Autism

[LazaHorse]

How exactly does that make you an expert on statistical research?

 

Never claimed expertise. However, early on in Poli Sci you are taught the stigma of Causality. Law for many years pre-1900 was based on Syllogism (if this then that) and Causality. Similarly, political science is less a science of correlations and historical fact than causality and future prediction. I didn't argue for or against his argument. I DID argue that taking TWO studies that provide a conclusion as truth and going white knight on a GAMING FORUM about it is stupid, feeble, and frankly annoying.

[Zekk]

the mackinac bridge is located in michigan. it connects the two peninsulas

 

As a former resident of Mich, I would like to state that while technically you were correct to change Mackinaw Bridge to Mackinac Bridge, ... We refer to it as the Mackinaw Bridge in passing because it's in the city of Mackinaw and honestly its a nicer sound.

 

As to the debate on Autism, I think we all need to take a step back and cool off.

Autism is a very polarized debate and many people have their own theories and opinions.

But a universal truth is is that we should never treat people like second class citizens because they are different.

[LazaHorse]

But a universal truth is is that we should never treat people like second class citizens because they are different.

 

Unless they main Ryze. Then they're assholes.

[Chick Magnet]

Never claimed expertise. However, early on in Poli Sci you are taught the stigma of Causality. Law for many years pre-1900 was based on Syllogism (if this then that) and Causality. Similarly, political science is less a science of correlations and historical fact than causality and future prediction. I didn't argue for or against his argument. I DID argue that taking TWO studies that provide a conclusion as truth and going white knight on a GAMING FORUM about it is stupid, feeble, and frankly annoying.

 

Then proceeded to hop off of topic and claim that I was a 9/11 conspiracy theorist.

[Wingless]

Never claimed expertise. However, early on in Poli Sci you are taught the stigma of Causality. Law for many years pre-1900 was based on Syllogism (if this then that) and Causality. Similarly, political science is less a science of correlations and historical fact than causality and future prediction. I didn't argue for or against his argument. I DID argue that taking TWO studies that provide a conclusion as truth and going white knight on a GAMING FORUM about it is stupid, feeble, and frankly annoying.

 

Then proceeded to hop off of topic and claim that I was a 9/11 conspiracy theorist.

 

Pretty sure that was thinly veiled sarcasm alluding to how off base he thinks your opinion is.

[LazaHorse]

Pretty sure that was thinly veiled sarcasm alluding to how off base he thinks your opinion is.

 

[Chick Magnet]

Pretty sure that was thinly veiled sarcasm alluding to how off base he thinks your opinion is.

 

Lol. Maybe he should have used a better example than 9/11. Because we all know that the government definitely wouldn't keep any secrets about that right?

[Jolle]

I thought this post was about posting your OWN opinion, not arguing whether one is wrong or not... And how did we get into 9/11 from autism? :S

[enigma#]

 

Relevant: keep it civil boys, the banhammer isn't here for just show =]

[LazaHorse]

Relevant: keep it civil boys, the banhammer isn't here for just show =]

 

How can something that is a figurative symbol for a real event be "for show" when you can't even see it.

 

And no that is not an invitation.

[enigma#]

How can something that is a figurative symbol for a real event be "for show" when you can't even see it.

 

And no that is not an invitation.

 

haha true! =D

[BlakOut]

As someone who works in healthcare and did a practicum dissertation on autism, I get the feeling that some people who have commented thus far have a real understanding of the vastness of the autism spectrum. Most of you are confusing autism with Asperger syndrome, which is characterized by stunted social capacity paired with extremely high memory capacity. However, most autistic children do not have those traits. Instead, the majority have the stunted social capacity paired with cognitive impairment and learning disabilities and no outstanding memorization ability at all. Many people theorize that Einstein probably suffered from something like mild Asperger's because of social inadequacies and failures as a father/husband in the presence of the most miraculous spacial and abstract reasoning that's ever been seen. If you are or know someone who is what they crudely call an "idiot savant," you are probably autistic. However, if you are autistic, you probably aren't a savant.

