Nation of Brilliant Outcasts on Welfare?

Post Reply New Topic

AUTISM RATES SOARING, Epidemic, Still No Cause Pinpointed
News today full of articles about latest CDC findings: Autism prevalence in New Jersey is 1 in 45 children, estimated about 1 in 68 in USA. They're still wondering if it is better recognition or actual increases in cases.

Cause unknown, best treatment unknown, largest and fastest growing disability by far for country, very little funding for research.

Well guess what? It is lifelong and there's no help for adults. The cost to society of wasted potential is astronomical. Now they're finding more higher intelligence kids, yet autism renders one socially dysfunctional. So do we want a nation full of brilliant outcasts on welfare?

If those who meter out the funding had any idea of what it is like to live with autism, they would be more willing to fund research and figure out what it causing this, and how to overcome it. It has gone pandemic and the consequences will be severe. And every year it just keeps going way up.

What do you think will be the tipping point that forces more funding and research for autism? And help for adults?

Will the parents of newly diagnosed spectrum kids have enough money and clout to force change? When it gets to 1:20?

Which at this rate will be in a few short years.

It might be an evolutionary paradigm shift. We're at the beginning so it is hard to see what it means. At what point on the current trajectory will the beancounters realize autism will bankrupt the nation / globe and decide to fund research and mine the gold mine of abilities hidden within spectrites.

The rate of ADHD diagnosis is at least 1 in 20 and people still don't take it seriously. They just say that is it being overdiagnosed. What makes anyone think that a higher rate of autism will change things?

On the bright side, we might qualify as a minority soon enough... hahahaha.

1. Increased rates, and "epidemic" labeling may be a way for researchers to get more funding for searching for a cure.

2. DSM 5 is suppose to lower prevalency rate of autism.

January 22, 2014

"The CDC report appears today in JAMA Psychiatry. It suggests that the DSM-5 criteria could decrease the current estimated prevalence of autism from 1 in 88 to 1 in 100 children".

source, http://www.autismspeaks.org/science/sci ... prevalence

When it can be identified with an MRI as a specific physical dysfunction in the brain and that becomes the diagnostic standard, the rates will plummet, as millions of cases diagnosed by clinical observation will be weeded out as misdiagnosis.

It does not really seem like an 'epidemic' to me sure perhaps there are more people with autism diagnoses now days, but 1 in 68 still seems to make it rare compared to people without it.

Also I don't want to 'overcome' it and become neurotypical....I think they should fund more research into how to help people with autism, or how to accommodate them better in society and stuff like that. Not into the 'this terrible epidemic must be cured' rationale. Also though while I am sure there is a lot of wasted potential its not a good thing to assume we all have some great hidden ability or skill.

LGB people have disproportionate power?... Ehh, a little, but that's actually a good thing. Minority groups actually have to have a little more power per person than majorities in order to be heard. They're in danger from many sources, usually involving prejudice and fear, and they need to defend themselves, but they are outnumbered. Therefore, they have to gain influence and gain allies, so that the 3% of non-straight people don't end up bullied by the 30% who are homophobes while the 60% who are indifferent look the other way. Give that 3% a little more power, have them work together with the 7% who are active allies, and suddenly the 60% is no longer looking the other way because it has become unpopular to bully gay people, and the 30% of homophobes have to shut up and sit down and think about what they've been doing.

I know it might sound odd to say "Minorities need to have more power per person," but having power isn't a good thing or a bad thing; it's how you use it that matters. And using it to defend a minority group--your own or not--is a good use of power. And it benefits everyone, because the way minorities are treated is also the best treatment anyone else can confidently expect and take for granted--it's the bare minimum. If you're not in a minority group, and you somehow find yourself in one (or being mistaken for being in one), then your rights are protected only as well as that minority group's rights are protected. The way we treat minorities sets a precedent when a new minority group is formed or becomes more apparent. In a way, when a minority group gathers influence, they are protecting not just themselves but everyone else.