Bought documentary

[naturalbornhawk]

It's an excellent documentary, free to view through March 15

1 in 5000 kids were diagnosed with autism in 1975.

1 in 68 kids are diagnosed with autism in 2014.

"If you project from the growth of autism over the last 6 years, you can figure that about 1/2 the kids are going to have autism by (2025). We're not going to do much else besides take care of those kids."

"80% of marriages that involve a special needs or mentally disabled child do not last."


Bought

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Originally posted by St. Louis Hawk:

Yeah, I know. I wish it would just go away too. But the problems remain.
This post was edited on 3/7 10:33 PM by naturalbornhawk

 

[naturalbornhawk]

It's rule numero uno St Louis. I've noticed this rule is broken a lot here.

RULES

1. No profanity, racist or sexist comments. This includes using abbreviations or changing the letters of a swear word such that the word(s) are still interpreted by most as profane.

 

[MN.HAWK]

Can you check if there is a rule about posters believing moronic things like vaccines causing autism. Cause I gotta say, stupidity of that level is much more concerning and offensive than profanity.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:

It's rule numero uno St Louis. I've noticed this rule is broken a lot here.

RULES

1. No profanity, racist or sexist comments. This includes using abbreviations or changing the letters of a swear word such that the word(s) are still interpreted by most as profane.

What is profane, racist or sexist about his post?

 

[TNK85]

Do they talk about how the spectrum for autism has gotten bigger over the years?
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Originally posted by MN.HAWK:
Can you check if there is a rule about posters believing moronic things like vaccines causing autism. Cause I gotta say, stupidity of that level is much more concerning and offensive than profanity.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

If you have such a closed mind as to make the above comments without watching the documentary, and then have nothing to offer but shallow insults and bullying, then why even click into the thread?

 

[TNK85]

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:

Originally posted by MN.HAWK:

Can you check if there is a rule about posters believing moronic things like vaccines causing autism. Cause I gotta say, stupidity of that level is much more concerning and offensive than profanity.



Posted from Rivals Mobile

If you have such a closed mind as to make the above comments without watching the documentary, and then have nothing to offer but shallow insults and bullying, then why even click into the thread?

are you an anti-vaccine person?
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:

It's rule numero uno St Louis. I've noticed this rule is broken a lot here.

RULES

1. No profanity, racist or sexist comments. This includes using abbreviations or changing the letters of a swear word such that the word(s) are still interpreted by most as profane.

What is profane, racist or sexist about his post?

You're kidding right?

 

[MN.HAWK]

Because I've read and listened to countless articles and podcasts on it. I don't need an obviously one sided doc to regurgitate anti-vax nonsense.

Have to ask. Is anyone who disagrees with this kind of nonsense a bully to you?
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:

It's rule numero uno St Louis. I've noticed this rule is broken a lot here.

RULES

1. No profanity, racist or sexist comments. This includes using abbreviations or changing the letters of a swear word such that the word(s) are still interpreted by most as profane.

What is profane, racist or sexist about his post?

You're kidding right?

Not at all. Un less you consider Star Trek sacred or something.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Originally posted by MN.HAWK:
Because I've read and listened to countless articles and podcasts on it. I don't need an obviously one sided doc to regurgitate anti-vax nonsense.

Have to ask. Is anyone who disagrees with this kind of nonsense a bully to you?

Posted from Rivals Mobile

Of course not, this is HROT. That's what HROT does is disagree. It's just that thoughtful informed disagreement with reason is better than senseless uninformed name calling and profanity. I guess I don't even care about the bullying myself personally. After all if I'm going to post this stuff here I guess I expect it. It's just that it's wrong, that's all.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Originally posted by TNK85:
Do they talk about how the spectrum for autism has gotten bigger over the years?


Posted from Rivals Mobile

Here is a thoughtful comment. Thank you. And you're right, the definition of autism has changed and is probably reflected somewhat in the (1 in 68) increase. To what degree, I'm not sure. Nonetheless, again, the problem remains.
This post was edited on 3/8 1:16 AM by naturalbornhawk

 

[HIWB]

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:

Originally posted by TNK85:
Do they talk about how the spectrum for autism has gotten bigger over the years?

Posted from Rivals Mobile

Here is a thoughtful comment. Thank you. Any you're right, the definition of autism has changed and is probably reflected somewhat in the (1 in 68) increase. To what degree, I'm not sure. Nonetheless, again, the problem remains.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/2015/01/05/majority-of-autism-increase-due-to-diagnostic-changes-finds-new-study/

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Originally posted by HIWB:

Originally posted by naturalbornhawk:

Originally posted by TNK85:
Do they talk about how the spectrum for autism has gotten bigger over the years?



Posted from Rivals Mobile

Here is a thoughtful comment. Thank you. Any you're right, the definition of autism has changed and is probably reflected somewhat in the (1 in 68) increase. To what degree, I'm not sure. Nonetheless, again, the problem remains.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/2015/01/05/majority-of-autism-increase-due-to-diagnostic-changes-finds-new-study/

Thanks for the link HIWB.

Everyone wants to label the science that tells us it's not vaccines as absolute, yet it's the same science that can't seem to offer where it's coming from.

Still, even this article concedes that autism rates have at least increased over the last several decades, and the term "autism" wasn't around for much more than a century. So if the truth is that 60% of the increase can be attributed to the changes in diagnosis, you're still left with 40% increase coming from somewhere. In addition that study covered children born from 1980 to 91 in Denmark no less. This study covered only 11 years of the Denmark history of autism. I don't know what the vaccine schedule is in Denmark, but they've radically changed the vaccine schedule since then in the US. Is there anything out there that's apples to apples? It would be nice to be able to look at prevalence throughout its history in the US, but it's seemingly impossible because of the diagnosis problems.

Then they say in this article that "a 2013 study found that identified autistic children "clustered" where resources for diagnosis and treatment were greater. In other words, where there's more access to diagnostic services, the autism rate is higher."

Doesn't that mean the autism rate could be even higher than 1 in 68 because some are left out of the diagnostic loop? Possibly a portion of the population where you might expect to find a higher rate of autism?

I don't know I'm just throwing stuff out there.
This post was edited on 3/10 12:51 PM by naturalbornhawk

 

[ilhawkeye]

I truly believe it is because kids weren't taken to doctors when they were slow in the past. They were just the village idiot and the family took care of them forever.

How many people in your life were described as "a little off". My guess is none of those kids were diagnosed and would skew these stats to more normal.
Posted from Rivals Mobile