 

Angel of Deth II is 100% correct in his mention of syntheticly introduced toxins and vaccine potency (overload) as causes of the radical increase in autism during the course of the past few decades.

 

No, Lazarus, the idea that mercury and other industrially-introduced toxins into water sources and foods is not a shaky correlation, let alone a potentially spurious one. Instead, that correlation is as strong as any the Institute of Medicine and other pediatric-oriented organizations have recognized. Vaccine overloads, increases in mercury and other toxins in mothers' environments and diets are 100% conclusively, concrete contributors to increasing autism in infant and toddler populations. Consult any MD who has done work in autism or any pediatrician in the world, and they will tell you just that (I've heard it from probably 30). Mothers are encouraged to steer clear of potentially hazardous habits and foods because they are known contributors to the likelihood of autism.

 

That being said, these kinds of factors aren't alone. There is a myriad of work being done in genetics and metabolic sciences in order to search for potential causes there as well.

 

I don't recall off the top of my head the name of community, but there was a small group of mountain dwelling people somewhere in the northern United States whose water sources were very severely and very deliberately polluted by Ford Motor Company for many years. The following generations in the region saw exponential growth in autism, other PDDs and cancers. Environmental toxins, almost always induced by industrial pollutants, most certainly contribute to birth defects and cognitive disorders including every member of the PDD spectrum.

 

Unlike armchair philosophy, the empirical sciences, especially in medicine, do not suspend conclusion because of solipsistic notions. If we did, we wouldn't get very far in terms of healthcare innovation.

 

If you happen to be interested, there is a plethora of academic, peer-reviewed research on autism and related syndromes because of their impacts and rising stats all over instrustrially driven countries. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ is an excellent place to start.

Edited April 20, 2012 by BlakOut

[enigma#]

As someone who works in healthcare and did a practicum dissertation on autism, I get the feeling that some people who have commented thus far have a real understanding of the vastness of the autism spectrum. Most of you are confusing autism with Asperger syndrome, which is characterized by stunted social capacity paired with extremely high memory capacity. However, most autistic children do not have those traits. Instead, the majority have the stunted social capacity paired with cognitive impairment and learning disabilities and no outstanding memorization ability at all. Many people theorize that Einstein probably suffered from something like mild Asperger's because of social inadequacies and failures as a father/husband in the presence of the most miraculous spacial and abstract reasoning that's ever been seen.

 

Angel of Deth II is 100% correct in his mention of syntheticly introduced toxins and vaccine potency (overload) as causes of the radical increase in autism during the course of the past few decades.

 

No, Lazarus, the idea that mercury and other industrially-introduced toxins into water sources and foods is not a shaky correlation, let alone a potentially spurious one. Instead, that correlation is as strong as any the Institute of Medicine and other pediatric-oriented organizations have recognized. Vaccine overloads, increases in mercury and other toxins in mothers' environments and diets are 100% conclusively, concrete contributors to increasing autism in infant and toddler populations. Consult any MD who has done work in autism or any pediatrician in the world, and they will tell you just that (I've heard it from probably 30). Mothers are encouraged to steer clear of potentially hazardous habits and foods because they are known contributors to the likelihood of autism.

 

That being said, these kinds of factors aren't alone. There is a myriad of work being done in genetics and metabolic sciences in order to search for potential causes there as well.

 

I don't recall off the top of my head the name of community, but there was a small group of mountain dwelling people somewhere in the northern United States whose water sources were very severely and very deliberately polluted by Ford Motor Company for many years. The following generations in the region saw exponential growth in autism, other PDDs and cancers. Environmental toxins, almost always induced by industrial pollutants, most certainly contribute to birth defects and cognitive disorders including every member of the PDD spectrum.

 

Unlike armchair philosophy, the empirical sciences, especially in medicine, do not suspend conclusion because of solipsistic notions. If we did, we wouldn't get very far in terms of healthcare innovation.

