HHS report will link autism to acetaminophen and folate deficiency

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You wrote a bunch of stuff without saying anything meaningful.

And RFK won't be "cleaning up" anything.

He’s been working on this for months, sorry you haven’t been paying attention.

Wow, the Vigilant Fox said so??!! Now I really believe it. He's blowing the lid off this!!

It’s just a thread of clips of RFK Jr speaking on the topic, if you can’t get past who the middleman of information is then there’s no point talking to you about anything.

The lack of credibility compounds between you, your source, and the human subject.

Most people understand that one source is not meant to be all encompassing nor deemed immediately credible. It’s meant as a starting point to spark interest so you can go gather additional information from the decades of existing research and form your own conclusions.

Instead of doing that though you’ll be saying “20 years ago I read something about that but decided RFK Jr was not a credible source”.

Let us know how that works out for you.

If your sources for information to form those conclusions are based on RFJ Jr. and Vigilant Fox, then those conclusions will have similar credibility. Let us know how that works out for you.

Or did you just end up in the Special Needs forum after getting lost looking for
the MAGA forum?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You wrote a bunch of stuff without saying anything meaningful.

And RFK won't be "cleaning up" anything.

He’s been working on this for months, sorry you haven’t been paying attention.

Wow, the Vigilant Fox said so??!! Now I really believe it. He's blowing the lid off this!!

It’s just a thread of clips of RFK Jr speaking on the topic, if you can’t get past who the middleman of information is then there’s no point talking to you about anything.

The lack of credibility compounds between you, your source, and the human subject.

Most people understand that one source is not meant to be all encompassing nor deemed immediately credible. It’s meant as a starting point to spark interest so you can go gather additional information from the decades of existing research and form your own conclusions.

Instead of doing that though you’ll be saying “20 years ago I read something about that but decided RFK Jr was not a credible source”.

Let us know how that works out for you.

If your sources for information to form those conclusions are based on RFJ Jr. and Vigilant Fox, then those conclusions will have similar credibility. Let us know how that works out for you.

Or did you just end up in the Special Needs forum after getting lost looking for
the MAGA forum?

This is not the politics forum, why are you even here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You wrote a bunch of stuff without saying anything meaningful.

And RFK won't be "cleaning up" anything.

He’s been working on this for months, sorry you haven’t been paying attention.

Wow, the Vigilant Fox said so??!! Now I really believe it. He's blowing the lid off this!!

It’s just a thread of clips of RFK Jr speaking on the topic, if you can’t get past who the middleman of information is then there’s no point talking to you about anything.

The lack of credibility compounds between you, your source, and the human subject.

Most people understand that one source is not meant to be all encompassing nor deemed immediately credible. It’s meant as a starting point to spark interest so you can go gather additional information from the decades of existing research and form your own conclusions.

Instead of doing that though you’ll be saying “20 years ago I read something about that but decided RFK Jr was not a credible source”.

Let us know how that works out for you.

Because actual scientists did studies tracking millions of children and debunked this.

And because abounding something as a "cause" after a few months is ridiculous and undermines the actual research being done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You wrote a bunch of stuff without saying anything meaningful.

And RFK won't be "cleaning up" anything.

He’s been working on this for months, sorry you haven’t been paying attention.

Wow, the Vigilant Fox said so??!! Now I really believe it. He's blowing the lid off this!!

It’s just a thread of clips of RFK Jr speaking on the topic, if you can’t get past who the middleman of information is then there’s no point talking to you about anything.

The lack of credibility compounds between you, your source, and the human subject.

Most people understand that one source is not meant to be all encompassing nor deemed immediately credible. It’s meant as a starting point to spark interest so you can go gather additional information from the decades of existing research and form your own conclusions.

Instead of doing that though you’ll be saying “20 years ago I read something about that but decided RFK Jr was not a credible source”.

Let us know how that works out for you.

Because actual scientists did studies tracking millions of children and debunked this.

And because abounding something as a "cause" after a few months is ridiculous and undermines the actual research being done.

Source?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You wrote a bunch of stuff without saying anything meaningful.

And RFK won't be "cleaning up" anything.

He’s been working on this for months, sorry you haven’t been paying attention.

Wow, the Vigilant Fox said so??!! Now I really believe it. He's blowing the lid off this!!

