HHS report will link autism to acetaminophen and folate deficiency

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there is a disconnect between people who are coming here to show how cool they are to dislike this unpopular politician and people who can recognize that having 99% of autism research funded by the same three organizations (one of which is controversial AS). I think RFK is a bad person that has attached himself to legitimate criticisms AND that has identified a few ok points (this not being one of them).

There’s no disconnect. If you cannot perceived that RFK is a brain damaged maniac I don’t know what to say. What kind of autism research was being repressed? Spell it out here, don’t be cute.

Here you go back to him again. Do you actually know anything about autism or the research around it or not? Do you not understand that there is a difference between repressed and not done? Like I have a friend who is involved in research for another rare genetic condition that because qualifies for orphan drug designation (aka more $$ for pharma) has made more progress in the last ten years than autism research has in the last fifty. One thing that rfk’s brainworm has done is the autism data project which has resulted in more proposals than this area has seen in forever.

Yes. yes I do. Please point me to the autism researchers who are happy about RFK. Also please let me know about the research the prior HHS and all of autism research around the globe was not doing, that RFK (I guess using ChatGPT) will now do.

I don’t think you do. I don’t think you have any personal experience with autism and I don’t think you work in STEM. You haven’t mentioned anything factual that isn’t related to RFK.

All over this thread people have posted the Swedish study that basically discards the Tylenol hypothesis. and we all know about RFK and vaccines. Now you go: what *precisely* is RFK doing for autism research?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there is a disconnect between people who are coming here to show how cool they are to dislike this unpopular politician and people who can recognize that having 99% of autism research funded by the same three organizations (one of which is controversial AS). I think RFK is a bad person that has attached himself to legitimate criticisms AND that has identified a few ok points (this not being one of them).

Exactly. If you want to have a serious conversation about ASD then RFK really is secondary to the parents screaming for more information for decades. There’s one or two people here that think this is political when that’s the farthest thing from reality.

How can RFK be secondary when he is single-handedly setting back autism research 20 years with resurrecting the vaccine bullsh*t and making other unfounded assertions?

Very clear this is your first time discussing this if you even have to ask the question. I don’t trust a word you say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there is a disconnect between people who are coming here to show how cool they are to dislike this unpopular politician and people who can recognize that having 99% of autism research funded by the same three organizations (one of which is controversial AS). I think RFK is a bad person that has attached himself to legitimate criticisms AND that has identified a few ok points (this not being one of them).

Exactly. If you want to have a serious conversation about ASD then RFK really is secondary to the parents screaming for more information for decades. There’s one or two people here that think this is political when that’s the farthest thing from reality.

How can RFK be secondary when he is single-handedly setting back autism research 20 years with resurrecting the vaccine bullsh*t and making other unfounded assertions?

Of all the places you could possibly troll on the Internet, why did choose to troll parents of kids with special needs? Seriously. Do you have any shame?

[Anonymous]

This guy lives on this board and has been here for years

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there is a disconnect between people who are coming here to show how cool they are to dislike this unpopular politician and people who can recognize that having 99% of autism research funded by the same three organizations (one of which is controversial AS). I think RFK is a bad person that has attached himself to legitimate criticisms AND that has identified a few ok points (this not being one of them).

Exactly. If you want to have a serious conversation about ASD then RFK really is secondary to the parents screaming for more information for decades. There’s one or two people here that think this is political when that’s the farthest thing from reality.

How can RFK be secondary when he is single-handedly setting back autism research 20 years with resurrecting the vaccine bullsh*t and making other unfounded assertions?

Very clear this is your first time discussing this if you even have to ask the question. I don’t trust a word you say.

You write so many words and say nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there is a disconnect between people who are coming here to show how cool they are to dislike this unpopular politician and people who can recognize that having 99% of autism research funded by the same three organizations (one of which is controversial AS). I think RFK is a bad person that has attached himself to legitimate criticisms AND that has identified a few ok points (this not being one of them).

There’s no disconnect. If you cannot perceived that RFK is a brain damaged maniac I don’t know what to say. What kind of autism research was being repressed? Spell it out here, don’t be cute.

Here you go back to him again. Do you actually know anything about autism or the research around it or not? Do you not understand that there is a difference between repressed and not done? Like I have a friend who is involved in research for another rare genetic condition that because qualifies for orphan drug designation (aka more $$ for pharma) has made more progress in the last ten years than autism research has in the last fifty. One thing that rfk’s brainworm has done is the autism data project which has resulted in more proposals than this area has seen in forever.

Do you really think that an orphan drug will produce more money than autism?
To be eligible for orphan drug designation, a disease or condition must meet the following criteria:
Affect fewer than 200,000 people in the United States.

[Anonymous]

So everyone knows to just ignore whatever the eff comes out of this ridiculous takeover of our entire health system.

Hopefully we can return to a respected country once again in the field of science and medicine. But, the damage is great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So everyone knows to just ignore whatever the eff comes out of this ridiculous takeover of our entire health system.

Hopefully we can return to a respected country once again in the field of science and medicine. But, the damage is great.

You can do that.

I will ignore almost everything the CDC has said the past 20 years because clearly they got it wrong and listen with an open mind to new information and look at data with a discerning yet open perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So everyone knows to just ignore whatever the eff comes out of this ridiculous takeover of our entire health system.

Hopefully we can return to a respected country once again in the field of science and medicine. But, the damage is great.

It will be at least a decade before that happens. But there's a small number of people working to send us into dark ages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So everyone knows to just ignore whatever the eff comes out of this ridiculous takeover of our entire health system.

Hopefully we can return to a respected country once again in the field of science and medicine. But, the damage is great.

You can do that.

I will ignore almost everything the CDC has said the past 20 years because clearly they got it wrong and listen with an open mind to new information and look at data with a discerning yet open perspective.

Maam this is a Wendy's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand some of you upset over this, it’s not new information. I am grateful it is now being discussed more prevalently and thus might prevent just 1 child from developing autism.

A child does not develop autism. A child is born with it. Genetics is where you want look- not food, vitamins, supplements, or medication.

Not true at all. Sometimes it’s present from birth while other times development is typical until it isn’t. Reasons TBD.

Just because it's not observable for a time doesn't mean the condition isn't present. There are plenty of examples of genetic conditions that don't manifest until later in life, much later than autism.

Go do some research, you aren’t ready for a discussion on this topic if you think all cases present from birth.

Okay, maybe there's a problem with "present," the verb versus the noun. A person may show no symptoms at all for years, but genetic underpinning is there and slowly working its way to being observable. For an extreme example, think of Huntington's disease: If you have the gene and live long enough, you will get the disease. But it may not manifest until midlife despite being undetectable (other than by genetic testing) for decades.

I suppose it's possible, perhaps likely, that there are different forms of what we label "autism," and some forms may be triggered by environmental factors. But even those cases likely have some underlying genetic vulnerability.

I wasn't aware of the type of folate deficiency that may occur in certain individuals (again, genetically determined), in which certain types of folate can't be metabolized and block folate receptors.

DP. There are decades of research on the prenatal environment and autism risk. Numerous autism/identical twin studies. Cerebral folate deficiency is a thing that exist. There are many other factors which are not purely genetic. Also the sheer volume of genes that have been identified as moderate impact for developing autism. Just because you hate RFK jr doesn’t make you any more informed than he is. Many people on here have autistic kids and have worked with geneticists and participated in research and actually read the studies as opposed to reading a few articles summarizing it written by people who majored in English.

Honestly I find this whole thing a bit of a nothing after he hyped up how he was going to blow the lid of this autism thing.

I don’t think there’s any lid left to blow, those of us that are in the field understand there’s a range of contributing factors and things like medications and yes even vaccine ingredients and other chemicals etc are possible environmental contributors along with genetic components. All these things have been known since at least the 90s, probably before that.

I think RFK’s job will be informing the masses and cleaning up research to minimize data suppression and hopefully eliminate some of the problems with research efficacy and conflicts of interest.

Hopefully in 10 years none of this will be taboo to talk about, parents and physicians will be better informed and understand environmental and genetic risks, and they will be able to recognize early signs and know how to gain access to early intervention and childhood services. Hopefully we can get improvements in adult services too as those are lacking.

Such DUMB statements. Please explain what early interventions are helpful for autism. Parents with autistic children really want to know about these imaginary interventions. Are you saying autism can be cured with these magical interventions? Please elaborate.

What the hell does your comment about RFK's job being "informing the masses" and "cleaning up research" mean? The man is neither sane nor intelligent enough to do either. He clearly will increase data suppression.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there is a disconnect between people who are coming here to show how cool they are to dislike this unpopular politician and people who can recognize that having 99% of autism research funded by the same three organizations (one of which is controversial AS). I think RFK is a bad person that has attached himself to legitimate criticisms AND that has identified a few ok points (this not being one of them).

Exactly. If you want to have a serious conversation about ASD then RFK really is secondary to the parents screaming for more information for decades. There’s one or two people here that think this is political when that’s the farthest thing from reality.

How can RFK be secondary when he is single-handedly setting back autism research 20 years with resurrecting the vaccine bullsh*t and making other unfounded assertions?

Very clear this is your first time discussing this if you even have to ask the question. I don’t trust a word you say.

You keep on claiming some deep knowledge of autism that none of us have …. Yet refuse to say what this arcane knowledge is!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there is a disconnect between people who are coming here to show how cool they are to dislike this unpopular politician and people who can recognize that having 99% of autism research funded by the same three organizations (one of which is controversial AS). I think RFK is a bad person that has attached himself to legitimate criticisms AND that has identified a few ok points (this not being one of them).

Exactly. If you want to have a serious conversation about ASD then RFK really is secondary to the parents screaming for more information for decades. There’s one or two people here that think this is political when that’s the farthest thing from reality.

How can RFK be secondary when he is single-handedly setting back autism research 20 years with resurrecting the vaccine bullsh*t and making other unfounded assertions?

Of all the places you could possibly troll on the Internet, why did choose to troll parents of kids with special needs? Seriously. Do you have any shame?

Can you please explain in detail why you think it is trolling SN parents to say that vaccines don’t cause autism and point out that the Tylenol connection has been pretty conclusively disproven? Notice I am not saying anything about folate - I actually don’t know enough about that but I also don’t trust RFK for a second to have any sort of integrity in discussing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand some of you upset over this, it’s not new information. I am grateful it is now being discussed more prevalently and thus might prevent just 1 child from developing autism.

A child does not develop autism. A child is born with it. Genetics is where you want look- not food, vitamins, supplements, or medication.

Not true at all. Sometimes it’s present from birth while other times development is typical until it isn’t. Reasons TBD.

Just because it's not observable for a time doesn't mean the condition isn't present. There are plenty of examples of genetic conditions that don't manifest until later in life, much later than autism.

Go do some research, you aren’t ready for a discussion on this topic if you think all cases present from birth.

Okay, maybe there's a problem with "present," the verb versus the noun. A person may show no symptoms at all for years, but genetic underpinning is there and slowly working its way to being observable. For an extreme example, think of Huntington's disease: If you have the gene and live long enough, you will get the disease. But it may not manifest until midlife despite being undetectable (other than by genetic testing) for decades.

I suppose it's possible, perhaps likely, that there are different forms of what we label "autism," and some forms may be triggered by environmental factors. But even those cases likely have some underlying genetic vulnerability.

I wasn't aware of the type of folate deficiency that may occur in certain individuals (again, genetically determined), in which certain types of folate can't be metabolized and block folate receptors.

DP. There are decades of research on the prenatal environment and autism risk. Numerous autism/identical twin studies. Cerebral folate deficiency is a thing that exist. There are many other factors which are not purely genetic. Also the sheer volume of genes that have been identified as moderate impact for developing autism. Just because you hate RFK jr doesn’t make you any more informed than he is. Many people on here have autistic kids and have worked with geneticists and participated in research and actually read the studies as opposed to reading a few articles summarizing it written by people who majored in English.

Honestly I find this whole thing a bit of a nothing after he hyped up how he was going to blow the lid of this autism thing.

I don’t think there’s any lid left to blow, those of us that are in the field understand there’s a range of contributing factors and things like medications and yes even vaccine ingredients and other chemicals etc are possible environmental contributors along with genetic components. All these things have been known since at least the 90s, probably before that.

I think RFK’s job will be informing the masses and cleaning up research to minimize data suppression and hopefully eliminate some of the problems with research efficacy and conflicts of interest.

Hopefully in 10 years none of this will be taboo to talk about, parents and physicians will be better informed and understand environmental and genetic risks, and they will be able to recognize early signs and know how to gain access to early intervention and childhood services. Hopefully we can get improvements in adult services too as those are lacking.

Such DUMB statements. Please explain what early interventions are helpful for autism. Parents with autistic children really want to know about these imaginary interventions. Are you saying autism can be cured with these magical interventions? Please elaborate.

What the hell does your comment about RFK's job being "informing the masses" and "cleaning up research" mean? The man is neither sane nor intelligent enough to do either. He clearly will increase data suppression.

I would love for RFK to announce and early intervention research effort and new ways to get families connected to services! Chances of him doing that? 0.00000%%%%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there is a disconnect between people who are coming here to show how cool they are to dislike this unpopular politician and people who can recognize that having 99% of autism research funded by the same three organizations (one of which is controversial AS). I think RFK is a bad person that has attached himself to legitimate criticisms AND that has identified a few ok points (this not being one of them).

Exactly. If you want to have a serious conversation about ASD then RFK really is secondary to the parents screaming for more information for decades. There’s one or two people here that think this is political when that’s the farthest thing from reality.

How can RFK be secondary when he is single-handedly setting back autism research 20 years with resurrecting the vaccine bullsh*t and making other unfounded assertions?

Of all the places you could possibly troll on the Internet, why did choose to troll parents of kids with special needs? Seriously. Do you have any shame?

Can you please explain in detail why you think it is trolling SN parents to say that vaccines don’t cause autism and point out that the Tylenol connection has been pretty conclusively disproven? Notice I am not saying anything about folate - I actually don’t know enough about that but I also don’t trust RFK for a second to have any sort of integrity in discussing it.

Because it’s blatantly false information.