3 ms·

A bacterial infection is an objectively verifiable condition. You can see the bacteria under a strong enough microscope. There’s no such definitive way to diagn

A bacterial infection is an objectively verifiable condition. You can see the bacteria under a strong enough microscope. There’s no such definitive way to diagnose autism, it’s diagnosed based on the definition we came up with to describe a cluster of symptoms. If everyone dismissed the increase in diagnosed bacterial infections as due to the discovery of bacteria, a lot of medical research into diseases like TB would have stalled. It is worth looking at the increase in diagnoses to understand if there is some kind of underlying mechanism (for example parental age or environmental pollutants for autism) which could explain it rather than just dismissing it as an illusion, especially if we don’t understand the underlying cause of autism. RFKs rhetoric is clearly unhelpful and aimed at targeting autistic people, but the idea that “we have more people diagnosed with this condition than we ever had before, is there something to it beyond just relabelling?” is a valuable starting point for research. Caution is warranted (vaccines causing autism, despite being completely debunked, is an example of how NOT to research something like this), but throwing the baby out with the bathwater helps no one.

ceejayoz 1y ago
> A bacterial infection is an objectively verifiable condition. You can see the bacteria under a strong enough microscope. Not until 1676! (And they weren't re-observed for another hundred years after that.) But they existed and made people sick before that date. We may discover a diagnostic test for autism in the future. People are certainly working on it. Similarly, autism existed long before the name autism was assigned to it. But the case count of autism was zero until the 1900s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_autism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_autism "The term autism was first introduced by Eugen Bleuler in his description of schizophrenia in 1911. The diagnosis of schizophrenia was broader than its modern equivalent; autistic children were often diagnosed with childhood schizophrenia."
- d1sxeyes 1y ago
  I completely agree. But autism is what we say it is (until we understand better and find some kind of absolute test). A bacterial infection doesn’t care what we think it is. Anyway it feels almost like the crux of what you’re saying now is “cases of autism have increased because we define autism differently now”. This is true, and I don’t disagree. I objected to your suggestion that the increase in cases is largely illusory because it discards possible environmental factors, and encourages people to “stop looking”. I don’t agree with demonisation of autistic people, but I do think trying to better understand autism and its causes is useful.
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    > A bacterial infection doesn’t care what we think it is. Neither does autism. > Anyway it feels almost like the crux of what you’re saying now is “cases of autism have increased because we define autism differently now”. Yes. I've been saying that all along. The increase in case numbers - and the inferred conclusion that something environmental has changed to cause that - is an illusion. See also: CVEs per Pope. https://infosec.exchange/@SecurityWriter/114397760184324654 https://infosec.exchange/@SecurityWriter/114397760184324654 "Autism epidemic" is like claiming Pope Francis is responsible for a huge rise in insecure code.
    - d1sxeyes 1y ago
      > Neither does autism. If there is an objective definition of autism, I am not aware of it. > Yes. I've been saying that all along. The increase in case numbers - and the inferred conclusion that something environmental has changed to cause that - is an illusion. This has as little evidence to support it as the idea that autism increases are being caused by something environmental.
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        It's pretty clear in a chart. https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/increasing-prevalence-autism-due-part-changing-diagnoses https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/increasing-prevalenc... > They also found that the increase in students diagnosed with autism was offset by a nearly equal decrease in students diagnosed with other intellectual disabilities that often co-occur with autism. > The researchers conclude that the large increase in the prevalence of autism is likely the result of shifting patterns of diagnosis that are complicated by the variability of autism and its overlap with other related disorders. > Recent reports from the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggest that there has been an increase in the prevalence of autism from 1 in 5,000 in 1975 to 1 in 150 in 2002, and to 1 in 68 in 2012. Much of this increase has been attributed to increased awareness and a broadening of the diagnostic criteria for autism. But this new research provides the first direct evidence that much of the increase may be attributable merely to a reclassification of individuals with related neurological disorders rather than to an actual increase in the rate of new cases of autism. > The diagnostic reclassification of individuals from the category of intellectual disability to the category of autism accounts for a large proportion of the change, which varied depending on the age of the children. The researchers estimate that, for 8 year-olds, approximately 59 percent of the observed increase in autism is accounted for by reclassification, but by age 15 reclassification accounts for as much as 97 percent of the increase in autism.

ceejayoz 1y ago

> A bacterial infection is an objectively verifiable condition. You can see the bacteria under a strong enough microscope. Not until 1676! (And they weren't re-observed for another hundred years after that.) But they existed and made people sick before that date. We may discover a diagnostic test for autism in the future. People are certainly working on it. Similarly, autism existed long before the name autism was assigned to it. But the case count of autism was zero until the 1900s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_autism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_autism "The term autism was first introduced by Eugen Bleuler in his description of schizophrenia in 1911. The diagnosis of schizophrenia was broader than its modern equivalent; autistic children were often diagnosed with childhood schizophrenia."

d1sxeyes 1y ago
I completely agree. But autism is what we say it is (until we understand better and find some kind of absolute test). A bacterial infection doesn’t care what we think it is. Anyway it feels almost like the crux of what you’re saying now is “cases of autism have increased because we define autism differently now”. This is true, and I don’t disagree. I objected to your suggestion that the increase in cases is largely illusory because it discards possible environmental factors, and encourages people to “stop looking”. I don’t agree with demonisation of autistic people, but I do think trying to better understand autism and its causes is useful.
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  > A bacterial infection doesn’t care what we think it is. Neither does autism. > Anyway it feels almost like the crux of what you’re saying now is “cases of autism have increased because we define autism differently now”. Yes. I've been saying that all along. The increase in case numbers - and the inferred conclusion that something environmental has changed to cause that - is an illusion. See also: CVEs per Pope. https://infosec.exchange/@SecurityWriter/114397760184324654 https://infosec.exchange/@SecurityWriter/114397760184324654 "Autism epidemic" is like claiming Pope Francis is responsible for a huge rise in insecure code.
  - d1sxeyes 1y ago
    > Neither does autism. If there is an objective definition of autism, I am not aware of it. > Yes. I've been saying that all along. The increase in case numbers - and the inferred conclusion that something environmental has changed to cause that - is an illusion. This has as little evidence to support it as the idea that autism increases are being caused by something environmental.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      It's pretty clear in a chart. https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/increasing-prevalence-autism-due-part-changing-diagnoses https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/increasing-prevalenc... > They also found that the increase in students diagnosed with autism was offset by a nearly equal decrease in students diagnosed with other intellectual disabilities that often co-occur with autism. > The researchers conclude that the large increase in the prevalence of autism is likely the result of shifting patterns of diagnosis that are complicated by the variability of autism and its overlap with other related disorders. > Recent reports from the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggest that there has been an increase in the prevalence of autism from 1 in 5,000 in 1975 to 1 in 150 in 2002, and to 1 in 68 in 2012. Much of this increase has been attributed to increased awareness and a broadening of the diagnostic criteria for autism. But this new research provides the first direct evidence that much of the increase may be attributable merely to a reclassification of individuals with related neurological disorders rather than to an actual increase in the rate of new cases of autism. > The diagnostic reclassification of individuals from the category of intellectual disability to the category of autism accounts for a large proportion of the change, which varied depending on the age of the children. The researchers estimate that, for 8 year-olds, approximately 59 percent of the observed increase in autism is accounted for by reclassification, but by age 15 reclassification accounts for as much as 97 percent of the increase in autism.