Autism, Neanderthals, and the risk of racism / eugenics

[Canadian Bluebeer]

I don't think most people here are against research looking at environmental causes of autism. The pushback you're receiving is the "Non existent in the 60s." statement and that your post seems to be generally in support of the article that RFK seems to think he found the cause of autism. RFK has repeatedly shown himself to be unfit to lead HHS. Just one example is that he said he didn't know how many Americans have died of Covid. Another example from the article:



Disregard for research standards so RFK can deliver a quick political win is not the way to do research.

I said I stood corrected on the non-existent part. ( although, I don't believe anyone called it that back then)

They've been doing the research for years already. What have they found?
Is big pharma going to get a spanking over this? ( I'll shed no tears if they do btw)

I'm always leery about "studies show.." and "research says ... "
Who paid for it, what were/are the parameters, and of course who stands to gain from the results/conclusions?
Not saying it's all fake or whatever, but then again don't forget "studies show that smoking tobacco is good for you",
and the never to be sufficiently damned thalidomide studies that said it was safe. (it most certainly was NOT)

Disregarding standars (and common sense) for a quick political win knows no boundaries. BOTH sides do that.

(just in some haven't figured it out, I don't have a high regard for politicians in general. Of any stripe)

 

[danjuno]

They've been doing the research for years already. What have they found?
Is big pharma going to get a spanking over this? ( I'll shed no tears if they do btw)

Loaded questions.

I'm always leery about "studies show.." and "research says ... "
Who paid for it, what were/are the parameters, and of course who stands to gain from the results/conclusions?
Not saying it's all fake or whatever, but then again don't forget "studies show that smoking tobacco is good for you",
and the never to be sufficiently damned thalidomide studies that said it was safe. (it most certainly was NOT)

Criticism of someone else does not prove you right.

Disregarding standars (and common sense) for a quick political win knows no boundaries. BOTH sides do that.

(just in some haven't figured it out, I don't have a high regard for politicians in general. Of any stripe)

The laddy doth protest too much. Folks can look at your posting history on here and judge for themselves.

 

[Evie]

In no particular order, some points on likely contributors to autism being more diagnosed without an actual increase in number of actual cases.

1. The expansion of the autism diagnosis is an ongoing phenomenon. The de-listing of Asperger as a separate syndrome and the transfer of Autism to Autism Spectrum is less than a decade old (2018 International Classification of Disease, 2022 DSM-V-TR); it's been even less than that since it was officially merged with Autism in Autism Spectrum Disorder.

2. Social perception of autism have also changed. The idea that an autism diagnosis automatically gets you shipped to a special ed class where you will be mostly kept away from normal children is waning, whereas more and more parents are aware that even if their kid is not that limited, they still have to deal with limits, and, the diagnosis may still give them access to tool and ressources that will greatly help them in overcoming those, rather than getting them sentenced to a support system that only serves to limit them and keep them away from "normal" people. This means that for many peo

3. Knowledge of autism has changed. Well into the 90s and 2000s (particularly with Asperger still on the diagnosist list as a separate thing), the perception of autism was heavily based on the heavier case, with strong limitations that made them require constant assistance, etc ; lighter cases would likely never even get refered to evaluation. As younger generation of parents and educators become more and more aware that autism is a spectrum that covers much less limiting cases (and of the fact that Asperger is part of that spectrum), they are far more likely to consider getting their children evaluated if they show potential signs.

4. Many, many, many, many adults, forced out of their routines (ie, compensation strategies) by the Covid-19 pandemic, were forced to come to term with and investigate the possibility of their own neurodivergence, including autism. A parent having recently figured out (or looked into) the possibility that they may be autistic is far more likely to look into the same possibility for their children.

5. The world is becoming increasingly busy, noisy, full of unrelenting sensory stimulation. Autistic people are well known to experience significant issues with sensory stimulation (and there is good consideration that the vast majority of autistic traits derive from this lessened ability to handle sensory overstimulation ; in an ever-increasingly-stimulating world, autistic people's ability to cope and not display their symptoms are going to grow ever smaller, and thus, more people are likely to show more symptoms.

Every single one of those factors is liable to cause an increase in diagnosis. All of them combined are likely to cause a significant increase, without the need for a change in actual number of cases.

Now, as to parroting Kennedy approach, and why doing so earns you nothing but scorn :

1. Kennedy is presenting autism as an absolute evil ; a disease that destroy otherwise "normal" children. To do so, he takes the popular perception of the heaviest cases of autism, and equate all autism to that. He goes and say things like "And these are kids who will never pay taxes, they’ll never hold a job, they’ll never play baseball, they’ll never write a poem, they’ll never go out on a date. Many of them will never use a toilet unassisted.” when talking about autism, without any qualifier. This is the view of autism that underlie the idea of "we have to find why there are so many cases."

2. While some autistic kids may never do one or another of these, and a small percentage of us may never do any of them, the vast majority of us have done a number of these things, and a lot of us, myself included, have, in fact, done every single one of them. I DO have a job. I DO pay taxes. I played baseball as a kid. I DO write - extensively, as a matter of fact (and my autism is a contributor, not a limiter, in my ability to do so). I have gone on dates, and DO have a partner currently. And I am, in fact, properly potty-trained and do not require assistance.

3. In other words, Kennedy's entire sales pitch for his war-on-autism is bases on a sleight of hand, conflating the total number of cases with autism (and increase thereof) with the significantly smaller percentage of worst-case scenario cases of autism. He's not the first person to do it - it's a common sleight of hand for trying to raise alarm about any given medical condition - but that does not make it right. Or accurate.

4. In doing so, and in going a long way toward restoring the image of autistic = incapable of existing in society, Kennedy is doing active harm to autistic people, by restoring much of the stigma against us that had begun to diminish. This in turn means that people will less be able to access the diagnosis (because stigma) and support (because of a perception that support is wasted on them anyway) they need.

5. As a result of which, parroting RFK jr.'s views or approving of his crusade amount to contributing to that active harm.

 

[BenitoChavez]

They've been doing the research for years already. What have they found?

A lot. A quick google search can provide you with some info. Here's a link I found:
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/autism-spectrum-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20352928

Causes​

Autism spectrum disorder has no single known cause. Since the condition is complex and symptoms and severity vary, there could be many causes. Both genetics and the environment may play a role.

• Genetics. Several genes seem to be involved in autism spectrum disorder. For some children, autism spectrum disorder can be related to a genetic condition, such as Rett syndrome or fragile X syndrome. For other children, genetic changes, also known as mutations, may raise the risk of autism spectrum disorder. Still other genes may affect the way that the brain develops or brain cells communicate. Or those genes may affect how severe symptoms are. While some genetic changes seem to be inherited, others aren't.
• Environmental factors. Researchers are exploring whether factors such as viral infections, medicines, complications during pregnancy or air pollutants play a role in causing autism spectrum disorder.

No link between vaccines and autism spectrum disorder​

One of the greatest controversies in autism spectrum disorder centers on whether there is a link between the condition and childhood vaccines. Many well-done research studies show no link between autism spectrum disorder and any vaccines. In fact, the original study that started the debate years ago was retracted due to poor design and questionable research methods.


When your child doesn't get vaccines, your child and other children could catch and spread viruses that cause serious diseases. These diseases include whooping cough, also known as pertussis, as well as measles, mumps and others.

Risk factors​

The number of children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder is rising. It isn't clear whether this is due to better ways to diagnose and report the condition, a real increase in the number of children with the condition, or both.


Autism spectrum disorder affects children of all races and nationalities. But certain factors raise a child's risk, including:

• Your child's sex. Boys are about four times more likely to be diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder than girls are. While boys may get autism spectrum disorder more often than girls, it's possible that some girls aren't diagnosed.
• Family history. Families who have one child with autism spectrum disorder have a higher risk of having another child with the condition. Sometimes parents or relatives of a child with autism spectrum disorder may have minor problems being social or communicating, or they may show certain behaviors typical of the condition.
• Other conditions. Children with certain medical conditions have a higher risk of autism spectrum disorder or symptoms similar to autism. Examples include fragile X syndrome, an inherited condition that causes intellectual disability; tuberous sclerosis, a condition in which benign tumors develop in the brain; and Rett syndrome, a genetic condition that almost always occurs in girls and causes slowing of head growth, intellectual disability and loss of purposeful hand use.
• Early birth. Babies born before 26 weeks of a parent's pregnancy may have a higher risk of autism spectrum disorder.
• Parents' ages. There may be a connection between children born to older parents and autism spectrum disorder. But more research is needed to show this link.

