One of the points that anti-vaccine proponents keep bringing up is how autism prevalence has been going up over the past few decades. They notice how autism diagnoses have gone up and correlate that with an expanded vaccine schedule, then finally make the leap to imply it was the vaccines that caused autism. When we say that an expanded definition and expanded surveillance is what has in big part resulted in the increase, they laugh it off. That is not possible, they say; the increase must be a real increase of actual cases.
Recently, a new study came out of South Korea. It was a 5 year study that looked at all children in a South Korean community, not just high risk kids, or those that went to the doctor. They found an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) prevalence rate of 2.6%. By comparison the current rate is estimated to be 1/110 or 0.9%. By looking at all children, vs. just those in the high risk groups, as has been the practice generally, the prevalence rate almost tripled.
This is a perfect example of how increased surveillance can result in an increase in number of diagnoses. It would be insane to imply that the real rate of ASD cases tripled while the authors did the study. As Steve Novella has said this is literally a case of casting a wider net with smaller holes, more specifically in this case by casting a wider net. This study lends support to what we in the pro-health community have been saying for a while now: that expanded diagnostic criteria coupled with more awareness and increased surveillance are the likely contributors to the perceived increase in ASD rates in recent history.
Autism diagnoses rates have been going up steadily, but have autism incidence rates gone up, or is this increase due just to us being more aware, looking for it more and expanding the diagnostic criteria? Or is it both an actual increase due to some factor and the wider net with smaller holes? I do not pretend to know the answer. If only anti-vaxers were as humble.
Garbage. All the S Korean “study” shows is whats up in that country. You can’t extrapolate information from one country and apply it to other’s. Its an obvious attempt to mislead. This study is bunk.
It is apparent that Mr. Coe is unable to interpret the results of the longitudinal South Korean study–if indeed he read the study. The researchers clearly reported the study’s limitations and provided areas for additional research. Apparently, he missed the fact that the study will soon be replicated in other countries.
As the mother of a young child who is on the spectrum and one who is nearing completion of a Ph.D., I wonder the qualifications of someone who does not even understand correct placement of an apostrophe.
I was listening until you pulled the grammar police card.
Mr. Coe, it is you! Hello, there!
Tell me, have you finally figured out why Roald Dahl’s daughter was unable to speak after having measles?
[...] South Korean Autism Study [...]
Everyone believes they are a part of a smarter age of man. They were just too stupid to notice all the autism before, We are smart now and we check better you believe. I guess that’s why pharmaceutical companies needed liability protection. Because of all the good they are doing for no profit. It’s big tobacco all over again.
Can you tell me which scenario brings more profit to pharmaceutical companies:
1. Selling two MMR vaccines for each child.
2. Treating children who get measles in the hospital.
Right now there is a measles outbreak in Europe. There have been about 26000 cases, with over 7000 needing hospital care. That is one person going to the hospital out of about four cases of measles. Are the pharmaceutical companies receiving more or less profits from the national health systems of those countries?
Also, the MMR vaccine was introduced in the USA in 1971. Can you point me to the scientific literature that showed an increase in American autism starting forty years ago?
Actually people noticed it before, they just didn’t have a name for it.