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.![]()
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.
And this is entirely and exclusively the fault of Tylenol?
+1 If anything acetaminophen use has lessened due to ibuprofen.
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.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
I'll second that physicians will prescribe off label. I've been taking a prescription that's off label for my autoimmune disease for over 20 years, across 3 different specialists (as I've moved a few times)
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sone people believe that 1 in 12 are born with autism. How many of you know children who are disabled with autism?
Disabled with autism, or experience life differently than others in part because of autism?
So then people who are diagnosed under new guidelines who would not have been diagnosed as autistic 40 years ago. "On the spectrum" was not common terminology years ago as the definition was more rigid.
Anonymous wrote: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.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sone people believe that 1 in 12 are born with autism. How many of you know children who are disabled with autism?
Disabled with autism, or experience life differently than others in part because of autism?
So then people who are diagnosed under new guidelines who would not have been diagnosed as autistic 40 years ago. "On the spectrum" was not common terminology years ago as the definition was more rigid.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sone people believe that 1 in 12 are born with autism. How many of you know children who are disabled with autism?
Disabled with autism, or experience life differently than others in part because of autism?
Disabled. Because people experiencing life differently should not be included in the autism diagnosis. It takes services away from the children who will never have a conversation with anyone, will never live alone, will never get married, have children, who will be stunted at the age of a child. That’s what autism is.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sone people believe that 1 in 12 are born with autism. How many of you know children who are disabled with autism?
Disabled with autism, or experience life differently than others in part because of autism?
\Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sone people believe that 1 in 12 are born with autism. How many of you know children who are disabled with autism?
Disabled with autism, or experience life differently than others in part because of autism?
So then people who are diagnosed under new guidelines who would not have been diagnosed as autistic 40 years ago. "On the spectrum" was not common terminology years ago as the definition was more rigid.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sone people believe that 1 in 12 are born with autism. How many of you know children who are disabled with autism?
Disabled with autism, or experience life differently than others in part because of autism?
Anonymous wrote:Sone people believe that 1 in 12 are born with autism. How many of you know children who are disabled with autism?