It’s just a thread of clips of RFK Jr speaking on the topic, if you can’t get past who the middleman of information is then there’s no point talking to you about anything.

The lack of credibility compounds between you, your source, and the human subject.

Most people understand that one source is not meant to be all encompassing nor deemed immediately credible. It’s meant as a starting point to spark interest so you can go gather additional information from the decades of existing research and form your own conclusions.

Instead of doing that though you’ll be saying “20 years ago I read something about that but decided RFK Jr was not a credible source”.

Let us know how that works out for you.

Because actual scientists did studies tracking millions of children and debunked this.

And because abounding something as a "cause" after a few months is ridiculous and undermines the actual research being done.

Source?

As a parent of a kid to autism do not respond to this MAGA troll. Parents like me, of course, have looked at all the research. The link between autism and Tylenol is nothing new and has added nothing to discourse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You wrote a bunch of stuff without saying anything meaningful.

And RFK won't be "cleaning up" anything.

He’s been working on this for months, sorry you haven’t been paying attention.

Wow, the Vigilant Fox said so??!! Now I really believe it. He's blowing the lid off this!!

It’s just a thread of clips of RFK Jr speaking on the topic, if you can’t get past who the middleman of information is then there’s no point talking to you about anything.

The lack of credibility compounds between you, your source, and the human subject.

Most people understand that one source is not meant to be all encompassing nor deemed immediately credible. It’s meant as a starting point to spark interest so you can go gather additional information from the decades of existing research and form your own conclusions.

Instead of doing that though you’ll be saying “20 years ago I read something about that but decided RFK Jr was not a credible source”.

Let us know how that works out for you.

Because actual scientists did studies tracking millions of children and debunked this.

And because abounding something as a "cause" after a few months is ridiculous and undermines the actual research being done.

Source?

As a parent of a kid to autism do not respond to this MAGA troll. Parents like me, of course, have looked at all the research. The link between autism and Tylenol is nothing new and has added nothing to discourse.

Comments like that do nothing but create division. Autism research should not be political, if you think it should be then take it to the political forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folate deficiency is common in autism but its the child who cant absorb it well, not whether it was taken during pregnancy.

There's autism shares a link to digestive disorders, it's known but they don't know if that relationship is causal or shares a common cause. They have, in fact, been investigating this for a while

https://hms.harvard.edu/news/gut-brain-connection-autism

You can't expect fast answers on studying human brain development.

Yes, it would be great if our administration wasn’t actively trying to disrupt medical research, including targeting Harvard and other schools where a lot of great research is being done.
I feel like RFK is the broken clock that is soemthikes occasionally right but because his whole approach is anti-science it is hard to know when that is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folate deficiency is common in autism but its the child who cant absorb it well, not whether it was taken during pregnancy.

There's autism shares a link to digestive disorders, it's known but they don't know if that relationship is causal or shares a common cause. They have, in fact, been investigating this for a while

https://hms.harvard.edu/news/gut-brain-connection-autism

You can't expect fast answers on studying human brain development.

Yes, it would be great if our administration wasn’t actively trying to disrupt medical research, including targeting Harvard and other schools where a lot of great research is being done.
I feel like RFK is the broken clock that is soemthikes occasionally right but because his whole approach is anti-science it is hard to know when that is.

FYI you sound stupid when you call RFK Jr anti-science.

[Anonymous]

It would be great if there were an easy straightforward cause and cure, but pretending there is is demeaning to those of us who have kids with autism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folate deficiency is common in autism but its the child who cant absorb it well, not whether it was taken during pregnancy.

There's autism shares a link to digestive disorders, it's known but they don't know if that relationship is causal or shares a common cause. They have, in fact, been investigating this for a while

https://hms.harvard.edu/news/gut-brain-connection-autism

You can't expect fast answers on studying human brain development.

Yes, it would be great if our administration wasn’t actively trying to disrupt medical research, including targeting Harvard and other schools where a lot of great research is being done.
I feel like RFK is the broken clock that is soemthikes occasionally right but because his whole approach is anti-science it is hard to know when that is.

FYI you sound stupid when you call RFK Jr anti-science.

