Latest CDC number 1 in 36 children diagnosed with autism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who is this one lunatic on this thread arguing with a ton of people? They apparently have a really, really vested interest in fighting the mere possibility that inflammation be even mentioned in the same sentence as ASD.

Which is really interesting and gets to the whole original point of this thread/new study: As you expand the definition of autism, and the spectrum gets wider, do you create a greater likelihood of non-shared interests and infighting -- resulting in people less likely to have their needs heard and met?

Certainly sounds like it, based on just the one really loud voice in this thread.

I have a vested interest in countering pseudoscience. Autism has been a lightening rod for pseudoscience and quackery since forever. It’s very important to be on the lookout for it. It’s not “infighting.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The tone of this whole thread is really disappointing, coming from someone who was recently diagnosed as a 38 year old successful adult. Having a diagnosis and knowing why the world has always seemed so different for me means the world. But my “quirks” are precisely why I was very good at school and now have a very good job. There’s some argument that parts of autism were evolutionary advantageous. No, I don’t want a cure. I am happy diagnosis rates are going up so that kids don’t have to wait until nearly 40 to understand themselves. Acceptance and changing norms is absolutely what’s needed. Let kids unmask.

LOL you have got to be a white man. For some of our kids “unmasking” in the wrong situation is literally a matter of life and death.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The tone of this whole thread is really disappointing, coming from someone who was recently diagnosed as a 38 year old successful adult. Having a diagnosis and knowing why the world has always seemed so different for me means the world. But my “quirks” are precisely why I was very good at school and now have a very good job. There’s some argument that parts of autism were evolutionary advantageous. No, I don’t want a cure. I am happy diagnosis rates are going up so that kids don’t have to wait until nearly 40 to understand themselves. Acceptance and changing norms is absolutely what’s needed. Let kids unmask.

LOL you have got to be a white man. For some of our kids “unmasking” in the wrong situation is literally a matter of life and death.

right? unmasking means my kid falls onto the Metro tracks because he paces and stims and doesn’t watch his surroundings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is this one lunatic on this thread arguing with a ton of people? They apparently have a really, really vested interest in fighting the mere possibility that inflammation be even mentioned in the same sentence as ASD.

Which is really interesting and gets to the whole original point of this thread/new study: As you expand the definition of autism, and the spectrum gets wider, do you create a greater likelihood of non-shared interests and infighting -- resulting in people less likely to have their needs heard and met?

Certainly sounds like it, based on just the one really loud voice in this thread.

I have a vested interest in countering pseudoscience. Autism has been a lightening rod for pseudoscience and quackery since forever. It’s very important to be on the lookout for it. It’s not “infighting.”

DP. There are numerous articles about how autism research has focused on only a small handful of items (largely because most of the research is funded by just 3 sources) so there’s not really enough research to even say if something is pseudoscience or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is this one lunatic on this thread arguing with a ton of people? They apparently have a really, really vested interest in fighting the mere possibility that inflammation be even mentioned in the same sentence as ASD.

Which is really interesting and gets to the whole original point of this thread/new study: As you expand the definition of autism, and the spectrum gets wider, do you create a greater likelihood of non-shared interests and infighting -- resulting in people less likely to have their needs heard and met?

Certainly sounds like it, based on just the one really loud voice in this thread.

I have a vested interest in countering pseudoscience. Autism has been a lightening rod for pseudoscience and quackery since forever. It’s very important to be on the lookout for it. It’s not “infighting.”

DP. There are numerous articles about how autism research has focused on only a small handful of items (largely because most of the research is funded by just 3 sources) so there’s not really enough research to even say if something is pseudoscience or not.

Pseudoscience? Harvard would disagree...

https://hms.harvard.edu/magazine/pandemic/inflammation-link-autism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is this one lunatic on this thread arguing with a ton of people? They apparently have a really, really vested interest in fighting the mere possibility that inflammation be even mentioned in the same sentence as ASD.

Which is really interesting and gets to the whole original point of this thread/new study: As you expand the definition of autism, and the spectrum gets wider, do you create a greater likelihood of non-shared interests and infighting -- resulting in people less likely to have their needs heard and met?

Certainly sounds like it, based on just the one really loud voice in this thread.

I have a vested interest in countering pseudoscience. Autism has been a lightening rod for pseudoscience and quackery since forever. It’s very important to be on the lookout for it. It’s not “infighting.”

DP. There are numerous articles about how autism research has focused on only a small handful of items (largely because most of the research is funded by just 3 sources) so there’s not really enough research to even say if something is pseudoscience or not.

