^^including

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Want to have a positive impact on autism, then the CDC needs to support of label use of Leucovorin.

1. No physician needs permission to use any drug "off label." It happens all the time.

2. Oh, right, that's you guys' new Ivermectin, isn't it? Based on the case study of one three year old who supposedly began talking for the first time a few days after taking it? Please study sample size.

Reading comprehension. Did not say permit, off label use needs to be promoted so that more physicians will prescribe.

Sorry, that you have no desire to explore alternatives that may help with no real chance of harm.

If it works and the benefits outweigh the risks, physicians will prescribe it.

No real chance of harm? I don't think you know what you are talking about. Leucovorin has interactions with many medications (pincluding anti-seizure medications and a very common antibiotic, among others), can increase the risk of seizures in children, can worsen certain types of anemia, and is recommended to have screening lab work before even starting it.

This blind adoption of anything that gives you good vibes feelings is doing nobody any service.

We just need a very popular influencer to make the case that RFK, Jr. causes autism. I mean, clearly diagnoses are way up after his birth vs. pre so he must be the reason.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Want to have a positive impact on autism, then the CDC needs to support of label use of Leucovorin.

1. No physician needs permission to use any drug "off label." It happens all the time.

2. Oh, right, that's you guys' new Ivermectin, isn't it? Based on the case study of one three year old who supposedly began talking for the first time a few days after taking it? Please study sample size.

Reading comprehension. Did not say permit, off label use needs to be promoted so that more physicians will prescribe.

Sorry, that you have no desire to explore alternatives that may help with no real chance of harm.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 1980, autism was 2 per 10,000 births

In 2024, autism is 1 per 12 births

Not a shakedown OP.

How about maternal age having babies in your late 30's and 40's, eggs are way pass use by date.

How about read the points made above in rebuttal to this and then stop saying stupid things, misogynist.

Anonymous wrote:In 1980, autism was 2 per 10,000 births

In 2024, autism is 1 per 12 births

Not a shakedown OP.

How about maternal age having babies in your late 30's and 40's, eggs are way pass use by date.

Anonymous wrote:Want to have a positive impact on autism, then the CDC needs to support of label use of Leucovorin.

1. No physician needs permission to use any drug "off label." It happens all the time.

2. Oh, right, that's you guys' new Ivermectin, isn't it? Based on the case study of one three year old who supposedly began talking for the first time a few days after taking it? Please study sample size.

Want to have a positive impact on autism, then the CDC needs to support of label use of Leucovorin.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 1980, autism was 2 per 10,000 births

In 2024, autism is 1 per 12 births

Not a shakedown OP.

Two generations of Western women delaying having children into their mid 30s, then wonder why autism rates skyrocketed.

Ignoring that these stats are made up, that the diagnosis code is broadened,that risk for autism for birth in the 30s is still just 0.4%, plus marriages are more stable when folks wait till late twenties or early thirties so better outcomes for children and more stable households, oh and that we also do a sh*t job funding parental leave or childcare costs which women are better able to afford later in life?

Blessed be the fruit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In 1980, autism was 2 per 10,000 births

In 2024, autism is 1 per 12 births

Not a shakedown OP.

Two generations of Western women delaying having children into their mid 30s, then wonder why autism rates skyrocketed.

Ignoring that these stats are made up, that the diagnosis code is broadened,that risk for autism for birth in the 30s is still just 0.4%, plus marriages are more stable when folks wait till late twenties or early thirties so better outcomes for children and more stable households, oh and that we also do a sh*t job funding parental leave or childcare costs which women are better able to afford later in life?

Anonymous wrote:In 1980, autism was 2 per 10,000 births

In 2024, autism is 1 per 12 births

Not a shakedown OP.

Two generations of Western women delaying having children into their mid 30s, then wonder why autism rates skyrocketed.

Anonymous wrote:In 1980, autism was 2 per 10,000 births

In 2024, autism is 1 per 12 births

Not a shakedown OP.

There are too many people calling themselves autistic. Once they did this long spectrum you have all kinds of awkward adults with zero social skills claiming that they are on the spectrum.

In 1980 the only kids diagnosed with autism were clearly impaired and couldn’t function on their own. Those numbers for 2024 are not even close to accurate. Who’s diagnosing one year olds anyway.

Anonymous wrote:I can’t get over the maga morons here who are certain Tylenol is the culprit. We are doomed.

They are still idolizing the guy who said we should shine light up our butts to treat COVID, so.

I can’t get over the maga morons here who are certain Tylenol is the culprit. We are doomed.