I think part of the fact that more cases of autism are detected is because people don't really understand what autism is or only recognize it by extreme cases rather than the more common cases. I had to google it while writing this post in order to refresh myself into what it truly means to have autism. Just to pull a quote for those who aren't sure and who, like me, stumbled on this thread out of curiosity:
http://www.autism-society.org/site/PageServer?pagename=whatisautism said:
Autism is a complex developmental disability that typically appears during the first three years of life. The result of a neurological disorder that affects the functioning of the brain, autism impacts the normal development of the brain in the areas of social interaction and communication skills. Children and adults with autism typically have difficulties in verbal and non-verbal communication, social interactions, and leisure or play activities.
Doing a little bit of reading on the subject, I am curious if autism seems more common now simply because we're better at recognizing it instead of simply accepting it? Or, I hope is not the case, we simply want to declare children autistic in order to use it as an excuse for doping up kids; there couldn't be that many kids with ADD that needed ritalin. But I feel it is probably the former instead of the later. I think that we are simply better at diagnosing mental disorders; especially ones we didn't know about until 1943. I think we are moving away from simply saying "that person is a little odd" and towards having an actual understanding in why this person seems "a little odd" to us.
I have no idea if there is a correlation between vaccines and having autism though the Autism Society of America seems to suggest that there may be a variety of environmental factors that may help in triggering autism, and though it did not seem to endorse the idea that MMR vaccines might be triggering cases of autism, it does point out that there needs to be a lot more research done on the possible triggering factors for autism.
As for investigating vaccines before giving them to your children, that is a good idea, but one should be wary of the information they research and try to focus on medical and scholarly debates on the subject. I would even be wary of organizations that are associated with the subject and are arguing for or against something since they may have an agenda that they are pushing on the topic, such as a pro or anti-vaccine stance, that is supported more by the leaders of the organization's beliefs than by facts.
And as for the article, the only informative value it has is that it piqued some people's interests on the subject. The information from the article seems to conflict directly with basic information given from the ASA (Autism Society of America). The ASA cites the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in that autism affects 1 in 250 whereas the article states its 1 in 166, a fairly large discrepancy. But more the fact that it was a "reporter" that went to investigate autism in the amish community and not a medical doctor. I see no credentials supporting this person's ability to diagnose autism and I doubt he has any; especially since when you read the Washington Times articles linked at the bottom, you find out the reporter is
Dan Olmsted who is a journalist for United Press International. And I didn't see why it was significant to mention "the oldest age 9 or 10" as if the amish magically correct autism at age 11, but that is more a statement that raised my "something isn't right" flag than anything. The article composed by Dr. Mercola from the Washington Times stories is created simply to promote Mercola's ideas and probably also to make money.
As for this being evidence of a correlation between vaccines and autism; if we read the linked Washington Times articles, the reporter is only acting on hearsay about other autism cases and also on their relation to vaccines since he only investigated the parent with the adopted chinese child.
The amish are also a terrible sample population and especially a terrible control population to use as evidence to support connections between vaccines and autism. If the amish truly do not suffer from autism, a disorder who's cause is likely genetic based, then it would more likely be that they do not have the genetic triggers in their genes; a possibility since they descend from a very small genetic heritage due to their closed community and the limited population that they originate from. This possibility is pointed out in the Washington Times article but not by Mercola. But more than likely, autism simply goes undiagnosed in amish communities. It wasn't until 1943 that autism was even really given a name. And honestly, I have trouble imagining a community that values their privacy allowing a reporter, a stranger, to analyze and attempt to diagnose all the members of their community, especially their children. Especially since I'm a part of society and I can't even see myself letting a reporter attempt to diagnose me or my (potential) children for autism (or for anything for that matter). And this appears to be correct since reading the Dan Olmsted articles shows that he was only able to meet with the more open amish community instead of the traditional amish and that even then, most of his info is hearsay from the one couple that he interviewed.
The article created by Dr. Mercola is pure fear mongering used to promote his agenda, which only demonstrates that you can find people on either side that use fear to drive their agenda. The articles from the Washington Times are shoddy reporting used to create a headline to sell some papers. Dan Olmsted, the reporter does not use any scientific methodology in DISproving his argument but instead went out to find a cause for autism and stopped when he "found" it. It is mediocre journalism; a far cry from scientific or medical proof. Olmsted seems as educated on the subject of autism as myself, which I admitted earlier was just some information gleaned off a quick google search and some reading off of the Autism Society of America.
I would recommend that people worried about vaccines do some real research on the subject from credible MEDICAL doctors (I never saw an MD appended to Dr. Mercola's name, so he could have a doctorate in BS for all we know) and from scientific and medical journals as opposed to .com websites. Talking to your doctor would also help and it wouldn't hurt to ask another doctor too since no doctor knows it all. If you have access to a specialist on autism itself or on Pervasive Developmental Disorders, then he would be the best person to talk to.
As for Dr. Mercola, he reminds me of a medical version of Paul Thurrott and especially of John Dvorak. Each of them are known and published (and to some, respected even
) computer/tech commentators. Yet I would only trust Thurrott, on tech advice, as far as I could throw him since he basically parrots whatever he hears from Microsoft. I would only trust Dvorak as far as I could kick him (preferably down a flight of stairs) since Dvorak concerns himself with totally unresearched and inflammatory articles. Each may hit on a fact every once in a while (Thurrott more than Dvorak) but neither will have done so though unbiased and educated means.