RFK - Make America Healthy? again?
I believe this guy is going to need his own thread.
I see today the chief idiot has declared that we will know what caused the "autism epidemic" by September, and we will be able to eliminate exposures.
Yeah, that's not how science works. It's a very complex issue and he has no idea if we can actually figure that out by then. But it is absolutely an indication of the intent to commit fraud.
By the way, we already know what the risk factors for autism are, and they are mostly genetic. So, eliminating exposure to those risk factors would be...
Eugenics.
Disgusting fool.
Genetics doesn't explain the doubling in autism rates since the year 2000.
What was the autism rate in 1800?
Pretty insane that the team which usually underplays/denies genetical determination in human outcomes , wants to claim something that only very recently exploded as a major problem in society as heavily genetically determined.
And all this construct just to claim without basis that there is an eugenetic intention on that topic from the right lol
The results of the original study linking autism to vaccines were a complete fabrication from fraud yet people are still running around believing there's a connection. It's telling someone saying half of Earth's population are martians and then saying it was a joke but people still thinking there are martians around everywhere.
The results of the original study linking autism to vaccines were a complete fabrication from fraud yet people are still running around believing there's a connection. It's telling someone saying half of Earth's population are martians and then saying it was a joke but people still thinking there are martians around everywhere.
The fact that at-the-time most prestigious journal published the insane study, and that it took them a lot of time to retract it (12 freaking years !!!!!), played a big role.
I didn't lose trust in vaccines after that but i did lose faith in medical journal editors and owners.
I wonder what team he is talking about? Actually I don't.
As I'm sure you know, autism didn't exist as a specified disorder until the mid 1900s, and even if it did, there wouldn't be sufficient data to determine a "rate." I get that you are probably trying to make the point that the recent uptick in cases is due to it's broader acceptance as a disorder and better diagnosis techniques. What a lot of people forget about this angle is that autism has started encompassing a much wider spectrum of traits in modern times.
So increase in autism prevalence can be largely (but not completely) attributed to:
1) increase in recognition of the disorder
2) better diagnosis techniques
3) broader definition of what autism is
No Gorgo even if those factors exist, increased parental age is a known, significant risk factor for autism, and for mothers it's non linear (similarly to down syndrome risk), especially for the first born.
Ie women having children later than ever is a very significant cofactor in increased autism incidence.
Fathers matter as well but it's a linear risk factor for them and their median parental age increased less than for women.
Then there is a 4th, you get several financial and non financial advantages if you get diagnosed autism , so in a lot of borderline cases parents push for the official diagnosis.
If you have a "problematic" child, getting behavioral therapy covered by insurance or not is a big deal
The results of the original study linking autism to vaccines were a complete fabrication from fraud yet people are still running around believing there's a connection. It's telling someone saying half of Earth's population are martians and then saying it was a joke but people still thinking there are martians around everywhere.
Yeah which is not at all unprecedented. Schön published dozens of fake papers on organic semiconductors and nobody cares because culture warrior dude bros didn’t latch onto it because they thankfully dk t know what semiconductors are.
Yeah which is not at all unprecedented. Schön published dozens of fake papers on organic semiconductors and nobody cares because culture warrior dude bros didn’t latch onto it because they thankfully dk t know what semiconductors are.
There are still a lot of woke people going around with the "blind audition" proof of gender discrimination even if the paper was fraudulent
My wife works at an elementary school and says there are kids who clearly could be diagnosed who aren't. I think there's a reluctance now to diagnose coming from the schools - at least at her school. Perhaps published rates will start to go down.
The fact that at-the-time most prestigious journal published the insane study, and that it took them a lot of time to retract it (12 freaking years !!!!!), played a big role.
I didn't lose trust in vaccines after that but i did lose faith in medical journal editors and owners.
I haven't been in the field in over a decade, but my first career was in medical research. In fairness, I am not sure what your expectations from The Lancet are. If they are willing to just completely make up data, I think any researcher could get a single study through a peer review process, especially one who already has a good reputation as a medical researcher. The review process really isn't structured to catch fraudulent data.
Also, from what I can tell the original paper was a case study involving 12 patients; so from a scientific perspective a N=12 study shouldn't be moving the needle too much anyways. You would obviously want to do a lot more studies involving a lot more patients before you started making drastic medical decisions.
Obviously this paper had a lot of political/cultural fallout that made it a very big deal. But I dont know how fair it is to criticize Lancet editors for not anticipating this (on top of not catching the fraud, which I dont know if anyone would have).
My wife works at an elementary school and says there are kids who clearly could be diagnosed who aren't. I think there's a reluctance now to diagnose coming from the schools - at least at her school. Perhaps published rates will start to go down.
As an AuDHD I don't think I'd even want to get diagnosed while there's MAGAs anywhere near any kind of real power.
The results of the original study linking autism to vaccines were a complete fabrication from fraud yet people are still running around believing there's a connection. It's telling someone saying half of Earth's population are martians and then saying it was a joke but people still thinking there are martians around everywhere.
I sometimes do think about this. Doesn't make me amazed because I've seen what kind of massively biased or non-existent "critical thought process" most people possess, but it's still absolutely insane that anyone could debunk that paper in 27 seconds (ok, IIRC it was n=12, lets say 2.7 seconds) but here we are 27 years later and these people still haven't figured it out. It's a wonder humankind has survived so long.
I sometimes do think about this. Doesn't make me amazed because I've seen what kind of massively biased or non-existent "critical thought process" most people possess,
the lancet published it in 1998.
they "investigated" claims on fraud and in 2004 confirmed the paper was sound (!!!!!).
they retracted it in 2010.
I haven't been in the field in over a decade, but my first career was in medical research. In fairness, I am not sure what your expectations from The Lancet are. If they are willing to just completely make up data, I think any researcher could get a single study through a peer review process, especially one who already has a good reputation as a medical researcher. The revie
ty for helping make dick pills
No but the broadening of our guidelines that define what is diagnosable as "autism" certainly would. And it also happens to be the case that the medical community did that very same thing.
Now before you find some silly reply, I want to ask: do you think the initial discovery of something was a discovery in totality? or do we learn more about it as we study it more?
Also, if you've ever been involved in health care, you'd know that the guidelines for oncology departments as far as how to diagnose/identify and treat cancer is updated as such as fast pace that it is practically a revolving door due to the ammount of money pouring into research that allows a better understanding of cancer almost hour to hour.
These arm chair conclusions that follow the logic of "well when we didnt have the tools we do now but knew through scientific processes that something existed, the conclusions reached day of discovery are more applicable than the decades of research that follows up said discovery"
The fact that at-the-time most prestigious journal published the insane study, and that it took them a lot of time to retract it (12 freaking years !!!!!), played a big role.
I didn't lose trust in vaccines after that but i did lose faith in medical journal editors and owners.
You should talk to a doctor about their opinion on this topic, it would be enlightening.
Its a business model, and the fact that its been turned into that is what ****s it up. They are for profit companies. THis is ****ed.
No but the broadening of our guidelines that define what is diagnosable as "autism" certainly would. And it also happens to be the case that the medical community did that very same thing. Now before you find some silly reply, I want to ask: do you think the initial discovery of something was a discovery in totality? or do we learn more about it as we study it more?Also, if you
Autism wasn't discovered in 2000. There had already been decades of study and research into it by then.
The massive increase is not explained by better diagnosis or changes in diagnostic criteria either according to this study.
Increases in the reported prevalence of autism and autistic spectrum disorders in recent years have fueled concern over possible environmental causes. The author reviews the available survey literature and finds evidence of large increases in prevalence in both the United States and the United Kingdom that cannot be explained by changes in diagnostic criteria or improvements in case ascertainment. Incomplete ascertainment of autism cases in young child populations is the largest source of predictable bias in prevalence surveys; however, this bias has, if anything, worked against the detection of an upward trend in recent surveys. Comparison of autism rates by year of birth for specific geographies provides the strongest basis for trend assessment. Such comparisons show large recent increases in rates of autism and autistic spectrum disorders in both the U.S. and the U.K. Reported rates of autism in the United States increased from < 3 per 10,000 children in the 1970s to > 30 per 10,000 children in the 1990s, a 10-fold increase. In the United Kingdom, autism rates rose from < 10 per 10,000 in the 1980s to roughly 30 per 10,000 in the 1990s. Reported rates for the full spectrum of autistic disorders rose from the 5 to 10 per 10,000 range to the 50 to 80 per 10,000 range in the two countries. A precautionary approach suggests that the rising incidence of autism should be a matter of urgent public concern.
Autism wasn't discovered in 2000. There had already been decades of study and research into it by then.
The massive increase is not explained by better diagnosis or changes in diagnostic criteria either according to this study.
That's not a study - it's an article, aka opinion piece.
By an anti-vaxer who writes for an autism panic website. Hilarious. It's this guy:
Lol Gorgo. Did your anti-vaxxer alarm go off?
Calm down buddy. The world won't end if you don't leap to the defence of big pharma everytime I post something. OK.
Ok. Article, opinion piece , study whatever you want to call it, it presents a persuasive argument backed up by data to refute the claim that increased rates of autism are solely down to changes or improvements in diagnostic criteria.
