A large part of that is just more thorough diagnosis. A lot of kids who used to be called “retarded” and now diagnosed as autistic. Also a lot of higher functioning smart but socially awkward kids who used to considered geeks, are now Asperger’s, and Asperger’s which used to to be a separate condition is now considered part of the autistic spectrum. Why Autism Diagnoses Have Soared The Real Reasons Autism Rates Are Up in the U.S. There's no autism epidemic. But there is an autism diagnosis epidemic There is some evidence that older parents are more likely to have autistic kids, especially older fathers. The link between parental age and autism, explained There is also a theory that today we tend to gravitate to partners similar to us, more so than in the past. Both partners accountants. Both partners work in tech. In the past there was more social mixing in marriage. The result of more genetic similarity in spouses could be more genetic outcomes resulting autism. Autism's lone wolf: Simon Baron-Cohen wants to know, Are 'autistic' traits a predictable outcome of new marriage patterns? - PubMed You will see “hotspots” in autism diagnosis, in places like Silicon Valley and other affluent areas of the country. That could be the result of any or all of the above Is Silicon Valley a Breeding Ground for Autism Spectrum Disorder? | Dr. Kenneth Roberson The point of the vaccines / autism link is that for the ones that were commonly theorized, MMR and thimiserol they have been thoroughly debunked in study after study. https://www.child-encyclopedia.com/...ccording-experts/myth-mmr-and-autism-debunked Thimersoral discontinued in children’s vaccines in 2001 even though studies debunked the autism association. Thimerosal and Vaccines | Vaccine Safety | CDC We have an autistic kid and I have drilled down into this a lot.
Won back the House and stopped the Biden agenda dead in its tracks. That’s good enough for me. Could have always been better but Pubs shot themselves in the foot with a handful of low quality candidates in the Senate. May not have mattered as folks are voting more party line than ever, and are willing to elect a John Fetterman to the Senate. You can’t fix stupid….
Sure ... and your party is willing to elect Dr. Oz and Hershel Walker to the Senate. You can't fix stupider.
Dr Oz is light years more intelligent than John Fetterman, even before the latter’s crippling stroke. It’s a new low point in American politics to have elected a trust fund brat who’s never held a real job outside of government, and can’t form more than one coherent sentence at a time to the most deliberative body in the government. The Democrats are fast becoming the party of elected village idiots with puppet masters pulling the strings behind them.
running away? Oz was a sub-par candidate who had a difficult time with like-ability and wasn’t a good campaigner. But he’s light years more competent and able to do the job than Fetterman. Democrats elected a mentally handicapped individual unable to perform the basic and required functions of a U.S. Senator in a deliberative body where influence, relationships and communication are not only necessary, but required to represent the people. He’s yet another example of the Democrats comfortability with electing a set of puppets to hold serious positions. And yet they throw stones from their ivory towers claiming the high ground of protecting democracy. A complete farce.
uh, no. Both Warnock and Walker are really bad candidates. While they fought to a draw in the debates, Warnock has a questionable past and present with his business dealings, has personal skeletons in his closet, and hasn’t articulated anything of value or import during his time in the Senate to date. Meanwhile, Herschel has all kinds of question marks in his personal life, hasn’t done much of import since he left football and will never be influential in the Senate. They both are really bad choices.
The MMR vaccine and autism: Sensation, refutation, retraction, and fraud In 1998, Andrew Wakefield and 12 of his colleagues[1] published a case series in the Lancet, which suggested that the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine may predispose to behavioral regression and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Despite the small sample size (n=12), the uncontrolled design, and the speculative nature of the conclusions, the paper received wide publicity, and MMR vaccination rates began to drop because parents were concerned about the risk of autism after vaccination.[2] Almost immediately afterward, epidemiological studies were conducted and published, refuting the posited link between MMR vaccination and autism.[3,4] The logic that the MMR vaccine may trigger autism was also questioned because a temporal link between the two is almost predestined: both events, by design (MMR vaccine) or definition (autism), occur in early childhood. The next episode in the saga was a short retraction of the interpretation of the original data by 10 of the 12 co-authors of the paper. According to the retraction, “no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data were insufficient”.[5] This was accompanied by an admission by the Lancet that Wakefield et al.[1] had failed to disclose financial interests (e.g., Wakefield had been funded by lawyers who had been engaged by parents in lawsuits against vaccine-producing companies). However, the Lancet exonerated Wakefield and his colleagues from charges of ethical violations and scientific misconduct.[6] The Lancet completely retracted the Wakefield et al.[1] paper in February 2010, admitting that several elements in the paper were incorrect, contrary to the findings of the earlier investigation.[7] Wakefield et al.[1] were held guilty of ethical violations (they had conducted invasive investigations on the children without obtaining the necessary ethical clearances) and scientific misrepresentation (they reported that their sampling was consecutive when, in fact, it was selective). This retraction was published as a small, anonymous paragraph in the journal, on behalf of the editors.[8]
The Lancet did the world a huge disservice when it published such a piece of trash. In spite of a quick retraction we are still dealing with the repercussions 25 years later.
Oz is more capable of doing a bad job. Your opinion as to Fetterman’s capability means nothing to me. Oz is a crook and that you think he’s capable is an indictment of your discernment. Embarrassing.. and on brand.
on brand would be you defending the election of yet another Democrat mental cripple at the highest levels of our Federal Govt. Not only embarrassing but shameful.
From an obvious supporter of the party that nominated a mental cripple as its candidate in the last two presidential election and may very well do so again.
Do you find it at all curious that, no matter how bad the Republican candidate, you have been able to find a reason why the Democrat candidate is worse? One Democratic candidate struggling to articulate sentences = exceptionally unfit. One Republican candidate struggling to articulate sentences = "well, he'd never be influential in the Senate, and the Democrat has a 'questionable past'"
Struggling to articulate sentences is how you’d describe Fetterman? Talk about generous. Herschel’s a crap candidate…I already mentioned in a prior post. But he doesn’t need closed captioning to even understand a colleague in the most important deliberative body in the world. Do you find it all curious you don’t understand the more serious concern?