Most research into the causes of autism are complete wastes of money. What can get funded and what is useful are totally different. I feel pretty confident that a line of inquiry suggesting steroids as therapy is really harmful though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is this one lunatic on this thread arguing with a ton of people? They apparently have a really, really vested interest in fighting the mere possibility that inflammation be even mentioned in the same sentence as ASD.

Which is really interesting and gets to the whole original point of this thread/new study: As you expand the definition of autism, and the spectrum gets wider, do you create a greater likelihood of non-shared interests and infighting -- resulting in people less likely to have their needs heard and met?

Certainly sounds like it, based on just the one really loud voice in this thread.

I have a vested interest in countering pseudoscience. Autism has been a lightening rod for pseudoscience and quackery since forever. It’s very important to be on the lookout for it. It’s not “infighting.”

DP. There are numerous articles about how autism research has focused on only a small handful of items (largely because most of the research is funded by just 3 sources) so there’s not really enough research to even say if something is pseudoscience or not.

Pseudoscience? Harvard would disagree...

https://hms.harvard.edu/magazine/pandemic/inflammation-link-autism

+1. I'm the poster about who was confounded that this one poster thinks the inflammation link is psuedoscience. I thought it was a pretty well acknowledged "potential" path of research, but one that has limitations too. There are a lot of major research organizations, mainstream journals, etc recognizing there is probably work to be done down this route.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is this one lunatic on this thread arguing with a ton of people? They apparently have a really, really vested interest in fighting the mere possibility that inflammation be even mentioned in the same sentence as ASD.

Which is really interesting and gets to the whole original point of this thread/new study: As you expand the definition of autism, and the spectrum gets wider, do you create a greater likelihood of non-shared interests and infighting -- resulting in people less likely to have their needs heard and met?

Certainly sounds like it, based on just the one really loud voice in this thread.

I have a vested interest in countering pseudoscience. Autism has been a lightening rod for pseudoscience and quackery since forever. It’s very important to be on the lookout for it. It’s not “infighting.”

DP. There are numerous articles about how autism research has focused on only a small handful of items (largely because most of the research is funded by just 3 sources) so there’s not really enough research to even say if something is pseudoscience or not.

Pseudoscience? Harvard would disagree...

https://hms.harvard.edu/magazine/pandemic/inflammation-link-autism

The vast majority of neuroimaging studies are completely trash. Of course even if their brains show more inflammation than controls, that says nothing about causation or treatment.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04492-9

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is this one lunatic on this thread arguing with a ton of people? They apparently have a really, really vested interest in fighting the mere possibility that inflammation be even mentioned in the same sentence as ASD.

Which is really interesting and gets to the whole original point of this thread/new study: As you expand the definition of autism, and the spectrum gets wider, do you create a greater likelihood of non-shared interests and infighting -- resulting in people less likely to have their needs heard and met?

Certainly sounds like it, based on just the one really loud voice in this thread.

I have a vested interest in countering pseudoscience. Autism has been a lightening rod for pseudoscience and quackery since forever. It’s very important to be on the lookout for it. It’s not “infighting.”

DP. There are numerous articles about how autism research has focused on only a small handful of items (largely because most of the research is funded by just 3 sources) so there’s not really enough research to even say if something is pseudoscience or not.

Most research into the causes of autism are complete wastes of money. What can get funded and what is useful are totally different. I feel pretty confident that a line of inquiry suggesting steroids as therapy is really harmful though.

Literally no one on this thread is suggesting steroids as therapy. The posts about expressly say that the research isn't suggesting it -- and the journal articles expressly say that long term steroid us is NOT viable, which is exactly what the studies are so limited. Why are you so adamant to right on this?

[Anonymous]

I don't dispute the adult with autism's experience that the autism diagnosis at a later age was helpful and healing.

I do not like the lumping together and, yes, watering down of many people's autism's diagnosis that is truly and irrevocably life-altering and not in the "feel good after school special kind of way." The kind that many people experience where one can never live independently, hold a job, or perhaps communicate effectively.

My child's middle school went on lock down this week because an 8th grade male (I say this because of size) with autism had an emotional reaction that he could not control while in the hallway right before a passing period. The SN teacher chose to lockdown the school for five minutes so she could safely get the student to a quiet place, which she did successfully.

My kid, in a classroom where the teacher had stepped out early, was in the room with kids only and they had to lock the door, barricade it, turn off the lights, and not know when the shooter was coming by.

I definitely support the SN teacher's decision and the autistic student's needs, as well as my kid going through the fear of the lock down all at the same time.

BUT, I don't support of the concept of quirky and "that's what makes me good at my job" in the same paragraph.