 

If you happen to be interested, there is a plethora of academic, peer-reviewed research on autism and related syndromes because of their impacts and rising stats all over instrustrially driven countries. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ is an excellent place to start.

 

To be quite frank, I'm inclined to agree as I did get a small reading into it.

 

That being said, there's a lot of diseases caused by environmental toxins. It revolves right back to nature versus nurture sadly -.-.

 

-------

 

Science is a presumptive measure of truth just like how one would say "I like turtles", it's an opinion. imo the only reason why science is superior is it's ability for it to be openly, honestly tested; time after time.

 

You'd be blind to allow conclusions to fly off handles.

 

By the way I'm not sure how 'the self' relates to the statement "cum hoc ergo propter hoc", in fact this is taught in statistics and science for a reason. So we don't have idiotic precedents that happen.

 

Unlike armchair philosophy, the empirical sciences, especially in medicine, do not suspend conclusion because of solipsistic notions. If we did, we wouldn't get very far in terms of healthcare innovation.

 

I think that's completely misguided. We suspend conclusion because we seek to find the truth. Sometimes a hasty conclusion can fuck up science. And the final statement can open a HUGE precedent that could fuck up our world even more -.-

[skankBANG]

As someone who works in healthcare and did a practicum dissertation on autism, I get the feeling that some people who have commented thus far have a real understanding of the vastness of the autism spectrum. Most of you are confusing autism with Asperger syndrome, which is characterized by stunted social capacity paired with extremely high memory capacity. However, most autistic children do not have those traits. Instead, the majority have the stunted social capacity paired with cognitive impairment and learning disabilities and no outstanding memorization ability at all. Many people theorize that Einstein probably suffered from something like mild Asperger's because of social inadequacies and failures as a father/husband in the presence of the most miraculous spacial and abstract reasoning that's ever been seen. If you are or know someone who is what they crudely call an "idiot savant," you are probably autistic. However, if you are autistic, you probably aren't a savant.

 

Angel of Deth II is 100% correct in his mention of syntheticly introduced toxins and vaccine potency (overload) as causes of the radical increase in autism during the course of the past few decades.

 

No, Lazarus, the idea that mercury and other industrially-introduced toxins into water sources and foods is not a shaky correlation, let alone a potentially spurious one. Instead, that correlation is as strong as any the Institute of Medicine and other pediatric-oriented organizations have recognized. Vaccine overloads, increases in mercury and other toxins in mothers' environments and diets are 100% conclusively, concrete contributors to increasing autism in infant and toddler populations. Consult any MD who has done work in autism or any pediatrician in the world, and they will tell you just that (I've heard it from probably 30). Mothers are encouraged to steer clear of potentially hazardous habits and foods because they are known contributors to the likelihood of autism.

 

That being said, these kinds of factors aren't alone. There is a myriad of work being done in genetics and metabolic sciences in order to search for potential causes there as well.

 

I don't recall off the top of my head the name of community, but there was a small group of mountain dwelling people somewhere in the northern United States whose water sources were very severely and very deliberately polluted by Ford Motor Company for many years. The following generations in the region saw exponential growth in autism, other PDDs and cancers. Environmental toxins, almost always induced by industrial pollutants, most certainly contribute to birth defects and cognitive disorders including every member of the PDD spectrum.

 

Unlike armchair philosophy, the empirical sciences, especially in medicine, do not suspend conclusion because of solipsistic notions. If we did, we wouldn't get very far in terms of healthcare innovation.

 

If you happen to be interested, there is a plethora of academic, peer-reviewed research on autism and related syndromes because of their impacts and rising stats all over instrustrially driven countries. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ is an excellent place to start.

 

Read the first paragraph. Will read a couple more when I get home from school!

