Pediatrician Group Pushes for Autism Screening

[The Straight Story]

Pediatrician Group Pushes for Autism Screening

The American Academy of Pediatrics is calling for all children to be screened for autism twice by the age of 2.

The renewed call for universal screening is the strongest push yet by the group to catch autism in very young children which could lead to early treatment strategies. While there is no cure for autism, which affects an estimated one in 150 U.S. children, early intervention can help treat possible underlying medical issues such as epilepsy or infection.

Dr. Michael Chez, Director of Pediatric Neurology at Sutter Neuroscience Institute, said the Academy's call for universal screening is a proactive approach in dealing with autism.

"If we find them when they're 2, 18 months, 2-and-a-half, we can do a lot more medically as well as therapeutically," said Chez.

http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=34489

[Blaze Diem]

1. Yep. And following this 'fear factoring' , the Pharmas are in a race to

flood the market with multilevel prescrips that treat this illness. Medicate them at age 2, and profits are all but garenteed for this person's lifetime.
Autism drugs for babies
ADHD drugs for schol age
various multi-symptom antidepressants for the next 40 years
etc. etc..
-----------------

Maybe its cuz of all the toxic crap in the environment.
A corporation that causes disease and a corporation that offers to make it all better.
Profits are on the rise.
I'm sickened more by the blatant gluttonous greed of a corporate managed government.
its fucked up.

[TZ]

2. Autism is linked to genetic abnormalities

but lets not treat an actual treatable disease. Good idea.:sarcasm:

[KittyWampus]

7. Could those 'genetic abnormalities' actually be sensitivity to toxins? Does every autistic child

have these genetic abnormalities?

Does every child that has these genetic abnormalities actually develop autism?

[TZ]

16. trisomy 23

Almost every Downs syndrome child has an extra chromosome in pair 23. What they have found in some (but not all) is that there is a genetic defect which causes a certain enzyme not be produced. That type of deficiency is usually an inherited trait. Since they only recently made this discovery they don't know the extent that the autistic population has it but the suspicion now is that almost all children who develop autism are born with this or some other genetic defect.
I *know* exactly what you are implying and there is no evidence for environmental exposure to be the problem here, unless its some sort of teratogenic (fetal damage) problem. No more than Downs syndrome (which is a genetic problem related to replicative error related to aging).

[Blaze Diem]

8. Yep its all great IF it is truely Autism. I question why are we

suddenly seeing much much more of this illness than years before?
I think whenever the paharmas stand to make a profit the illness will be hyped.

Example is the valium of the 50's became the antidepressants of the 90's.
ADHD became over diagnosed, and often to create an orderly classroom.


In all cases pharmas have lobbied doctors with great perks peddling their drugs. We see their targeted ads throughout the day on TV.
To find the source of origin for this sudden increase in autism would, of course, deny the pharma a huge and long term profit.
I'd be very cautious before buying the fear of autism because my 2 yr old isn't speaking in full phrases.

Just my opinion based on the track record of the parma-doctor relationship so far.
I question the sudden hype in the news and am saddened that they may use this illness and our babies to increase their profit margin.
I absolutely would not put it past them. Not one bit.

[TZ]

14. Reclassification

We are seeing more Autism diagnoses because they used to be a) not considered a problem or b) classified incorrectly as other diseases.

[rucky]

15. You don't think there's an actual rise..

due to environmental factors?

[TZ]

17. nope

Ask developmental psychologists---> there is plenty of evidence that *right* after autism was reclassified there was a spike in cases. AFAIK there is actually NO significant increase in autism in the last 20 years when that factor is taken into account. And in fact with the one substance that I know someone is going to bring up since that has been removed--the "rates" have continued to climb. I think that autism was not well understood until the last 20 years so it was easy to put it in another category. Its also possible that since Downs syndrome is a genetic problem associated with older women have children, that the fact that women are waiting till later in life to have children could also have a great deal to do with it.

[LeftishBrit]

20. So it seems...

Here's something I posted on the topic a few months ago:

I think that a lot of children are diagnosed as autistic who would not have been in the past. This occurs at both ends of the scale: children who might in the past have been called 'naughty' or 'odd' or 'maladjusted' or 'emotionally disturbed' are now diagnosed with 'high-functioning autism/ Asperger syndrome', while others who would have been called 'mentally retarded' without further classification are now diagnosed as 'autistic' if they have particular problems with communication and interaction.