HE is anti-science and has been for years. He is a lawyer, not a scientist, and has been espousing anti-science, conspiracy theories for decades. He is a loon just like you if you take anything he says seriously.

I never took Tylenol while pregnant. I do have a child on the spectrum because his father is on the spectrum.

[Anonymous]

The folate argument reminds me of the argument during Covid that people should take more vitamin D, because people with Covid had less vitamin D in their bodies. I asked a physician friend about this and he explained that it’s because people shed vitamin D when they’re sick. It doesn’t mean that taking more cures your illness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You wrote a bunch of stuff without saying anything meaningful.

And RFK won't be "cleaning up" anything.

He’s been working on this for months, sorry you haven’t been paying attention.

Wow, the Vigilant Fox said so??!! Now I really believe it. He's blowing the lid off this!!

It’s just a thread of clips of RFK Jr speaking on the topic, if you can’t get past who the middleman of information is then there’s no point talking to you about anything.

The lack of credibility compounds between you, your source, and the human subject.

Most people understand that one source is not meant to be all encompassing nor deemed immediately credible. It’s meant as a starting point to spark interest so you can go gather additional information from the decades of existing research and form your own conclusions.

Instead of doing that though you’ll be saying “20 years ago I read something about that but decided RFK Jr was not a credible source”.

Let us know how that works out for you.

Because actual scientists did studies tracking millions of children and debunked this.

And because abounding something as a "cause" after a few months is ridiculous and undermines the actual research being done.

Source?

DP. Google the first for yourself. The second is just common sense. I’m so sure the MAGA FDA was somehow able to do in 2 months what actual researchers have not been able to do in decades!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You wrote a bunch of stuff without saying anything meaningful.

And RFK won't be "cleaning up" anything.

He’s been working on this for months, sorry you haven’t been paying attention.

Wow, the Vigilant Fox said so??!! Now I really believe it. He's blowing the lid off this!!

It’s just a thread of clips of RFK Jr speaking on the topic, if you can’t get past who the middleman of information is then there’s no point talking to you about anything.

The lack of credibility compounds between you, your source, and the human subject.

Most people understand that one source is not meant to be all encompassing nor deemed immediately credible. It’s meant as a starting point to spark interest so you can go gather additional information from the decades of existing research and form your own conclusions.

Instead of doing that though you’ll be saying “20 years ago I read something about that but decided RFK Jr was not a credible source”.

Let us know how that works out for you.

If your sources for information to form those conclusions are based on RFJ Jr. and Vigilant Fox, then those conclusions will have similar credibility. Let us know how that works out for you.

Or did you just end up in the Special Needs forum after getting lost looking for
the MAGA forum?

This is not the politics forum, why are you even here?

Do you really have to ask that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It would be great if there were an easy straightforward cause and cure, but pretending there is is demeaning to those of us who have kids with autism.

Very true, though I don’t think anyone knowledgeable is pretending either of those things are easy. I think it’s the uninformed or ill-informed or those just trying to disrupt conversations (whether paid or just plain ignorant) that say things like it’s “only X” or “THAT can’t possibly be a reason” or “that person is a MAGA troll” or “he’s anti-science” and immediately discount sources or interventions or opinions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You wrote a bunch of stuff without saying anything meaningful.

And RFK won't be "cleaning up" anything.

He’s been working on this for months, sorry you haven’t been paying attention.

Wow, the Vigilant Fox said so??!! Now I really believe it. He's blowing the lid off this!!

It’s just a thread of clips of RFK Jr speaking on the topic, if you can’t get past who the middleman of information is then there’s no point talking to you about anything.

The lack of credibility compounds between you, your source, and the human subject.

Most people understand that one source is not meant to be all encompassing nor deemed immediately credible. It’s meant as a starting point to spark interest so you can go gather additional information from the decades of existing research and form your own conclusions.

Instead of doing that though you’ll be saying “20 years ago I read something about that but decided RFK Jr was not a credible source”.

Let us know how that works out for you.

Because actual scientists did studies tracking millions of children and debunked this.

And because abounding something as a "cause" after a few months is ridiculous and undermines the actual research being done.

Source?

DP. Google the first for yourself. The second is just common sense. I’m so sure the MAGA FDA was somehow able to do in 2 months what actual researchers have not been able to do in decades!

Take your politics elsewhere troll.