[LazaHorse]

As someone who works in healthcare and did a practicum dissertation on autism, I get the feeling that some people who have commented thus far have a real understanding of the vastness of the autism spectrum. Most of you are confusing autism with Asperger syndrome, which is characterized by stunted social capacity paired with extremely high memory capacity. However, most autistic children do not have those traits. Instead, the majority have the stunted social capacity paired with cognitive impairment and learning disabilities and no outstanding memorization ability at all. Many people theorize that Einstein probably suffered from something like mild Asperger's because of social inadequacies and failures as a father/husband in the presence of the most miraculous spacial and abstract reasoning that's ever been seen. If you are or know someone who is what they crudely call an "idiot savant," you are probably autistic. However, if you are autistic, you probably aren't a savant.

 

Angel of Deth II is 100% correct in his mention of syntheticly introduced toxins and vaccine potency (overload) as causes of the radical increase in autism during the course of the past few decades.

 

No, Lazarus, the idea that mercury and other industrially-introduced toxins into water sources and foods is not a shaky correlation, let alone a potentially spurious one. Instead, that correlation is as strong as any the Institute of Medicine and other pediatric-oriented organizations have recognized. Vaccine overloads, increases in mercury and other toxins in mothers' environments and diets are 100% conclusively, concrete contributors to increasing autism in infant and toddler populations. Consult any MD who has done work in autism or any pediatrician in the world, and they will tell you just that (I've heard it from probably 30). Mothers are encouraged to steer clear of potentially hazardous habits and foods because they are known contributors to the likelihood of autism.

 

That being said, these kinds of factors aren't alone. There is a myriad of work being done in genetics and metabolic sciences in order to search for potential causes there as well.

 

I don't recall off the top of my head the name of community, but there was a small group of mountain dwelling people somewhere in the northern United States whose water sources were very severely and very deliberately polluted by Ford Motor Company for many years. The following generations in the region saw exponential growth in autism, other PDDs and cancers. Environmental toxins, almost always induced by industrial pollutants, most certainly contribute to birth defects and cognitive disorders including every member of the PDD spectrum.

 

Unlike armchair philosophy, the empirical sciences, especially in medicine, do not suspend conclusion because of solipsistic notions. If we did, we wouldn't get very far in terms of healthcare innovation.

 

If you happen to be interested, there is a plethora of academic, peer-reviewed research on autism and related syndromes because of their impacts and rising stats all over instrustrially driven countries. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ is an excellent place to start.

 

I was actually waiting for you to voice in on this knowing your professional history. You bring a credibility to this argument that very few in HG can. I never did say that I don't believe toxins to be a root cause of the rise in autism (and other mental/physical disorders) over the past decades, but I questioned the backing with which Angel of Death made his argument. I do know of and got a chance to study multiple legal cases (most civil court cases but a few criminal cases against individuals) where the removal of toxins by corporations had caused a noticeable increase of disabilities like downs syndrome and even more serious physical problems like Leukemia. The one most people know of is Anderson v. Cryovac (featured in Travolta's documentary movie "A Civil Action") where toxic waste found in the drinking water of Woburn, Mass. was causing physical deficiencies including multiple cases of cancer in children.

 

Mea culpa if you saw my argument as one against the notion of toxins leading to the rise in Autism. That is not the case, and presented with proper evidence I would be inclined to agree with it. My argument was that relying on TWO cases to come against the American treatment of environmental toxins as a whole is albeit silly.

 

Great input.

[BlakOut]

To be quite frank, I'm inclined to agree as I did get a small reading into it.

 

That being said, there's a lot of diseases caused by environmental toxins. It revolves right back to nature versus nurture sadly -.-.

 

-------

 

Science is a presumptive measure of truth just like how one would say "I like turtles", it's an opinion. imo the only reason why science is superior is it's ability for it to be openly, honestly tested; time after time.

 

You'd be blind to allow conclusions to fly off handles.

 

By the way I'm not sure how 'the self' relates to the statement "cum hoc ergo propter hoc", in fact this is taught in statistics and science for a reason. So we don't have idiotic precedents that happen.