Is big pharma going to get a spanking over this? ( I'll shed no tears if they do btw)

That assumes Tylenol or any other medication has been shown to be a cause.

I'm always leery about "studies show.." and "research says ... "
Who paid for it, what were/are the parameters, and of course who stands to gain from the results/conclusions?

Being a skeptic is good! If the information is important enough, you should verify it from multiple trustworthy sources. Do you consider RFK a trustworthy source?

 

[Theov]

A lot. A quick google search can provide you with some info. Here's a link I found:
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/autism-spectrum-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20352928




That assumes Tylenol or any other medication has been shown to be a cause




Being a skeptic is good! If the information is important enough, you should verify it from multiple trustworthy sources. Do you consider RFK a trustworthy source?

You think RFK did the research? He's not the source.

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't think you can have a sensible midpoint with racism.

How about mocking the French/British/Americans in fine comedy?

 

[BenitoChavez]

You think RFK did the research? He's not the source.

He’s the head of Health and Human Services. He can pressure/fire the researchers or their bosses to come up with the result he wants. He’s the one with final say regarding what goes into the report.

 

[Theov]

He’s the head of Health and Human Services. He can pressure/fire the researchers or their bosses to come up with the result he wants. He’s the one with final say regarding what goes into the report.

That could well be, but that doesn't mean he has.

That's why there's peer review and replication of studies.
We will see.

As a rule of thumb, every drug has adverse effects. So taking them during pregnancy is unadvised.

 

[danjuno]

That could well be, but that doesn't mean he has.

The administration's prior behavior is proof enough.

 

[Canadian Bluebeer]

Loaded questions.

Criticism of someone else does not prove you right.

The laddy doth protest too much. Folks can look at your posting history on here and judge for themselves.

Not really. 1st question was that, just a question.
2nd... well, a poke at pharma, yes.

Doesn't make me wrong either.

that last part.. lol. that's all yer gonna get. (nice try though!)

A lot. A quick google search can provide you with some info. Here's a link I found:
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/autism-spectrum-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20352928



That assumes Tylenol or any other medication has been shown to be a cause.


Being a skeptic is good! If the information is important enough, you should verify it from multiple trustworthy sources. Do you consider RFK a trustworthy source?

I've got no clue if Tylenol is a cause, or 'the' cause, or increases the chance...etc.

My ONLY point was that SOMETHING is causing it, and the numbers to rise. People just assumed that I thought it was/agreed with RFK.
I don't believe I actually said that.

I'm clearly going to say "I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT or WHY". Got that everyone? Smiple english.

As to RFK as a trustworthy source. *snort*

In no particular order, some points on likely contributors to autism being more diagnosed without an actual increase in number of actual cases.

<snip>

Every single one of those factors is liable to cause an increase in diagnosis. All of them combined are likely to cause a significant increase, without the need for a change in actual number of cases.

Now, as to parroting Kennedy approach, and why doing so earns you nothing but scorn :

1. Kennedy is presenting autism as an absolute evil ; a disease that destroy otherwise "normal" children. To do so, he takes the popular perception of the heaviest cases of autism, and equate all autism to that. He goes and say things like "And these are kids who will never pay taxes, they’ll never hold a job, they’ll never play baseball, they’ll never write a poem, they’ll never go out on a date. Many of them will never use a toilet unassisted.” when talking about autism, without any qualifier. This is the view of autism that underlie the idea of "we have to find why there are so many cases."

2. While some autistic kids may never do one or another of these, and a small percentage of us may never do any of them, the vast majority of us have done a number of these things, and a lot of us, myself included, have, in fact, done every single one of them. I DO have a job. I DO pay taxes. I played baseball as a kid. I DO write - extensively, as a matter of fact (and my autism is a contributor, not a limiter, in my ability to do so). I have gone on dates, and DO have a partner currently. And I am, in fact, properly potty-trained and do not require assistance.

3. In other words, Kennedy's entire sales pitch for his war-on-autism is bases on a sleight of hand, conflating the total number of cases with autism (and increase thereof) with the significantly smaller percentage of worst-case scenario cases of autism. He's not the first person to do it - it's a common sleight of hand for trying to raise alarm about any given medical condition - but that does not make it right. Or accurate.

4. In doing so, and in going a long way toward restoring the image of autistic = incapable of existing in society, Kennedy is doing active harm to autistic people, by restoring much of the stigma against us that had begun to diminish. This in turn means that people will less be able to access the diagnosis (because stigma) and support (because of a perception that support is wasted on them anyway) they need.

5. As a result of which, parroting RFK jr.'s views or approving of his crusade amount to contributing to that active harm.

Snipped part: those are good answers to part of the 'why are the numbers going up'.

second part:

1) Yep, he used the extreme end of the spectrum. (typical politician there. using extremes to score political points. Try and tell me the left doesn't do the same thing. It's wrong, but they do it. ) Q: is there any kind of breakdown of the numbers on the severity/delineations? (serious question)

2) see above about politicians.

3) and again about politicos.

4) granted.

5) I think some of his stuff is looney tunes. What? Y'all thought I agreed with everything he says? Doesn't mean **everything** he says is looney though.
(such as wanting to find out what is causing the increase. Are we over-vaccinated? umm... Over medicated? quite possibly. (over medicated, yes, but that would be for its own thread)

Oh, one of the reasons I asked about the expansion of the definition of autism (or broadening the range etc), is that's what they're doing with diabetes.
Type 1, Type 2, now we have pre-diabetes. and there is/was something for a 4th part that's even sillier than that, but I can't remember what it is.
Type 1 is the severe end. Type 2 is pharma's (and insurance co's. can't forget them) money maker. pre-d ... diet/supplements.
(yes I know there are several other very specific/temporary types in the family, so not counting them)

 

[Evie]

Seeing as there is no medication for autism, I'm not sure how any broadening of definition is likely to result in pharmas making bank. There are some behavioral therapies that are touted as beneficial by some (and compared to conversion therapy, in that it's less about treatment and more about hiding symptoms, by others), but access to them is already severly hampered (among those who actually want them) at the supply end : there aren't enough people with the appropriate expertise in light of the demand.

The reason the diagnosis is being broadened is not not some nonsensical medical-industrial conspiracy; it's realizing that even those of us who may appear (and I use GIANT quotation marks here because the distinction is highly problematic) "functional" (and thus not have been a priority for a definition that was centered entirely on the idea of "not being able to function in public") are actually dealing with significant limitations that have significant (if not very visible to an untrained outsider) impact on our quality of life and potential development of related conditions.

(Which also applies to a lot of other situations where diagnosis are being broadened : in general it's because we're realizing that many disease aren't limited to their most obvious, in-your-face forms, and those other, less obvious forms still have significant effects on those who have them, even if they're less harmful (or rather, less obviously harmful.)

 

[Theov]

Not really. 1st question was that, just a question.
2nd... well, a poke at pharma, yes.

Doesn't make me wrong either.

that last part.. lol. that's all yer gonna get. (nice try though!)



I've got no clue if Tylenol is a cause, or 'the' cause, or increases the chance...etc.

My ONLY point was that SOMETHING is causing it, and the numbers to rise. People just assumed that I thought it was/agreed with RFK.
I don't believe I actually said that.

I'm clearly going to say "I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT or WHY". Got that everyone? Smiple english.

As to RFK as a trustworthy source. *snort*



Snipped part: those are good answers to part of the 'why are the numbers going up'.

second part:

1) Yep, he used the extreme end of the spectrum. (typical politician there. using extremes to score political points. Try and tell me the left doesn't do the same thing. It's wrong, but they do it. ) Q: is there any kind of breakdown of the numbers on the severity/delineations? (serious question)

2) see above about politicians.

3) and again about politicos.

4) granted.

5) I think some of his stuff is looney tunes. What? Y'all thought I agreed with everything he says? Doesn't mean **everything** he says is looney though.
(such as wanting to find out what is causing the increase. Are we over-vaccinated? umm... Over medicated? quite possibly. (over medicated, yes, but that would be for its own thread)

Oh, one of the reasons I asked about the expansion of the definition of autism (or broadening the range etc), is that's what they're doing with diabetes.
Type 1, Type 2, now we have pre-diabetes. and there is/was something for a 4th part that's even sillier than that, but I can't remember what it is.
Type 1 is the severe end. Type 2 is pharma's (and insurance co's. can't forget them) money maker. pre-d ... diet/supplements.
(yes I know there are several other very specific/temporary types in the family, so not counting them)

Oh dear.
You seem new to this forum.
You'll learn quickly this is SOP over here.

 

[Lexicus]

Oh, one of the reasons I asked about the expansion of the definition of autism (or broadening the range etc), is that's what they're doing with diabetes.
Type 1, Type 2, now we have pre-diabetes. and there is/was something for a 4th part that's even sillier than that, but I can't remember what it is.

You heard it here folks, type 2 diabetes? Obvious woke bullfeathers, everyone knows there's only one type of diabetes

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Not that I would lend credence to that idiocy, but technically doesn't survival of one one group over another usually correlates to adaptation to specific circumstances, not who has the "best" genes overall?

I would say being able to adapt and survive is the only objective definition of having the best genes. That is what genes are for in fact.

 

[Lexicus]

I would say being able to adapt and survive is the only objective definition of having the best genes. That is what genes are for in fact.

Real Mandate of Heaven stuff here folks (btw it's reproduction that is key to genetic fitness, not survival per se)

 

[Evie]

Being able to adapt and survive *in your specific circumstances*.

Circumstances, however, change, and the mutations most advantageous then and now are unlikely to be the same.

 

[danjuno]

Not really. 1st question was that, just a question.
2nd... well, a poke at pharma, yes.

Doesn't make me wrong either.

that last part.. lol. that's all yer gonna get. (nice try though!)



I've got no clue if Tylenol is a cause, or 'the' cause, or increases the chance...etc.

My ONLY point was that SOMETHING is causing it, and the numbers to rise. People just assumed that I thought it was/agreed with RFK.
I don't believe I actually said that.

I'm clearly going to say "I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT or WHY". Got that everyone? Smiple english.

As to RFK as a trustworthy source. *snort*



Snipped part: those are good answers to part of the 'why are the numbers going up'.

second part:

1) Yep, he used the extreme end of the spectrum. (typical politician there. using extremes to score political points. Try and tell me the left doesn't do the same thing. It's wrong, but they do it. ) Q: is there any kind of breakdown of the numbers on the severity/delineations? (serious question)

2) see above about politicians.

3) and again about politicos.

4) granted.

5) I think some of his stuff is looney tunes. What? Y'all thought I agreed with everything he says? Doesn't mean **everything** he says is looney though.
(such as wanting to find out what is causing the increase. Are we over-vaccinated? umm... Over medicated? quite possibly. (over medicated, yes, but that would be for its own thread)

Oh, one of the reasons I asked about the expansion of the definition of autism (or broadening the range etc), is that's what they're doing with diabetes.
Type 1, Type 2, now we have pre-diabetes. and there is/was something for a 4th part that's even sillier than that, but I can't remember what it is.
Type 1 is the severe end. Type 2 is pharma's (and insurance co's. can't forget them) money maker. pre-d ... diet/supplements.
(yes I know there are several other very specific/temporary types in the family, so not counting them)

Definitions or diagnoses change and expand all the time. This is a normal part of scientific research.

 

[Canadian Bluebeer]

You heard it here folks, type 2 diabetes? Obvious woke bullfeathers, everyone knows there's only one type of diabetes

huh?

 

[soundjata]

Being able to adapt and survive *in your specific circumstances*.

Circumstances, however, change, and the mutations most advantageous then and now are unlikely to be the same.

Genes are outdated anyways.
Adaptation cannot afford the lengthy string of generations & mutations any longer.

Now we have CRISP, and AI. We have to deal with those...

 

[BenitoChavez]

That could well be, but that doesn't mean he has.

Yes, he has.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce8383r6d2po
The former CDC directors said in their letter that the recent removal of Monarez was especially damaging, as she had just been been nominated under Trump to take the helm at the CDC in July.

The White House has said that she was "not aligned" with the president's agenda. But in their letter the former CDC bosses said Monarez was let go because she "refused to rubberstamp" vaccine policies or follow HHS orders to fire senior staff.