This is, I suspect partly because of changes in the educational system, both good and bad. In the past, many children with low IQs were simply dismissed as 'ineducable', whereas now they are seen as needing education, and their problems need to be analyzed more carefully, making an 'autism' diagnosis more likely. And children of higher IQ who don't fit into the school system may be more likely to have their specific needs analyzed, rather than just being ignored or treated as 'discipline problems'. These are good changes. On the negative side, pressures to get schools to 'reach targets' may lead to greater pressures to get a semi-medical diagnosis for children who are not doing all the things demanded by policymakers and governments. OFSTED or NCLB may only be prepared to reduce demands to force a square peg into a round hole if a definite diagnosis is given.

I also think that there is some increase in incidence of autism, due to the fact that extremely premature babies and those with other life-threatening perinatal problems are more likely to be autistic, and a far higher proportion of babies with such problems survive than in the past - 30 years ago many such babies never lived to be diagnosed as autistic. There may also be some environmental factor that is increasing the risk of autism - if there is, then I suspect that it is one that exerts its main influence prenatally; and I think that there needs to be more research on factors that may affect pregnant women and their unborn babies. But I don't think that there is the massive increase in autism that some people imply; and this is a view held by many researchers on autism.


ETA: Here is a link to Helen Heussler's letter to the British Medical Journal in 2001, which gives some data to suggest that diagnostic criteria have indeed changed since the 1970s, and that this could have contributed to the apparent rise in incidence.

www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/323/7313/633

[LeftishBrit]

21. A couple of other links to psychology articles suggesting that there is little real increase

www.autcom.org/pdf/Epidemic.pdf.


www.affymetrix.com/corporate/media/press_kits/download/autism_jamafombonneeditorial.pdf

[Midlodemocrat]

4. Early intervention makes a world of difference in autistic children.

If a child is non verbal at six, they will likely remain non verbal for their entire lives. An autistic child who is non verbal can be taught to communicate with ASL and reduce their frustration.

Early intervention is the key, but in my experience both professionally and personally, parents are usually suspicious that 'something isn't right' before the pediatrician is.

[EFerrari]

5. Jinx!

:hi:

[Midlodemocrat]

6. Hey, girl! How ya' doing?

:hi:

[EFerrari]

9. I'm good, how are you? I was just thinking, this screening would have

caught Doug. His mom is a very high functioning Aspie herself, and she didn't sense there was something going on. By the time it became obvious even to her, it was decided Doug was just "no good".

This screening could be a godsend for lotsa people. :)

[LeftishBrit]

13. Yes, let's just call autistic people 'crazy' and shut them in the attic, like 100 years ago

Then there will be no profits for 'pharma'! How wonderful!

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

By the way, early interventions for autistic children are behavioural, and don't involve pharmaceuticals.

[TZ]

18. hey there...

I don't suppose you have something you could post about autism being reclassified..I think it would be helpful here....

[Blaze Diem]

19. Not So. and I note the sarcastic digs tossed out in this thread for my opposing

and cautious view.
You don't think the pharmas profit from overhyping an illness? Its happening all the time.
And there are indeed meds ready for the dispensing in this situation. Pharmas always think ahead when there's profit to consider.
I cannot really believe that there are people on DU who doubt the greed of Big Pharma.
I am disgusted by the fact that more kids have been diagnosed as ADHD than were ever necessary. More adults & teens have been handed antidepressants easily for troubles that could be dealt with differently. I fear that the serious business of Autism may be as easily manipulated and misdiagnosed as has been the facts of both antidepressants and Ritalin.

Save your nasty sarcasm. I have dealt with you here before and you are entitled to your opinion.
This is DU afterall, Would be an equal tragedy to our babies if this were not treated with some suspicion.
Pharmas have earned that reputation, and often to the disadvantage of those who should be able to trust their findings.
I'd be getting a few opinions if it were my child. I'd be very cautious of the diagnosis itself.

In the case of antidepressants: In the 90's there were reports of suicidal behavior. US doctors and pharmas made no claim to the fact that it indeed may be the antidepressant itself. In my research at the same time, I find that in the UK the same pharma (GlaxoSmith)that made the same antidepressant also sold in the USA, was forced to label the UK antideps. with suicidal warning labels. But they withheld the labelling info in the USA until they were forced to do so, years later.

Buyer beware, and do some extensive research on any meds offered. If pharmas can make a dime, I bet they will try for a dollar..or millions as in the cases stated above.

As I said, its a great thing for those children who are truely autistic, but pharmas have made a huge profit off the promotion of ilnesses they just happen to have a drug for.
--------------
Done w/ this post. Best of luck to all in this matter.