 

 

 

I think that's completely misguided. We suspend conclusion because we seek to find the truth. Sometimes a hasty conclusion can fuck up science. And the final statement can open a HUGE precedent that could fuck up our world even more -.-

 

I mentioned solipsism because it's quite often the final destination of discussions that involve correlation strengths. In spite of the vast evidence behind the germ theory of disease, could I make up a colorful, hypothetical scenario to explain how pathology MIGHT work instead of the prevalent model? Yes. This devolves all the way down to logically questioning the existence of anything aside from one's own consciousness. As we all know, this kind of thought experiment has very little practical application. That's why I contrasted it with the protocols of peer-reviewed science, which adopt correlations as real and genuine after they're very strongly demonstrated empirically.

 

I think the scientific community does a very good job of avoiding post hoc problems, however. The concept of international peer review bears out faulty correlations very well.

 

My intention was to point out that, in the case of autism, the strength of the correlation between the maternal passive ingestion of toxins like some of the common heavy mercury compounds and the occurrence of congenital cognitive syndromes like PDDs is extremely high. For that reason, it is concluded by the field that synthetic toxins and vaccine overloads are the strongest, if not the only, causes for drastic rises in autism.

 

With that being said, Lazarus clarified himself regarding his thoughts on the distinction between correlation and causation and did so very thoughtfully and politely. As such, I'll be withdrawing from the discussion.

 

In parting, I'm reminded of what popped into my head when I first discovered this thread: Although this is HELLSGAMERS, we could definitely do with more threads like this! You'd be damn well surprised to find how many random people this sort of thing appeals to.

 

Cheers,

 

BlakOut

Edited April 20, 2012 by BlakOut

[enigma#]

I mentioned solipsism because it's quite often the final destination of discussions that involve correlation strengths. In spite of the vast evidence behind the germ theory of disease, could I make up a colorful, hypothetical scenario to explain how pathology MIGHT work instead of the prevalent model? Yes. This devolves all the way down to logically questioning the existence of anything aside from one's own consciousness. As well all know, this kind of thought experiment has very little practical application. That's why I contrasted it with the protocols of peer-reviewed science, which adopt correlations as real and genuine after they're very strongly demonstrated empirically.

 

I think the scientific community does a very good job of avoiding post hoc problems, however. The concept of international peer review bears out faulty correlations very well.

 

My intention was to point out that, in the case of autism, the strength of the correlation between the maternal passive ingestion of toxins like some of the common heavy mercury compounds and the occurrence of congenital cognitive syndromes like PDDs is extremely high. For that reason, it is concluded by the field that synthetic toxins and vaccine overloads are the strongest, if not the only, causes for drastic rises in autism.

 

With that being said, Lazarus clarified himself regarding his thoughts on the distinction between correlation and causation and did so very thoughtfully and politely. As such, I'll be withdrawing from the discussion.

 

In parting, I'm reminded of what popped into my head when I first discovered this thread: Although this is HELLSGAMERS, we could definitely do with more threads like this! You'd be damn well surprised to find how many random people this sort of thing appeals to.

 

Cheers,

 

BlakOut

 

Actually clarification is what makes me agree even more

I was merely concerned that your example might be misinterpreted it instead >.<

 

Research is especially important (not just from a researcher's standpoint) but also someone who reads this information.

 

Not everyone will agree or even want to agree, but the truth is the truth.

[Mike is Fr3sh]

My best friend is autistic, it took him three years or so to warm up to me. When we all graduated, we went to different colleges. Bren went on to actually work at the University of Texas at Austin. What a fucking badass.

[Wingless]

So out of curiosity, you're saying that the NAS committee from '01 was wrong when they said that "the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism."?

 

I'm asking largely because that's the largest piece of information against the correlation that I can think of, and I don't really have the time to source things for the next 3 hours. Toxins are bad. Got it. The risk compared to catching something that is generally vaccinated for in this day and age, though?

 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10208

[BlakOut]

So out of curiosity, you're saying that the NAS committee from '01 was wrong when they said that "the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism."?

 

I'm asking largely because that's the largest piece of information against the correlation that I can think of, and I don't really have the time to source things for the next 3 hours. Toxins are bad. Got it. The risk compared to catching something that is generally vaccinated for in this day and age, though?

