lia

>

[Guest guest]

ASA data? Where would they get it from?

That stat was probably from the UK study. ASA doesn't have the means to do any

collective research on incidents rates. At least not to my knowledge.

The 1 in 150 number was announced by the CDC in February of 2007 so it is not an

old statistic. Yes it was based on children in Atlanta if I remember and I'm

sure if you go on their website you can find that actual study. It's based also

on live births, not 1 in 150 kids in the US have ASD, but 1 in 150 kids born

today will have ASD.

Big difference there or we'd have a heck of alot more folks with ASD.

Carolyn

> >

> > I'm calling for all to no longer accept this o-o-o-old " 1 in 150 " number

taken from children born in 1984. Kudos to Unlocking Autism, who took it off

their website, in addition to Generation Rescue and Autism One, who I think

don't cite this either.

> >

> > We know the children have been counted more than once since then, yet the

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention presented this number in 2007.

> >

> > This number is not close to being true and has not been for some time. For

our our government to not disclose more recent data paid for by our tax dollars

does not make the problem of why so many children are not whole go away.

> >

> > Our community of caregivers, advocates, and professionals needs to stop

parroting this lie and stop being polite about accepting it.

> >

> > This should be the easiest issue to remain united about.

> >

> > Alison

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Ladies and gentlemen(?) of this subject, these ratios are based on children. If

true from another reply MomOf3AU mentioned, that this ratio began in 1984, it's

now 25 years later. Those people are adults now. Should CDC create new ratios,

measuring to include adults also up to certain age?

>

> Lia, you are asking a valid question. Dr. F. Yazbak and Ray Gallup

published a paper in late 2007 refuting this number:

>

> http://www.vacinfo.org/1in67.pdf

>

> They carefully explain how they came up with 1 in 67 based solely upon US IDEA

numbers (children enrolled in public schools). Knowing that our children are

also in private and home schools, and are included in other categories besides

strictly Autism, I'd say this is a conservative number.

>

> Even Baron-Cohen later acknowledged that in the UK the number is 1 in 60, I

believe.

>

> I did a little research for advocating in my own school district. Based upon

December 2008 IDEA numbers, (again very conservative, due to our students being

in other categories for various reasons), we are 50% higher than the CDC quote.

We are 1 in 100 vs. " 1 in 150 " . But again, I know we are higher than that,

probably somewhere in between Dr. Yazbak's 1 in 67 and our AU category of 1 in

100.

>

> Our government dances around and masquerades how serious this health issue is.

The basic problem of the power of government controlling media even about the

rate of autism is just an indication of deeper lying issues about what is

happening to the health of our children.

>

> Autism Speaks and the Autism Society of America need to be on board with my

plea.

>

> Alison

>

[Guest guest]

1 in 150 is a seven year old number. They don't want to update the numbers because they will be worse.

Pamela

You are correct! Of course they don't! How can we get the numbers updated? A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!

[Guest guest]

Keep pointing out the truth about how the CDC presented those numbers in 2007

and how the media blindly accepts this, as many of us have.

If Lee Grossman, Pres. of ASA, is being quoted as using 1 in 67, a much more

pressing rate, and if enough other people who care about people affected by

autism stop being polite about accepting this, we will make society wake up.

It's impossible to have a genetic epidemic and ALL environmental factors need to

be thoroughly investigated without exception, including what we inject into our

population.

I know personally that there has been counting done since then. We need to ask

our government why they chose to use this number in 2007 and why they have not

released more relevant data to date?

>

>

> In a message dated 4/20/2009 1:14:19 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,

> pamelaleigh99@... writes:

>

> 1 in 150 is a seven year old number. They don't want to update the

> numbers because they will be worse.

> Pamela

>

>

>

> You are correct! Of course they don't! How can we get the numbers updated?

> **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy

> steps!

>

(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221621490x1201450102/aol?redir=http:%2\

F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26

> hmpgID%3D62%26bcd%3DAprilfooter421NO62)

>