[TZ]

22. OOh another Dr. Google

I am in the industry and yes, there is some profitmindedness but that generally is in the unwillingness to fund new and novel research because of the risks. Pharmas like to work on big sellers like viagra rogaine etc.
Please come up with an example of a "made up diagnosis". Because I can tell you have NO IDEA how involved drug research is. Believe me, these conditions that any company is willing to spend 10+ years of research on drugs (which btw only have a 30% on average of ever hitting the market) and millions of dollars on are very real. Trust me, the bigger issue is pharma being unwilling to work on drugs for conditions that are rare...I should know, I have a very rare disease and few of the Big companies are doing significant research in this area.

[hedgehog]

23. Yes, relabeling anti-depressants and warning parents about them was really effective.

The suicide rate in teenagers actually went up because they were not getting proper treatment for depression. It turned out that depression itself is way more deadly than anti-depressants.

[EFerrari]

3. I caught this and am behind it 100%. What a difference it could make

in the lives of so many kids and of their families.

[KamaAina]

10. I'm not sure there's a screening instrument for use with that age group

they're trying to develop one, just for this purpose, but I don't think they've got it just yet. What the article desctribes is a sort of pre-screening, looking at just a few target behaviors.

[spinbaby]

11. On the surface it seems like a good idea

But I'm seeing among the children of my aquaintences, a surge of "autism." The kids then get all kinds of therapy and, by the time they go to school, are magically "cured." I suspect that what the "professionals" are actually doing is diagnosing kids that are a bit late in talking with autism. This, of course, results in lots of jobs for therapists and lots of cures.

I think that true autism can be helped, but not "cured." I have a nephew who's been getting intense therapy since he was very young and is now in his early 20s. He can function somewhat and hold down a job (strictly computer-based) because he's been carefully taught how to interact with people, but he's by no means "cured." I worry that a real disorder has become a fad diagnosis.

[Thirtieschild]

12. Sometimes the diagnosis is real and not a fad

Our six-year-old grandson has been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder, no medication. I was amazed at the steps involved in the diagnosis:

1. Daughter told school she was concerned son was an Aspie (Asperger's)
2. School contacted autism specialist.
3. Specialist spent day at school observing child's interactions, etc.
4. Specialist spent evening with family.
5. Specialist said autism was strong possibility.
6. Pediatrician then tested DNA for illness that can mask as autism.
7. Speech therapist tested child.
8. Child psychologist met with parents and child in office.
9. Child psychologist spent evening with family.
10. Four specialists - autism, speech, pediatrician, psychologist - held joint meeting to make diagnosis.
11. Diagnosis - Autism Spectrum Disorder
12. Cost: Nothing, thanks to National Health Service
13. Place: England

Our son, now 41, didn't talk until he was four, was diagnosed as ADHD in the early 1970s. We tried the Feingold diet, finally put him on Ritalin, which he hated and spit out every chance he got. (Said it slowed him down too much; probably his energy level slowed down to what the rest of us consider normal.) As an adult, he still needs Ritalin. With it he can focus; without it his life is chaos. I also suspect that our oldest son, now 49, verges on Asperger's. There seems to be a genetic mix-up that affects the males in our family. And no, I don't blame Big Pharma for any of it. I'm thankful that our adult son can take Ritalin, and that our Aspie grandson got the help he needed. His personal life isn't going to be easy, but if he survives the emotional ups and downs, he shows every sign that he'll be a brilliant scientist.

[The Straight Story]

24. Wow, amazing story

Thanks for sharing it!

[Blaze Diem]

25. Well I have another opinion based on situations I have also dealt with.

And in those sad cases, it was indeed the doctor buying the hype of the pharmas in dispensing certain meds.
Turned out two of the cases were misdiag nosed and the meds given did more damage than good.
Hope sincerely it never happens to any of you. It is a nightmare finding your way back, if it is possible at all.

Now you havev your opinion and I have mine.
I am not disagreeing with this study. Just saying be very cautious.
Fine that you've never been the victim of big pharma recall products that were once labelled as safe.
Good for you. But I know of others who were not so fortunate.
There is no area to argue here.
Unless you all believe that big pharma could not be in some of this business for profit.

Mine was an opinion based on what I have experienced. Not an argument.

Last I knew that was acceptable here on DU.
But maybe there are just some DUers that prefer to argue about any opinion other than their own.

Getting a little tired of this, and the sarcasm that goes with it.
Hey you all have a great day anyway. Have to run some errands.