3 ms·

Excuse me if that wasn't clear. It's insulting that the paper suggests that the epidemic is not real.

• Kranar 4y ago
  Then you went on a very angry and incoherent rant for nothing. You seem to be angry because you don't understand what the word epidemic means. In the spirit of this article, epidemic means something specific; the rapid spread of a disease over a short period of time in a specific region. The article is not saying that autism isn't real or that people aren't suffering from it, the article is saying that it's not an epidemic. The article is saying there is no rapid increase in autism over a specific region but rather there's been a change in how it's diagnosed, people's awareness of the disease and that if these factors had been held constant, autism rates would also have been constant.
  • tboyd47 4y ago
    If it was for nothing, then it was only because I chose the wrong audience. Nothing about my comment indicates I misunderstood the intent of the authors.
• llbeansandrice 4y ago
  You're misinterpreting the purpose of the article. It's not saying that the epidemic wasn't real, it's arguing that calling it an "epidemic" implies that there is more autism than there was previously. While they posit that it's simply due to better diagnosis. There are not more people with autism. There are more people that have been diagnosed. Those are different things and calling it an "epidemic" implies that it's the former.