[Anonymous]

Growing up (90s) I knew zero kids with Autism but definitely ones that would meet the diagnostic criteria today. They were labeled as problems. Parents would sometimes beat them which made the behaviors worse. We're in a much better place today. I also grew up in a wealthy community so I can't imagine what happened in poorer communities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is this one lunatic on this thread arguing with a ton of people? They apparently have a really, really vested interest in fighting the mere possibility that inflammation be even mentioned in the same sentence as ASD.

Which is really interesting and gets to the whole original point of this thread/new study: As you expand the definition of autism, and the spectrum gets wider, do you create a greater likelihood of non-shared interests and infighting -- resulting in people less likely to have their needs heard and met?

Certainly sounds like it, based on just the one really loud voice in this thread.

I have a vested interest in countering pseudoscience. Autism has been a lightening rod for pseudoscience and quackery since forever. It’s very important to be on the lookout for it. It’s not “infighting.”

DP. There are numerous articles about how autism research has focused on only a small handful of items (largely because most of the research is funded by just 3 sources) so there’s not really enough research to even say if something is pseudoscience or not.

Pseudoscience? Harvard would disagree...

https://hms.harvard.edu/magazine/pandemic/inflammation-link-autism

+1. I'm the poster about who was confounded that this one poster thinks the inflammation link is psuedoscience. I thought it was a pretty well acknowledged "potential" path of research, but one that has limitations too. There are a lot of major research organizations, mainstream journals, etc recognizing there is probably work to be done down this route.

Honestly, this Harvard study and article could not be better examples of how this kind of bad research trickles into the public consciousness through bad science journalism.

Now instead of asking questions like whether more children are being identified because of factors like access to insurance, school practices, etc - you’re here talking about inflammation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The tone of this whole thread is really disappointing, coming from someone who was recently diagnosed as a 38 year old successful adult. Having a diagnosis and knowing why the world has always seemed so different for me means the world. But my “quirks” are precisely why I was very good at school and now have a very good job. There’s some argument that parts of autism were evolutionary advantageous. No, I don’t want a cure. I am happy diagnosis rates are going up so that kids don’t have to wait until nearly 40 to understand themselves. Acceptance and changing norms is absolutely what’s needed. Let kids unmask.

Following the rules isn't "masking". Having a public face and a private face isn't masking either. It's getting along in the world.

Yea, no. These “rules” were set by one type of person. Masking is exhausting and leads to depression and anxiety. Forcing conformity for ND people is exactly the issue.

As I ND person myself, I don't think it's so black and white. Emotional regulation is harder for some (myself included), and many might call it masking. It is exhausting, but I do think some of it's necessary. neurotypical people need to emotionally regulate as well, and often don't, and that's problematic as well. Sometimes these things fall into the buckets of courtesy and respect, and it really doesn't matter if it's exhausting or not for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is this one lunatic on this thread arguing with a ton of people? They apparently have a really, really vested interest in fighting the mere possibility that inflammation be even mentioned in the same sentence as ASD.

Which is really interesting and gets to the whole original point of this thread/new study: As you expand the definition of autism, and the spectrum gets wider, do you create a greater likelihood of non-shared interests and infighting -- resulting in people less likely to have their needs heard and met?

Certainly sounds like it, based on just the one really loud voice in this thread.

I have a vested interest in countering pseudoscience. Autism has been a lightening rod for pseudoscience and quackery since forever. It’s very important to be on the lookout for it. It’s not “infighting.”

DP. There are numerous articles about how autism research has focused on only a small handful of items (largely because most of the research is funded by just 3 sources) so there’s not really enough research to even say if something is pseudoscience or not.

Pseudoscience? Harvard would disagree...

https://hms.harvard.edu/magazine/pandemic/inflammation-link-autism

+1. I'm the poster about who was confounded that this one poster thinks the inflammation link is psuedoscience. I thought it was a pretty well acknowledged "potential" path of research, but one that has limitations too. There are a lot of major research organizations, mainstream journals, etc recognizing there is probably work to be done down this route.

Honestly, this Harvard study and article could not be better examples of how this kind of bad research trickles into the public consciousness through bad science journalism.

Now instead of asking questions like whether more children are being identified because of factors like access to insurance, school practices, etc - you’re here talking about inflammation.

And as for your naive belief in the “potential path” that reputable institutions embrace - just read about Alzheimers research for a sobering correction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Growing up (90s) I knew zero kids with Autism but definitely ones that would meet the diagnostic criteria today. They were labeled as problems. Parents would sometimes beat them which made the behaviors worse. We're in a much better place today. I also grew up in a wealthy community so I can't imagine what happened in poorer communities.

I have a son w/autism, and I have thought more than once about how much it must suck for kids like him with parents who use beatings/spankings as discipline. It makes me so sad to think about it.