Me?;1470949 wrote:The Center for Disease Control also wants you to believe that vaccines don't cause autism. Regardless of the fact that the increase in autism rates mirror the increase in vaccines offered and given to children. Or the thousands of cases of perfectly healthy babies who were vaccinated only to become autistic shortly after. NO WAY THAT COULD BE CONNECTED, I'M JUST A NUT JOB THAT WON'T JUST LISTEN TO WHAT THEY TELL ME! LOCK ME UP!
I know you are trolling, but I figured I would address this issue just in case you or somebody else believes this.
The original link to Autism came from a very small case study (N=8 or so) from children with gastrointestinal problems. First, that is s far too small of a sample size to make any causal conclusions, especially since the nature of the research makes it impossible to use a single-subject design (e.g. multiple baseline, withdrawal design, etc.) that would lend credibility. Regardless, the research was found to be unethical and discredited for a number of reasons. So this hypothesis stems from poor research that was later found to be unethical. Not exactly a thrilling start. One of the primary reasons that people continue to believe this assumption is because vaccines are given around the time that children are beginning to communicate, interact with other children, and are starting to hit other important developmental miles stones. Therefore, the contiguity between the vaccination and development of behaviors, or lack thereof, that are the diagnostic indicators of Autism leads many to believe there is a causal relationship.
Related to the increase in Autism, there are a number of plausible theories. I think one of the most likely, is as one poster already noted, awareness is at an all time high. This works in two ways. First, parents, educators, primary-care physicians, and anybody tasked with observing behaviors is more likely to notice the abnormal behaviors. So starting out there are more children that are likely to make referrals and more children will be diagnosed as a result. There is also an awareness of the individuals that are tasked with diagnosis (Psychologists, Behavioral Pediatricians, Psychiatrists) are also more aware. This will likely lead to more true positives than before. In addition, since this is one of the most salient behaviors issues, this will be the default diagnosis in many cases leading to more false positives as well. Unfortunately, a clear differential diagnosis is difficult, and in many cases, nearly impossible. There may not be a correct diagnosis or there will be co-morbidity with other disorders (e.g. Intellectual Disability, ADHD, Social Pragmatic Disorder, other neurodevelopmental disorders, etc.) Even worse, some clinicians will either just give out the diagnosis for the wrong reasons or because it is outside their area of competency. It takes a lot of experience and knowledge to differentiate between behaviors that MAY be atypical vs. behaviors that is more significant. Almost all behavioral disorders deal with behaviors that have a normal range. The key is finding that level of significant. The DSM-V has made some major diagnostic changes, and I am curious how this will impact the prevalence.
Now that I have written all of this, I feel like I wasted my time since you either believe something irrational or you are trolling.
Me?;1470957 wrote:The EPA also used to have a standard that no amount of radiation was safe. Then they realized that people were being exposed to radiation. So they changed the standard that SOME radiation is fine...
I drink diet coke or Pepsi because for some reason the regular versions hurt my throat.
I never have liked diet drinks. Just never like the flavor of them...any of them.