Should Obama stop this?
- Thread starter franklin
- Start date
If there were medicines for autism, perhaps. I'm not aware of any.
I'm not sure what a false positive is supposed to be, but in a disease which happens in degrees, which is basically a form of developmental delay and so tends to change over time, and which has symtoms that are subjective, I am sure false positives are inevitable.
Your article discusses 80% of th population qualifying, but the diagnosis rate is still under one percent. I'm not familiar with this site. Is this sort of hyperbole typical?
I agree generally that over- and under-diagnosis is could be a problem. On the other hand, not every diagnosis requires treatment; there are various levels of functionality.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Another aspect of this could be that they are narrowing the spectrum so they can regain school funds that go to help kids with autism function in a school classroom.
No doubt. Autism is big money.
TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
Read more on Newsmax.com: 5 Top Drugs for Autism
"false positive" is a test which returns a diagnosis of disease/pathology which is not true. You have nothing wrong with you, but you are told you do. A poorly-defined test or criteria is subject to many false positives and false negatives. A test which is termed "highly diagnostic" is one that very reliably discriminates between the pathological condition and whatever is normal health.
From Scat's link:
If 80 percent of people are something, for example, it isn't a psychological condition, and autism has been extrapolated so far that virtually anyone can be considered 'on the spectrum' or one of its derivatives if they want to be.
https://www.science20.com/science_20/redefining_autism_dsmv-86289
Last edited:
Probably, if you'll read this again, you'll understand the statement. It doesn't say 80% qualify. It says anything that almost everybody has isn't a "disease", and then says that unless the diagnostic criteria aren't narrowed, almost anyone could qualify if they wanted to. In this case, the fact that only 1% has been labeled ASD could be used to make the argument that some restraint has been used in using the old criteria.
I've seen places where more than 80% of the adults were alcoholics, but I'd still call that a disease. Same if 100% had heart failure, cancer, or diabetes, or were grossly obese. I know that it's harder to get objective evidence in pyschological disorders, but I'd put liberalism/progressivism on my list if they were 99%. hahaha. But that's Michael Savage's theme, and I should give him credit for that wit. And for being pretty smart, if a neocon.
The newsmax article specifically said the drugs are used to treat symptons, not autism. The symtoms would be present with or without a diagnosis of autism; the drugs would be prescribed with or without a diagnosis of autism.
I understand the general concept of false positive, I'm not sure that the concept is easily applied to autism-spectrum disorders. I already commented on the disparity between the 80% in Scat's article and the less than 1% in real life.
Hey One Brow, you're kind of a dick
Some topics really get under my skin.
My understanding pretty much matched what you wrote, with a slight difference between the 80%-1% divide. I think the 80% fidgure comes in large part from using the diagnosis criteria poorly, mixed with hyperbole. If you use the criteria as it was meant be used, I don't think you would get anything close to 80%, probably not 2%.
Hey One Brow, you're kind of a dick
Unibrow has an autistic son. I'm sure he's taking this thread much too personally.