474
Who the fuck needs an x axis anyway (mander.xyz)
submitted 11 months ago by to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
147 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 201 points 11 months ago (16 children)

The source is "I made it the fuck up!"

Also ignoring improvements in diagnostics.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 43 points 11 months ago (14 children)

    I mean, it says the source right there, it's the CDC...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 73 points 11 months ago (6 children)

    The organization run by a brain worm driving a human suit?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 36 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    I don't understand why you or the person I'm replying to are for some reason seeming to dispute the higher rate of autism diagnosis? It's a fairly well-established fact, the point of contention is why the rate is higher.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 73 points 11 months ago*

    Because that'snot what the graph claims, and it is definitely not what the graph implies.

    The graph says that there has been a 400% increase in the prevalence of autism. That's not true, and is unsupported by the evidence. There has been a marked increase in the effective diagnosis and therapeutic interventions, but autism was largely undiagnosed and under-reported for almost all of human history. We're still improving and refining the diagnostic criteria, and any changes in the number of cases should not be suggested to support any causal relationship with anything.

    The graph is a lie, intended to push a political narrative that undermines the credibility of actual science, all in a transparent effort to distract from powerful child rapists raping children.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 28 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    The rate is higher because we can "catch" more cases with better diagnosis.

    Imagine machine that is throwing 100 balls per second. Another machine that can catch 10 balls per second. You catch 10 balls.

    Now newer machine can catch 20, and newer can catch 50.

    Does that mean the number of thrown balls is higher? No. It just means we have machines better at caching them. The same goes for any illness, autism, schizophrenia, cancer, depression...

    Some ilnesses we are better at curing, does that mean the the illness is getting weaker?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 child)

    I'm aware of that. I guess my point was that the data isn't inaccurate, but I suppose* labelling it as "prevalence" is the point of contention.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 12 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    Yeah, after deleting any data the CDC used to have that they didn't agree with. And making up any new data they need to make their preconceived notion as perceivably supported as possible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    In this case no. It's the fact that we're better at diagnosing things, any disease that doesn't have active treatments is going to be similar.

    You could do reports of ED over time and that graph is going to skyrocket not because it's more or less common but rather more people are willing to get diagnosed to seek remediation. Right around the discovery of Viagra and it's ilk you'd see skyrocketing ED diagnoses and it's not like dicks just suddenly stopped working.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago

    Also, more kids are just getting diagnosed. Back when I was in school in the 90s, I was very lucky to be in a rich school district that actually taught teachers how to spot signs so they could recommend a screening, which the district would foot the bill for because they had a psychologist on staff. Now, more and more districts have people like that, and more and more teachers are taught how to spot early signs of autism (and more parents are aware of it) that kids who previously might have just been "weird kids" are actually getting diagnosed with autism.

    I won't deny a potential environmental link, but if there is one, it's likely more linked to fossil fuels than anything. BUT that's hard to get traction against, and it doesn't have a magic bullet that'll immediately "solve" the issue.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent