Reply to Latest CDC number 1 in 36 children diagnosed with autism

Forum Index » Kids With Special Needs and Disabilities

Reply to "Latest CDC number 1 in 36 children diagnosed with autism"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.  [/quote]

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.” [/quote]
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. [/quote]

Pseudoscience? Harvard would disagree...

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

+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. [/quote]

Then you're both idiots who can't read. The article literally says that the scans show LOW levels of the marker/protein that is tied to brain inflammation. 
[/quote]

What is wrong with you that you need to name call?

[/quote]

There’s one crazy on here fighting even the notion that inflammation might be worth researching vis a vis autism (I’ve been careful in my posts to not suggest a proven link, just small scale studies that merit further research and this poster is still going bonkers).

I think there are at least six posters countering the one crazy. [/quote]

Yeah it's not one "crazy." (BTW, that's also name calling but it's okay when they support your view?)
 It's most people who can read. 
[/quote]

It is mostly one person, or was. I asked Jeff.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1121673.page[/quote]

yes it’s me, but not only me. I’m not sure why bullying one person in a thread is taken as something substantive about their point. in fact, you are likely the one poster fixated on me, so right back atcha. [/quote]

I posted on that linked thread now, too. The person who claims you're sock posting and combative should be banned for bullying and calling people crazy onna special needs board. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics