Trumps Tariffs

Is the 1 in 100,000 figure even accurate though? They had just put it in the DSM-III but it wasn't widely tested nor was the diagnostic criteria as refined as it is in 2024. Could it have been people had/have similar rates today as they did in 1980 but because of advancements/more refined criteria today for diagnostics for autism that we see higher rates than back then? Maybe I'm missing something, and if I am, enlighten me.

Do people really think 1980 was that long ago? When a person is on the autism spectrum it is very obvious. Rain Man was an example. Sure, there are "high functioning" people with autism, so you might have gone to school with a few people that today we would say have Aspergers, like the guy in "A beautiful mind" but the reality is we could identify and diagnose them as well.

When I was growing up I was a boy scout patrol leader, that meant every week I had a meeting in one of my patrol members homes. In those days we visited everyone's home, the idea that kids on the spectrum were being hidden in homes is absurd. They weren't in the classroom and they weren't in the homes and if they were in an institution they were clearly diagnosed.

I find this thought that the number of people with autism has increased 2,000 times in the last forty years because we simply didn't diagnose it to be insulting and absurd.

That's exactly what it is. It just has been advanced when it's in diagnostics. Vaccines don't cause autism. In the doctor who wrote that paper claiming that it does lost his medical license for a reason

To be clear, I think two things CAN be true. Autism could be more prevalent in 2025 than 1980. It could also be true that the 1 in 100,000 is not a good figure to base the prevalence of autism in 1980 and that it has increased 2,000x.

I was merely pointing to the reasons why there was only a 1 in 100,000 ratio in 1980. Changes in diagnostic criteria, more refined diagnostic tools, increased awareness, and even improvements in data collection ALL play a role in why there will be such a huge gap between 1980 and 2024/2025.

Arguing that it's increased 2000 times would be a bit disingenuous when you compare archaic methods to modern methods of diagnosing autism.

These are the same people who think schools are putting litter boxes in the bathroom so there's that

Think about that, the guy claiming he supports science supports doctors losing their license because they ask legitimate questions. How is this "scientific" that you can't even ask a question without them making it so you can no longer work. No wonder many are afraid to ask these questions.

Also, answer this, I grew up when there were only 5 or 6 vaccines for children. We were healthy. Why do they now give 60 shots to children? How is it that this is crucial to keep people healthy? Does that make sense?

Also consider this, if you ask questions like these they will dismiss them saying "you are not a doctor". But if you are a doctor and ask questions like these they will take away your license! So of course no doctors ask these questions except for those who have "lost their license".

It doesn't matter. You don't know the answer, I don't know the answer and if anyone tries to study this they will take away their license to be a doctor.

You are the same person who has been caught lying repeatedly. Show us a link for this?

I'm assuming we are talking about Andrew Wakefield? I didn't know he lost his medical license for merely asking questions.

Unless there is a conspiracy to invalid him (and maybe there is, I haven't looked into it), he was found to manipulate his data which linked autism to the MMR vaccine and ethical violations for how he "treated" some of his young patients. There was a clear repudiation of Andrew Wakefield's data/study.

Do you think he was framed/targeted unfairly?

I don't know...I've seen a guy walking around town here in his hooded bright furry kitty pajamas. I'm usually glad I'm indoors having a tea or something and viewing him from a distance through the big windows.

Catering to such illness is what the previous admin was doing.

If I see any establishments putting out the litter box or bowl of milk for him, I'll go elsewhere. Such support tends to attract more and then the hissing and fighting starts, and the bigger animals come and then they start competing against the other sex and then....

RFK is a good example of the incredible attack waged against someone who asks questions. The entire basis for Dude claiming the Trump administration is AntiScience is based on RFK being put in charge of HHS. Imagine, they attack Trump for using Elon Musk who is clearly a man of science and engineering, and yet still attack Trump for being Antiscience because of RFK. Why the slander? Surely everyone can appreciate there is an epidemic of autism. We can read literature going back thousands of years and there is no indication at all that autism was this prevalent. So why are they attacking people who want to investigate the vaccines, something brand new in the last 100 years and something that strongly correlates with this epidemic of autism? The more they attack him the more I want to hear what he has to say and give him a chance to investigate.

I was not able to finish this post:

I was a science teacher in NY. You cannot teach in the Public school without having all your shots. So I was obviously not "anti vaxx" nor was I "anti science". Also I got Covid in March of 2020, one of the very first people in NYC to get it. I was very sick but recovered. So I wanted to study it carefully so I could help the students when they asked questions. I heard Fauci making statements that were contrary to what we taught. For example he said that people who had recovered still needed to get the vaccine. I didn't understand why since we (and he as well) had always taught that recovering from a virus is the best vaccine. Now I am no expert and I respected the fact that he was an expert so I listened intently for him to explain why this particular virus is different from all others. He never did and the more he made his claims (getting vaccine would make you less likely to spread the virus to others, etc) the more questions I got. It takes ten years of study to know how effective a vaccine is, how could he possibly know now? The vaccine was still in development. Ultimately I came to the conclusion that Fauci was lying. The more I looked the more lies I found. He lied about HCQ, Ivermectin, Quercetin and Zinc. In his case I considered omission to also be deceitful since it was his job to educate the American public on how best to protect themselves. So I decided I would not get the vaccine, I don't trust liars. It was my body, my choice. But you know what they said? I was "anti vaxx" and "anti science". This is simply slander from ignorant people (or worse, malicious, evil people).

For example these ignorant people will always bring up the fact that we have used other vaccines to eradicate diseases like smallpox and polio. So ask them how many epidemics were ever stopped with a vaccine? The answer is 0. Yes, polio was "eradicated" with a vaccine, but the epidemic was stopped when they realized kids were getting sick by swimming in infected water holes. They then tested the water and put up signs warning of polio. That is what put an end to the epidemic.

Also for every vaccine we have that is safe and effective there were two others that they claimed were safe and effective until they were proved not to be. It took us 50 years to get a safe and effective vaccine for small pox or polio that they then mandated.

Being skeptical of politicians making bold claims is not anti science, it is wisdom. Being skeptical of scientists is not anti science it is prudent.

I want to hear no matter if the attacks are happening. There's obviously a problem and it's probably due to many interacting things. And it's obvious that the current and fairly long held routine of bought and paid for "scientific proof" and products being placed at eye level are finally being handed their hats.

The protests on the other hand are interesting indicators, as usual. Me thinks you protest too much. Just why is that (a$ if we don't know).

MAGA people are the middle of the country. I was in FL for vacation when Biden was still in office. I was there with my parents and husband. It was when the 13 soldiers were killed in Afghanistan. We were hoping to forget politics during our stay but it was all over the tv. We were feeling so defeated for the country, worried he and his crew would get in again.

As my husband and I were walking around the gardens of an historic home we came up on my parents speaking to a man their age. They were in deep discussion, he greeted us and said he believed Trump would win the election. He walked on and my mother told me that he had encouraged them not to be discouraged. He told them "there are a lot more of us than there are of them". He was a part of some Christian group and said that they were in prayer and there was support for Trump all over the country. We felt uplifted that day. So please be careful how you speak about people. Many of us took these elections very seriously. We prayed and sought God. We didn't just blindly vote.

One weird guy walking around town doesn't equate to schools putting litter boxes in the bathroom.

I didn't say Dude's claim that MAGA was anti science but his claim that Trump's administration was anti science. That began when Trump chose RFK to be the HHS secretary, even before he was confirmed and before Trump was inaugurated. So yes, what I said was true, and yes Dude has been saying the same thing about MAGA for even longer.