 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10208

 

Wingless, YES and NO

 

The contrarvery with thimerosal was huge and had big proponents for both sides.

 

In 2001, the CDC, FDA, AAP and a few other organizations collaborated on the topic and came to the conclusion that thimerosal-containing vaccines were causing what I mentioned earlier: potent overload. The result was exposure to very toxic levels of mercury in the infant or todder. Now, not every vaccine containing thimerosal led to autism or any birth defects. That's because not every vaccine was too potent for the particular child's auto-immune capacity. However, a few did result in mercury overloads and caused tons of lawsuits in the United States. In other words, the preservative itself is not toxic in trace levels "usually." On occasions, however, it introduced more mercury into the bloodstream of infants that that child could cope with, and led to neurocognitive problems. So, starting in 2001, the preservative was completely phased out of American pharmaceuticals and isn't used today to my knowledge, the exception being in influenza(FLU) in a synthetic version that cannot induce mercury poisoning. Instead of being cheap scumbags and lacing their vaccines with poisonous preservatives, now most institutions are storing vaccines cold for short-term use and utilizing non-motile strains of the pathogen they're immunizing.

 

Oh, and I just saw your last question, which is another large controversy in the United States: whether or not vaccinating your infant children is highly risky...

 

It's very difficult to say! If it were 1990, I would probably respond just as I am today. That's because I wouldn't have the luxury of retrospect. I can't be certain that, in a few years, a team won't discover something in today's vaccines that is causing problems physiologically as we speak. However, I can tell you that most pediatrics and research organizations say "Yes, vaccinating your children greatly outweighs refusing them for fear of overload." If I had a child today, I would certainly have him or her vaccinated with dTAP, Hep. B, etc.

There are a lot of parents that decide not to because of this type of fear, but most accept vaccinations for their infants under strong encouragement from their MDs.

[Chick Magnet]

Wingless, YES and NO

 

The contrarvery with thimerosal was huge and had big proponents for both sides.

 

In 2001, the CDC, FDA, AAP and a few other organizations collaborated on the topic and came to the conclusion that thimerosal-containing vaccines were causing what I mentioned earlier: potent overload. The result was exposure to very toxic levels of mercury in the infant or todder. Now, not every vaccine containing thimerosal led to autism or any birth defects. That's because not every vaccine was too potent for the particular child's auto-immune capacity. However, a few did result in mercury overloads and caused tons of lawsuits in the United States. In other words, the preservative itself is not toxic in trace levels "usually." On occasions, however, it introduced more mercury into the bloodstream of infants that that child could cope with, and led to neurocognitive problems. So, starting in 2001, the preservative was completely phased out of American pharmaceuticals and isn't used today to my knowledge, the exception being in influenza(FLU) in a synthetic version that cannot induce mercury poisoning. Instead of being cheap scumbags and lacing their vaccines with poisonous preservatives, now most institutions are storing vaccines cold for short-term use and utilizing non-motile strains of the pathogen they're immunizing.

 

Oh, and I just saw your last question, which is another large controversy in the United States: whether or not vaccinating your infant children is highly risky...

 

It's very difficult to say! If it were 1990, I would probably respond just as I am today. That's because I wouldn't have the luxury of retrospect. I can't be certain that, in a few years, a team won't discover something in today's vaccines that is causing problems physiologically as we speak. However, I can tell you that most pediatrics and research organizations say "Yes, vaccinating your children greatly outweighs refusing them for fear of overload." If I had a child today, I would certainly have him or her vaccinated with dTAP, Hep. B, etc.

There are a lot of parents that decide not to because of this type of fear, but most accept vaccinations for their infants under strong encouragement from their MDs.

 

Give that man a cigar! ^

 

Concisely the problem is the concentrated amounts of mercury. Not really the vaccines themselves. The simple man's way of putting it would be "too much of anything will kill you." But I appreciate you coming down and setting the record straight about vaccines.