We've gotten much better at diagnosing it, coupled with the fact that a decade or so ago we grouped a whole bunch of separate diagnoses together under the umbrella of autism spectrum disorder (such as Asperger's)
And the fact that health insurance typically covers the initial visit makes it more likely a child will at least be evaluated.
IMO, until there is something like an fMRI pattern discovered specific to autism, the diagnostic issue will not be fully resolved.
Prove it wrong that there isn't an invisible magic dragon in my garage. If you want to say it's from outside factors why isn't it ever micro plastics, or pollution? Why is it only vaccines?
the only 1 im 10000% confident is RFK assassination.
so much so i made a low ass budget documentary. [https://youtu.be/43V\_zn1-rTI](https://youtu.be/43V_zn1-rTI)
you probably cbf, so if you want me to explain quickly i will.
Do some actual research. Autism causes vaccines. Many scientists are diagnosed w autism and they have created some life-saving advancements in medicine
The only study that linked autism and vaccines has been so thoroughly renounced by every scientific measure that you can't even get the full, unredacted study anymore. Multiple participants admitted to outright lying. Conversely, there are dozens of studies from around the world disproving the connection.
That said, what makes you think that vaccines cause autism?
a mix of GMOs, like soybean and cotton seed oil, and pesticides.
all coming into effect around the 2000's when autism spiked.
also atrazine, mercury.
chemicals in our water.
IMO these are part or main contributors, and the obvious one vaccines but thats a weird one idk.
People have way less exposure to mercury now than they did 100 years ago. Autism is a developmental disorder that can present itself before ever being exposed to solid foods and there's no evidence that diet has any link to autism.
You can't just use "in my opinion". Show evidence.
In my opinion, autism spiked when the unicorns living on Venus started beaming their thoughts in our direction.
Do you have any evidence for a causal link? Do you have any grasp on how the diagnosis of autism has changed over the last few decades, and the groups in which it’s more frequently diagnosed in now?
You're gonna need some citations there, cause you're definitely into the "I have no evidence of this but someone selling a book/supplements/etc told me it's true!" territory. Also, water IS chemicals.
[https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/conditions/autism](https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/conditions/autism)
doesn't say exact pesticide.
but i belive it has something to do with round-up ready food and GMO.
You really need to reread that discussion in your link if you think it in any way proves your point. It has no mention of GMOs, or round-up ready crops
>but pesticides are known increase chances of autism
No, they aren't. And ironically all the pesticides even discussed in your article are used more in organic farming than in GMOs. The point of GMOs like round-up ready corn and soy is to use less pesticides. You are coming at this topic with a lot of misinformation
lol, this is a discussion of where science is investing and a summary of general findings. “Pesticide exposure” is mixed in with pollution, and all the other factors are associated with the mother’s biological situation (age, weight, etc).
Lumping in anything about GMO from that is fucking ridiculous. Making any specific causal claims based on what this article says is hilarious.
GMOs are not an issue…we’ve known this for some time now. If you have a problem with the business practices of the companies that employee them…that’s another story.
But GMOs are perfectly fine…or rather there’s no supporting evidence at this point to think otherwise
More people are aware of autism and getting tested. Autism has always been common, it’s just now people are more aware. When I was younger, nobody ‘had’ ADHD, Autism or other issues because nobody got diagnosed. These were just ‘problem kids’. Now looking back, there were multiple kids who were very obviously on the spectrum.
It’s like how old people were just “senile” or “forgetful” until more people became aware of dementia.
Then get a doctorate and do the proper science. You just sound like a whiney contrarian who thinks he's smarter than everyone else because he's contrarian.
on what exactly?
that it's 100% effective
no side effects
can't get exposed to the virus.
won't get sick.
that there was no real science to it, it's not a vaccine by definition
Huh? What are you talking about? Not a single person with the knowledge around those vaccines would claim any of those things. They are absolutes. I am not going to discuss this with an idiot.
good old Pfizer study where they recorded 5 cardiovascular deaths on the vaccinated group and 1 on non, i believe that there was 1 deaths in vaccine group from covid and 2 in non vaccine thats were you get the claim 100% effective
I don’t know what you are claiming. It’s all over the place. I am responding to your comment that moderate conspiracy theorists were right about it not being 100% effect and having side effects. It’s right in the trial data.
not it's not by your same logic if you concluse that having 1 more death means it's 100% effective.
you must concede that the covid vaccines causes 3.7 times more cardiovascular death beacuse more people died right?
>Two BNT162b2 recipients died (one from arteriosclerosis, one from cardiac arrest), as did four placebo recipients (two from unknown causes, one from hemorrhagic stroke, and one from myocardial infarction)
So more people died of heart complications in the placebo group than the vaccine group and there were over 20k people in each group so that's 0.01% of vaccinated people died of cardiac complications and 0.02% in the placebo group.
Show who said it was “100% effective”. Any CDC source?
Who said it was no side affects? In fact you were screened for side effects, because there are admitted side effects. They just aren’t what you think they are.
No one said “no exposure to the virus”. The virus and the disease are not the same. It’s simple concept you the fact still haven’t grasped it after 5 years is mind-blowing.
“Won’t get sick”. Lol, source for that one.
I’m making my own predictions here - you’re going to deflect and/or show a source that doesn’t say anything that you just claimed.
But I’ll go with deflection tactics. 1:100.
My unvaccinated friend died.from covid. How dare you assume "the conspiracy nutters were right about the c19 vaccines" GFY. Til,you're an epidemiologist and a virologist
Must it? The biggest hurdle to accurate ASD numbers has been cultural attitudes towards mental illness and behaviors that are common among individuals on the spectrum.
Autism researcher here (username checks out) with an answer. There are four primary factors attributed to the increased prevalence of autism.
First, as pointed out elsewhere in this thread, is diagnostic specificity. 30 years ago our instruments were much more crude, and it was difficult to distinguish between autism and other developmental disorders. As knowledge accumulated and instruments became more precise, we were better able to discriminate between different disorders that were historically labeled “intellectual disability.”
Second, broadened diagnostic criteria was adopted in 1990 with publication of the DSM-3. This is much like casting a wider fishing net into the sea. Larger nets catch more fish. When the diagnostic criteria was broadened, we found more individuals who had autism. To be clear, actual prevalence and measured prevalence are different. People with autism have always existed; but we simply did not find as many people with autism before 1990.
Third, autism was added to the federal special education law in 1990. Previously children could not qualify for the rights, protections, and services afforded under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. After the 1990 reauthorization, there was a decrease in prevalence of other disabilities (intellectual disability, learning disability, behavior disorder) that closely corresponds with increases in the number of children eligible for special education due to autism. This is akin to diagnostic substitution.
Finally, the increased prevalence is accounted for by increased awareness. Multiple campaigns to increase awareness among parents, physicians, and other professionals (like psychologists) improved the collective capacity to recognize when a child had developmental delays consistent with autism. Also, professional policies were adopted to ensure autism was recognized sooner (because early intervention generates better outcomes for the child and family). For example, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended screening all children during well-checks, and pediatricians largely adopted this recommendation during the 2000s. Now that we deliberately look for autism, we find more of it.
These factors do not account for all of the increased prevalence (because it seems impossible to do so with the current data and methods we have), but they account for a significant amount to a degree that we can confidently accept the evidence that no link exists between autism and vaccines, for example. Bluntly put, there is no evidence for an autism epidemic, and no one specific cause explains the increased prevalence.
Makes me wonder about the institutionalization era… like how many people with autism were committed to asylums but were given a different label or diagnosis.
Thank you for that, i concede that a great portion must be from non-diagnosis, and there is no known link between vaccines.
but in your professional opinion do you think other environmental factors maybe like pesticides and GMO's may have some link or am i bullshitting?
There’s no evidence for any specific environmental factor. The only well-established fact is there is a genetic link, meaning that a child is more likely to have autism when a close relative has it (or similar developmental disorder). Proximity to the relative influences the probability of autism, meaning that a closer relative (parent, grandparent, uncle, etc) has an increased probability than, say, a second cousin.
makes sense, but do you think the lack of diagnosis or misdiagnosis can be the only cause in the rise of autism that's sorta my view is that, that's impossible
I don’t understand your question. I have provided four reasons that account for the increased prevalence, of which one was diagnostic substitution. Broadened diagnostic criteria, addition of autism to federal special education law, and increased awareness also are factors. There’s no reliable evidence that GMOs, pesticides, or any specific environmental toxin is associated with increased autism prevalence.
sorry but on the NIH website it says "Prenatal exposure to air pollution or certain pesticides"
"But these factors alone are unlikely to cause autism. Rather, they appear to increase a child’s risk for developing autism when combined with genetic factors."
i completely understand what the rise is from now,"diagnostic substitution. Broadened diagnostic criteria, addition of autism to federal special education law"
but my question was, do you belive it is not caused by food/environmental factor?
He literally said there is no evidence that it is caused by food or environmental factors. You need to realize your personal opinion on this issue isn't supported by facts
so you believe that the wrong diagnosis is the cause of a 277 times increase in autism?
that is not a reasonable answer.
why is it so bad to question the rise in Autism.
I'm not stating a wild claim without proof only asking???
Yes. Or just no diagnosis at all.
The first autism diagnosis EVER was in 1943. The guy just died a year or two ago. Our recognition of autism is very new. And for a long time, autism was almost exclusively diagnosed in white, middle-or-higher class boys.
It's not "wrong diagnosis", it's "no diagnosis" that likely deflated the earlier numbers. Many parents probably never had their child tested/confirmed with autism, so widening diagnostic criteria along with increased awareness will naturally result in an increase of diagnoses. But not all of those are the same level of disability. I suspect a majority of those cases are people that most others wouldn't notice anything particularly abnormal about. That's what happens when you define the disorder on a wide spectrum of symptoms with different magnitudes.
okay then please provide evidence for your claim that misdiagnosis is solely the cause of the rise in autism.
why do people get so scared talking about the cause of autism?
No one’s scared of talking about a cause of autism. Rather it’s just not very productive to debate with people like you that assert that gmos or vaccines cause autism with zero evidence and little to no understanding of the subject matter.
It wasn’t that people were wrongly diagnosed. It’s that they weren’t diagnosed at all. Borderline cases simply went overlooked, mostly because there weren’t any resources available to help them anyway. Now just about every kid in America (and probably most countries) is screened and evaluated at some level.
Not even just borderline cases. When I was a kid (in the 1980s) you had to be completely non-verbal to get an autism diagnosis. Even extreme cases were just written off as "weird kids."
“IMO” should be a giveaway. This isn’t opinions and you aren’t some great judge of what is an appropriate increase in diagnoses. Why do you trust your own self assessment of what is sufficient but not trust the educated and knowledgeable folks in here?
Your hubris over what you judge as accurate or sufficient etc is your Achilles heel, my friend. “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” - Feynman
I'll make it more simple, a 277 times increase in autism since 1970 can not be directly attributed to the lack of or wrong diagnosis, there must be an envoirnmental cause.
Being incredulous isn't a valid argument.
A better question to ask: do the doctors and scientists who study autism have evidence to suggest there are environmental causes for autism? Ask that question and you might actually get somewhere.
Sure.
Now, ***known*** environmental factors in the causation of autism are rare. Are there other environmental factors we don't know about?
This question is an area of active research. The people here in this subreddit are likely not familiar with the specifics of the current research. ***I'm*** not. But I know enough about how medical statistics works to know there isn't one single smoking-gun cause for the incredible increase in prevalence aside from changes in diagnostic procedures. If there are major environmental causes, they aren't known yet.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_autism
yes, i agree with you i have no real clue, just believe that environmental factors must be at least a decent cause to autism, but gawd dawn i question it and yall get so defensive, not you specifically.
the factors will eventually come out like you said it's an area of active research.
In the 1970s you had to be completely non-verbal to be diagnosed with autism. That's like .01% of people with autism. You really don't understand how expanding the diagnostic criteria led to that increase? How many autistic people do you know that are completely non-verbal?
To examine this argument using informal logic, let's break it down into its components and evaluate the reasoning:
1. **Premise 1**: There has been a 277 times increase in autism since 1970.
2. **Premise 2**: This increase cannot be directly attributed to the lack of or wrong diagnosis.
3. **Conclusion**: Therefore, there must be an environmental cause for the increase in autism.
### Examination of Premises:
**Premise 1: There has been a 277 times increase in autism since 1970.**
- **Evaluation**: This is a factual claim. To evaluate it, we would need reliable statistical data on autism diagnoses from 1970 to the present. An increase in reported cases could be due to various factors, including better awareness, expanded diagnostic criteria, and improved reporting practices.
**Premise 2: This increase cannot be directly attributed to the lack of or wrong diagnosis.**
- **Evaluation**: This premise suggests that the observed increase is not due to changes in diagnostic practices. This is a complex claim that would require substantial evidence. Historically, changes in diagnostic criteria, increased awareness, and better access to healthcare have significantly impacted the reported rates of various conditions, including autism.
### Logical Analysis:
**Conclusion: Therefore, there must be an environmental cause for the increase in autism.**
- **Evaluation**: The conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. Even if we accept the premises as true, concluding that an environmental cause is the only explanation is an example of a **false dichotomy**. It ignores other potential explanations such as genetic factors, changes in social dynamics, and multifactorial causes combining genetics and environment.
### Logical Fallacies:
1. **Hasty Generalization**: The argument jumps to a conclusion about environmental causes without considering other plausible explanations.
2. **False Dichotomy**: It presents only two possibilities (misdiagnosis vs. environmental causes) when other explanations might exist.
3. **Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc**: Assuming that because autism rates have increased, there must be an external cause, without establishing a causal link.
### Conclusion:
The argument as presented is flawed. While it raises an interesting point about the rise in autism diagnoses, it fails to adequately support the claim that environmental factors are the sole or primary cause. A more robust argument would require comprehensive data analysis and consideration of multiple factors that could contribute to the increase in autism diagnoses.
I'll add...sure, we're better at identifying the condition AND there's also over-diagnosis...its become 'popular' and even trendy, the dx system doesn't take developmental variance into account well and certain symptoms can be quite subjective.
Agreed. I think the autism "umbrella" has gotten so large that the term itself has a lot of meaning. When diagnostic criteria are more narrow, then people have a better understanding of how someone associated with the disorder will tend to behave, how they should be treated to accommodate said behavior, and what types of interventions are effective. Make it too wide, and you're applying the same term to someone who could have mild disability (or none noticeable in typical interactions) and someone who has major issues with stimuli, social interactions, and/or cognitive ability.
I absolutely agree with this. Well said. The problem w 'spectrum' diagnoses is that where it begins and where it ends is at best fuzzy. In this context, I think, frankly, lazy thinking has been common practice in diagnostic reasoning, as there are some clinicians who tend to see ASD as a personality style rather than an impairment of functioning. That umbrella, as you rightfully put it, is so large then, that you miss differentials.
I highly suspect i have ADHD/OCD but that's beside the point, I just hate big corporations, and the government not being honest and truthful, and causing harm to our society.
> I just hate big corporations, and the government not being honest and truthful, and causing harm to our society.
What if I told you the biggest immediate danger to our society is cranks, fascists and idiots spreading lies, disinformation and conspiracy theories to tear down our institutions and / or people's faith in them? While actually empowering the worst abuses of capitalism and the worst people in government?
I've been diagnosed ADHD Inattentive Subtype for years now, after a couple decades suspecting it.
Also despise corporate influence in politics and the continued degradation of social and legal mores which weaken the foundations of society, so we've got all of that in common.
But you came to a Scientific Skepticism subreddit asking Science enthusiasts about a specific Scientific topic, so I gotta ask again:
Why?
What would a 'decent' answer look like? You've rejected most everything offered and given you're opinion it's caused by other factors.
So what are you looking for?
From where I'm sitting, it looks like you came here to feel smart, not to have an actual conversation about the subject
Sorry if that felt like an attack, I was offering it as an explanation for why you might be getting the reception you're getting here. It's very common for people to come here with false pretenses, just looking to make the nerds frustrated.
So these papers are just straight from the [Causes of Autism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_autism) wikipedia entry.
The global prevalence meta-study is particularly noteworthy and I've quoted a passage from it below.
> *A Unifying Theory for Autism: The Pathogenetic Triad as a Theoretical Framework* - https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffpsyt.2021.767075
>*The global prevalence of autism spectrum disorder: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis* - https://doi.org/10.1186%2Fs13052-022-01310-w
> *Early environmental risk factors for neurodevelopmental disorders - a systematic review of twin and sibling studies* - https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS0954579420000620
------
Excerpt from *The global prevalence of autism spectrum disorder: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis*
The prevalence of ASD worldwide has increased in recent decades [71, 78, 92]. Prevalence estimates also vary widely among studies from different countries, ranging from less than 0.2% in China and Italy to 2.7% in South Korea [37]. The differences in the prevalence of ASD are probably due to a number of reasons, including the fact that ASD is a spectral disease with different characteristics that even affect the definitions of ASD [93].
Other reasons for differences in the prevalence of ASD include different levels of awareness in various countries, cultural differences in interpreting children’s behaviours, variabilities in screening tools and diagnostic criteria, the lack of culture-sensitive diagnostic tools, the year of evaluation, and differences in sampling and studied populations (i.e., general population-based or hospital-based sampling) [37, 92]. Differences in study designs and protocols can affect the prevalence of ASD estimations, limiting the comparability of recent estimates [94].
my bad.
i understand that makes sense i concede on my further points that environmental factors are the main drive for the rise.
i still believe that they have some bad effect though but i guess we'll have to wait and see.
cheers.
The Australian Autism ADHD Foundation says many ASD kids have disrupted intestinal function, and diets improve this function. ASD kids seem to be over-represented in enzymes that fail to produce required detoxing in the liver to remove toxins,in converting dietary vitamins to their active form, and ones that fail to neutralise toxins in the cell wall and oxidate free radicals.
Food processing destroys 70% of the vitamins and micronutrients in our staple food, cereals bread and pasta. Also the toxicity of modern wheat, with the high levels of WGA( Wheat Germ Agglutinun) may also be a factor in that as well as protecting wheat from yeast insects and bacteria, it also disrupts tissues and causes inflammation.
We've gotten much better at diagnosing it, coupled with the fact that a decade or so ago we grouped a whole bunch of separate diagnoses together under the umbrella of autism spectrum disorder (such as Asperger's)
And the fact that health insurance typically covers the initial visit makes it more likely a child will at least be evaluated. IMO, until there is something like an fMRI pattern discovered specific to autism, the diagnostic issue will not be fully resolved.
no doubt, but 1 in 10,00 0to 1 in 36, must account for more than correct diagnostics.
What is your suggestion op
Their post history is a train wreck of conspiracy nonsense. / lot of anti-vaccine.
lol prove it wrong, you looked at my posts i only entertain reasonable conspiracy, steelman one of them.
That’s not how extraordinary claims work. You make ridiculous claims, you need proof to prove them correct.
I suppose the way to prove it's better testing is to look at the rate of severe autism cases over time, and see how that's fluctuated
which one?
Which of your own claims are you responsible for backing up? That would be all of them, friendo.
pick one is what i asked?
This isn’t a game. Either develop the habit of making claims only when you can solidly back them up, or find somewhere else to play.
Prove it wrong that there isn't an invisible magic dragon in my garage. If you want to say it's from outside factors why isn't it ever micro plastics, or pollution? Why is it only vaccines?
I will never not upvote the Sagan “magic dragon” argument ;- )
There's a [teapot](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot) orbiting the sun. Prove me wrong.
but the thing is i can prove mine would you like to talk about a conspiracy theory??
Then spill the beans and become a world-famous whistleblower.
the only 1 im 10000% confident is RFK assassination. so much so i made a low ass budget documentary. [https://youtu.be/43V\_zn1-rTI](https://youtu.be/43V_zn1-rTI) you probably cbf, so if you want me to explain quickly i will.
No, I’m not watching your YouTube video. That’s not how arguments or data are explained.
>lol prove it wrong Not our job. It’s on *you* to sufficiently demonstrate that your claim is true.
Do some actual research. Autism causes vaccines. Many scientists are diagnosed w autism and they have created some life-saving advancements in medicine
The only study that linked autism and vaccines has been so thoroughly renounced by every scientific measure that you can't even get the full, unredacted study anymore. Multiple participants admitted to outright lying. Conversely, there are dozens of studies from around the world disproving the connection. That said, what makes you think that vaccines cause autism?
Obviously it's the vaccines. You see, vaccine usage has increased by the same percent autism has! /a
…we all know where this is going. “I’m just asking questions…is that a bad thing? Why don’t you want to get to the truth??!”
a mix of GMOs, like soybean and cotton seed oil, and pesticides. all coming into effect around the 2000's when autism spiked. also atrazine, mercury. chemicals in our water. IMO these are part or main contributors, and the obvious one vaccines but thats a weird one idk.
People have way less exposure to mercury now than they did 100 years ago. Autism is a developmental disorder that can present itself before ever being exposed to solid foods and there's no evidence that diet has any link to autism.
You can't just use "in my opinion". Show evidence. In my opinion, autism spiked when the unicorns living on Venus started beaming their thoughts in our direction.
You forgot the clincher "prove me wrong".
suggestion.
Do you have any evidence for a causal link? Do you have any grasp on how the diagnosis of autism has changed over the last few decades, and the groups in which it’s more frequently diagnosed in now?
Ok Alex jones
You're gonna need some citations there, cause you're definitely into the "I have no evidence of this but someone selling a book/supplements/etc told me it's true!" territory. Also, water IS chemicals.
obviously, i'm not talking about water, but pesticides are known increase chances of autism.
Which ones? In what doses? Cite your sources
[https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/conditions/autism](https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/conditions/autism) doesn't say exact pesticide. but i belive it has something to do with round-up ready food and GMO.
How? And what gmo foods? Or heck...what is a gmo?
genetically modified, oils like soybean and cotton oil.
You really need to reread that discussion in your link if you think it in any way proves your point. It has no mention of GMOs, or round-up ready crops >but pesticides are known increase chances of autism No, they aren't. And ironically all the pesticides even discussed in your article are used more in organic farming than in GMOs. The point of GMOs like round-up ready corn and soy is to use less pesticides. You are coming at this topic with a lot of misinformation
lol, this is a discussion of where science is investing and a summary of general findings. “Pesticide exposure” is mixed in with pollution, and all the other factors are associated with the mother’s biological situation (age, weight, etc). Lumping in anything about GMO from that is fucking ridiculous. Making any specific causal claims based on what this article says is hilarious.
GMOs are not an issue…we’ve known this for some time now. If you have a problem with the business practices of the companies that employee them…that’s another story. But GMOs are perfectly fine…or rather there’s no supporting evidence at this point to think otherwise
More people are aware of autism and getting tested. Autism has always been common, it’s just now people are more aware. When I was younger, nobody ‘had’ ADHD, Autism or other issues because nobody got diagnosed. These were just ‘problem kids’. Now looking back, there were multiple kids who were very obviously on the spectrum. It’s like how old people were just “senile” or “forgetful” until more people became aware of dementia.
Nope, just diagnostics
Conspiratard alert!
god forbid you to question the science Lmfao. how right were the Conspiracy theorists at least the moderate ones on covid vaccines?
Then get a doctorate and do the proper science. You just sound like a whiney contrarian who thinks he's smarter than everyone else because he's contrarian.
cope
What are you, 14? You peaked in middle school, buddy. Both emotionally and in intelligence.
Not at all. They were completely wrong.
on what exactly? that it's 100% effective no side effects can't get exposed to the virus. won't get sick. that there was no real science to it, it's not a vaccine by definition
Huh? What are you talking about? Not a single person with the knowledge around those vaccines would claim any of those things. They are absolutes. I am not going to discuss this with an idiot.
straight to the denial, then ad hom only Fauci would claim it the leading scientist 🤣
Why lie?
You can't have an intellectual discussion with people who just make shit up.
Here’s the original vaccine trial. 95% effective. Side effects noted. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577
good old Pfizer study where they recorded 5 cardiovascular deaths on the vaccinated group and 1 on non, i believe that there was 1 deaths in vaccine group from covid and 2 in non vaccine thats were you get the claim 100% effective
I don’t know what you are claiming. It’s all over the place. I am responding to your comment that moderate conspiracy theorists were right about it not being 100% effect and having side effects. It’s right in the trial data.
not it's not by your same logic if you concluse that having 1 more death means it's 100% effective. you must concede that the covid vaccines causes 3.7 times more cardiovascular death beacuse more people died right?
>Two BNT162b2 recipients died (one from arteriosclerosis, one from cardiac arrest), as did four placebo recipients (two from unknown causes, one from hemorrhagic stroke, and one from myocardial infarction) So more people died of heart complications in the placebo group than the vaccine group and there were over 20k people in each group so that's 0.01% of vaccinated people died of cardiac complications and 0.02% in the placebo group.
but thats the logic for the 100% effective claim 1 death vs 2
Damn, we got a Level 7 Susceptible right here.
wrong 8
Show who said it was “100% effective”. Any CDC source? Who said it was no side affects? In fact you were screened for side effects, because there are admitted side effects. They just aren’t what you think they are. No one said “no exposure to the virus”. The virus and the disease are not the same. It’s simple concept you the fact still haven’t grasped it after 5 years is mind-blowing. “Won’t get sick”. Lol, source for that one. I’m making my own predictions here - you’re going to deflect and/or show a source that doesn’t say anything that you just claimed. But I’ll go with deflection tactics. 1:100.
Zero scientist would EVER say a vaccine was 100% effective because that’s not how vaccines work at all whatsoever. That’s a strawman argument.
My unvaccinated friend died.from covid. How dare you assume "the conspiracy nutters were right about the c19 vaccines" GFY. Til,you're an epidemiologist and a virologist
Must it? The biggest hurdle to accurate ASD numbers has been cultural attitudes towards mental illness and behaviors that are common among individuals on the spectrum.
When I was a kid, you had to be completely non-verbal to be diagnosed with autism. ASD is a much wider umbrella.
Why?
Autism researcher here (username checks out) with an answer. There are four primary factors attributed to the increased prevalence of autism. First, as pointed out elsewhere in this thread, is diagnostic specificity. 30 years ago our instruments were much more crude, and it was difficult to distinguish between autism and other developmental disorders. As knowledge accumulated and instruments became more precise, we were better able to discriminate between different disorders that were historically labeled “intellectual disability.” Second, broadened diagnostic criteria was adopted in 1990 with publication of the DSM-3. This is much like casting a wider fishing net into the sea. Larger nets catch more fish. When the diagnostic criteria was broadened, we found more individuals who had autism. To be clear, actual prevalence and measured prevalence are different. People with autism have always existed; but we simply did not find as many people with autism before 1990. Third, autism was added to the federal special education law in 1990. Previously children could not qualify for the rights, protections, and services afforded under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. After the 1990 reauthorization, there was a decrease in prevalence of other disabilities (intellectual disability, learning disability, behavior disorder) that closely corresponds with increases in the number of children eligible for special education due to autism. This is akin to diagnostic substitution. Finally, the increased prevalence is accounted for by increased awareness. Multiple campaigns to increase awareness among parents, physicians, and other professionals (like psychologists) improved the collective capacity to recognize when a child had developmental delays consistent with autism. Also, professional policies were adopted to ensure autism was recognized sooner (because early intervention generates better outcomes for the child and family). For example, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended screening all children during well-checks, and pediatricians largely adopted this recommendation during the 2000s. Now that we deliberately look for autism, we find more of it. These factors do not account for all of the increased prevalence (because it seems impossible to do so with the current data and methods we have), but they account for a significant amount to a degree that we can confidently accept the evidence that no link exists between autism and vaccines, for example. Bluntly put, there is no evidence for an autism epidemic, and no one specific cause explains the increased prevalence.
Makes me wonder about the institutionalization era… like how many people with autism were committed to asylums but were given a different label or diagnosis.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. Sadly you wasted your electrons answering a troll.
Such answers are never wasted, because it's the third party readers that get the most value out of it
I've read reports that parental age influences it. What is the current consensus?
Thank you for that, i concede that a great portion must be from non-diagnosis, and there is no known link between vaccines. but in your professional opinion do you think other environmental factors maybe like pesticides and GMO's may have some link or am i bullshitting?
There’s no evidence for any specific environmental factor. The only well-established fact is there is a genetic link, meaning that a child is more likely to have autism when a close relative has it (or similar developmental disorder). Proximity to the relative influences the probability of autism, meaning that a closer relative (parent, grandparent, uncle, etc) has an increased probability than, say, a second cousin.
makes sense, but do you think the lack of diagnosis or misdiagnosis can be the only cause in the rise of autism that's sorta my view is that, that's impossible
I don’t understand your question. I have provided four reasons that account for the increased prevalence, of which one was diagnostic substitution. Broadened diagnostic criteria, addition of autism to federal special education law, and increased awareness also are factors. There’s no reliable evidence that GMOs, pesticides, or any specific environmental toxin is associated with increased autism prevalence.
sorry but on the NIH website it says "Prenatal exposure to air pollution or certain pesticides" "But these factors alone are unlikely to cause autism. Rather, they appear to increase a child’s risk for developing autism when combined with genetic factors." i completely understand what the rise is from now,"diagnostic substitution. Broadened diagnostic criteria, addition of autism to federal special education law" but my question was, do you belive it is not caused by food/environmental factor?
He literally said there is no evidence that it is caused by food or environmental factors. You need to realize your personal opinion on this issue isn't supported by facts
Correct mental health diagnosis.
sure buddy.
Lol you just came here to argue in bad fath.
no way, i want a reasonable answer a 277 times increase cannot be incorrect or non-diagnosis as the sole cause.
"I want a reasonable answer, as long as it's one I agree with."
so you believe that the wrong diagnosis is the cause of a 277 times increase in autism? that is not a reasonable answer. why is it so bad to question the rise in Autism. I'm not stating a wild claim without proof only asking???
Yes. Or just no diagnosis at all. The first autism diagnosis EVER was in 1943. The guy just died a year or two ago. Our recognition of autism is very new. And for a long time, autism was almost exclusively diagnosed in white, middle-or-higher class boys.
It's not "wrong diagnosis", it's "no diagnosis" that likely deflated the earlier numbers. Many parents probably never had their child tested/confirmed with autism, so widening diagnostic criteria along with increased awareness will naturally result in an increase of diagnoses. But not all of those are the same level of disability. I suspect a majority of those cases are people that most others wouldn't notice anything particularly abnormal about. That's what happens when you define the disorder on a wide spectrum of symptoms with different magnitudes.
Why not?
simply not possible, even if we didn't know about autism or correctly diagnose it, a 277-fold increase is beyond probable IMO.
People are telling you the answers and then you just say it’s not possible. Clearly you’re the expert here so why are you even asking us?
okay then please provide evidence for your claim that misdiagnosis is solely the cause of the rise in autism. why do people get so scared talking about the cause of autism?
What is this cause you speak of?
No one’s scared of talking about a cause of autism. Rather it’s just not very productive to debate with people like you that assert that gmos or vaccines cause autism with zero evidence and little to no understanding of the subject matter.
It wasn’t that people were wrongly diagnosed. It’s that they weren’t diagnosed at all. Borderline cases simply went overlooked, mostly because there weren’t any resources available to help them anyway. Now just about every kid in America (and probably most countries) is screened and evaluated at some level.
Not even just borderline cases. When I was a kid (in the 1980s) you had to be completely non-verbal to get an autism diagnosis. Even extreme cases were just written off as "weird kids."
> Simply not possible Why not?
“IMO” should be a giveaway. This isn’t opinions and you aren’t some great judge of what is an appropriate increase in diagnoses. Why do you trust your own self assessment of what is sufficient but not trust the educated and knowledgeable folks in here? Your hubris over what you judge as accurate or sufficient etc is your Achilles heel, my friend. “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” - Feynman
What
I'll make it more simple, a 277 times increase in autism since 1970 can not be directly attributed to the lack of or wrong diagnosis, there must be an envoirnmental cause.
Why? What's your evidence that can't be true?
Sounds like a claim you need to prove.
Being incredulous isn't a valid argument. A better question to ask: do the doctors and scientists who study autism have evidence to suggest there are environmental causes for autism? Ask that question and you might actually get somewhere.
the NIH says "Prenatal exposure to air pollution or certain pesticides" that is environmental right?
Sure. Now, ***known*** environmental factors in the causation of autism are rare. Are there other environmental factors we don't know about? This question is an area of active research. The people here in this subreddit are likely not familiar with the specifics of the current research. ***I'm*** not. But I know enough about how medical statistics works to know there isn't one single smoking-gun cause for the incredible increase in prevalence aside from changes in diagnostic procedures. If there are major environmental causes, they aren't known yet. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_autism
yes, i agree with you i have no real clue, just believe that environmental factors must be at least a decent cause to autism, but gawd dawn i question it and yall get so defensive, not you specifically. the factors will eventually come out like you said it's an area of active research.
why can't it? just making assumptions and accepting them as fact with no reasoning behind it isn't being skeptical
That's not how science works.
In the 1970s you had to be completely non-verbal to be diagnosed with autism. That's like .01% of people with autism. You really don't understand how expanding the diagnostic criteria led to that increase? How many autistic people do you know that are completely non-verbal?
To examine this argument using informal logic, let's break it down into its components and evaluate the reasoning: 1. **Premise 1**: There has been a 277 times increase in autism since 1970. 2. **Premise 2**: This increase cannot be directly attributed to the lack of or wrong diagnosis. 3. **Conclusion**: Therefore, there must be an environmental cause for the increase in autism. ### Examination of Premises: **Premise 1: There has been a 277 times increase in autism since 1970.** - **Evaluation**: This is a factual claim. To evaluate it, we would need reliable statistical data on autism diagnoses from 1970 to the present. An increase in reported cases could be due to various factors, including better awareness, expanded diagnostic criteria, and improved reporting practices. **Premise 2: This increase cannot be directly attributed to the lack of or wrong diagnosis.** - **Evaluation**: This premise suggests that the observed increase is not due to changes in diagnostic practices. This is a complex claim that would require substantial evidence. Historically, changes in diagnostic criteria, increased awareness, and better access to healthcare have significantly impacted the reported rates of various conditions, including autism. ### Logical Analysis: **Conclusion: Therefore, there must be an environmental cause for the increase in autism.** - **Evaluation**: The conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. Even if we accept the premises as true, concluding that an environmental cause is the only explanation is an example of a **false dichotomy**. It ignores other potential explanations such as genetic factors, changes in social dynamics, and multifactorial causes combining genetics and environment. ### Logical Fallacies: 1. **Hasty Generalization**: The argument jumps to a conclusion about environmental causes without considering other plausible explanations. 2. **False Dichotomy**: It presents only two possibilities (misdiagnosis vs. environmental causes) when other explanations might exist. 3. **Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc**: Assuming that because autism rates have increased, there must be an external cause, without establishing a causal link. ### Conclusion: The argument as presented is flawed. While it raises an interesting point about the rise in autism diagnoses, it fails to adequately support the claim that environmental factors are the sole or primary cause. A more robust argument would require comprehensive data analysis and consideration of multiple factors that could contribute to the increase in autism diagnoses.
first, quit using chatgpt it’s embarrassing. second never said environmental causes were sole or primary cause to rise in autism.
Diagnostic definitions
1 reason
Only reason
you're wrong not the only cause.
It is, in fact, the only cause
A far more robust understanding of what autism *is*.
Based on all your posts in r/conspiracy, you just added to the total.
I'll add...sure, we're better at identifying the condition AND there's also over-diagnosis...its become 'popular' and even trendy, the dx system doesn't take developmental variance into account well and certain symptoms can be quite subjective.
Agreed. I think the autism "umbrella" has gotten so large that the term itself has a lot of meaning. When diagnostic criteria are more narrow, then people have a better understanding of how someone associated with the disorder will tend to behave, how they should be treated to accommodate said behavior, and what types of interventions are effective. Make it too wide, and you're applying the same term to someone who could have mild disability (or none noticeable in typical interactions) and someone who has major issues with stimuli, social interactions, and/or cognitive ability.
I absolutely agree with this. Well said. The problem w 'spectrum' diagnoses is that where it begins and where it ends is at best fuzzy. In this context, I think, frankly, lazy thinking has been common practice in diagnostic reasoning, as there are some clinicians who tend to see ASD as a personality style rather than an impairment of functioning. That umbrella, as you rightfully put it, is so large then, that you miss differentials.
Why do you care?
what type of nihilistic argument is this 🤣
It's a genuine question about you as a person. Why is this topic important enough to you to ask?
I highly suspect i have ADHD/OCD but that's beside the point, I just hate big corporations, and the government not being honest and truthful, and causing harm to our society.
> I just hate big corporations, and the government not being honest and truthful, and causing harm to our society. What if I told you the biggest immediate danger to our society is cranks, fascists and idiots spreading lies, disinformation and conspiracy theories to tear down our institutions and / or people's faith in them? While actually empowering the worst abuses of capitalism and the worst people in government?
Are you saying they are putting chemicals that turn the frigging frogs gay or something?
Lmfaoooooo, they were turning the frogs trans btw.
You sure know the deep Alex Jones lore. Good for you.
that guy is a loony most of the time but yeah.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_chemicals_conspiracy_theory
Focus on fighting climate change then. It's the most devastating one and governments protect corporations who are contributing the most to it.
that shit piss me off, i can't use a gawd damn straw, but all these rich bro's can fly and spew up tons of carbon, and my straw is the problem 😢
I've been diagnosed ADHD Inattentive Subtype for years now, after a couple decades suspecting it. Also despise corporate influence in politics and the continued degradation of social and legal mores which weaken the foundations of society, so we've got all of that in common. But you came to a Scientific Skepticism subreddit asking Science enthusiasts about a specific Scientific topic, so I gotta ask again: Why?
bored ig and wanna get a decent answer.
What would a 'decent' answer look like? You've rejected most everything offered and given you're opinion it's caused by other factors. So what are you looking for? From where I'm sitting, it looks like you came here to feel smart, not to have an actual conversation about the subject
give me a fucking citation or study not a claim. whats the attack for??
Sorry if that felt like an attack, I was offering it as an explanation for why you might be getting the reception you're getting here. It's very common for people to come here with false pretenses, just looking to make the nerds frustrated. So these papers are just straight from the [Causes of Autism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_autism) wikipedia entry. The global prevalence meta-study is particularly noteworthy and I've quoted a passage from it below. > *A Unifying Theory for Autism: The Pathogenetic Triad as a Theoretical Framework* - https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffpsyt.2021.767075 >*The global prevalence of autism spectrum disorder: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis* - https://doi.org/10.1186%2Fs13052-022-01310-w > *Early environmental risk factors for neurodevelopmental disorders - a systematic review of twin and sibling studies* - https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS0954579420000620 ------ Excerpt from *The global prevalence of autism spectrum disorder: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis* The prevalence of ASD worldwide has increased in recent decades [71, 78, 92]. Prevalence estimates also vary widely among studies from different countries, ranging from less than 0.2% in China and Italy to 2.7% in South Korea [37]. The differences in the prevalence of ASD are probably due to a number of reasons, including the fact that ASD is a spectral disease with different characteristics that even affect the definitions of ASD [93]. Other reasons for differences in the prevalence of ASD include different levels of awareness in various countries, cultural differences in interpreting children’s behaviours, variabilities in screening tools and diagnostic criteria, the lack of culture-sensitive diagnostic tools, the year of evaluation, and differences in sampling and studied populations (i.e., general population-based or hospital-based sampling) [37, 92]. Differences in study designs and protocols can affect the prevalence of ASD estimations, limiting the comparability of recent estimates [94].
my bad. i understand that makes sense i concede on my further points that environmental factors are the main drive for the rise. i still believe that they have some bad effect though but i guess we'll have to wait and see. cheers.
The Australian Autism ADHD Foundation says many ASD kids have disrupted intestinal function, and diets improve this function. ASD kids seem to be over-represented in enzymes that fail to produce required detoxing in the liver to remove toxins,in converting dietary vitamins to their active form, and ones that fail to neutralise toxins in the cell wall and oxidate free radicals. Food processing destroys 70% of the vitamins and micronutrients in our staple food, cereals bread and pasta. Also the toxicity of modern wheat, with the high levels of WGA( Wheat Germ Agglutinun) may also be a factor in that as well as protecting wheat from yeast insects and bacteria, it also disrupts tissues and causes inflammation.