Normally I would control myself in getting involved in this but...
at least part of the reason that the rates of autism have been increasing is
that:
- there is no definitive test for autism (like a blood test) so the
diagnosis is based on a doctor's judgement
- once diagnosed with autism, there is funding and there are programs to
treat the problem
IOW, if a child is diagnosed as simply being strange, it can't be treated
with government funding. If a child has autism, funding and programs exist
to help this child.
I'm not being judgemental here whether this is a good or bad thing, only
that the measures of what is autism have been expanded to include more
children. I hope all of them (and other children with unlabeled disorders)
get the help they need, paid for by the government.

Signature
Melissa (in Los Angeles)
Mum to Elizabeth 4/13/03
and one due early 3/05
> Hasn't been any mercury in childhood vaccines for three or four years
> now. Kind of makes you wonder why the rates of autism have continued to
> increase, eh?
Mark Probert - 05 Jan 2005 22:56 GMT
> > Hasn't been any mercury in childhood vaccines for three or four years
> > now. Kind of makes you wonder why the rates of autism have continued to
> > increase, eh?
> Normally I would control myself in getting involved in this but...
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> children. I hope all of them (and other children with unlabeled disorders)
> get the help they need, paid for by the government.
Since IDEA was first passed, schools have been directed and required to
ascertain exactlywhy kids are not learning. With the recognition that Autism
is a spectrum disorder, it became obvious that there had been a vast
underdiagnosis in this country. In 1991, the US Dep't of Education mandated
forther checking.
Note that if a child is properly diagnosed, and special education is
required, it costs the schools money. There is not money to be made here.
Child - 06 Jan 2005 01:54 GMT
| Normally I would control myself in getting involved in this but...
|
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
| children. I hope all of them (and other children with unlabeled disorders)
| get the help they need, paid for by the government.
Certainly, the diagnosis of Aspergers appears to be far more popular than it
once was. Is this due to higher incidence, or higher incidence of
diagnosis?
My mother recently retired from teaching at a school, located near Redmond
Washington, the home of Microsoft and a general mecca of tech companies.
She teaches special ed, and has for years, but in this particular school
there were many autistic kids. She had NEVER had one before. She said many
of those childrens parents worked in technology and had signs of aspergers
themselves - no eye contact, poor social skills. Its one woman's untested
theory, but its certainly an interesting phenonmenon
MothWrangler - 06 Jan 2005 02:10 GMT
> | Normally I would control myself in getting involved in this but...
> |
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> themselves - no eye contact, poor social skills. Its one woman's untested
> theory, but its certainly an interesting phenonmenon
Not just one woman's theory. Read "The Geek Syndrome"
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/aspergers_pr.html
Nancy
Unique, like everyone else
>Hasn't been any mercury in childhood vaccines for three or four years
>now. Kind of makes you wonder why the rates of autism have continued to
>increase, eh?
It may be a mystery to *you*, but those of us on the bastions of
alternative health realize that it's due to MMR. Or possibly
pasteurized milk (that's the latest one I know of).
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)