4 ms·

I am an autism researcher. While we cannot say 'vaccines never cause autism' we can say with confidence 'Other potential causes of autism have much better theor

I am an autism researcher. While we cannot say 'vaccines never cause autism' we can say with confidence 'Other potential causes of autism have much better theoretical foundations, empirical evidence, prevalence, and effect sizes. With limited research budgets, we have better research targets to pursue first before further investigating vaccines."

efavdb 1y ago
would you mind answering a couple questions? I'm very curiuous: Have autism rates increased recently (last few decades)? If so, what are the best theories for why?
- rtkwe 1y ago
  One of the largest reasons is probably we're just looking more. It's a relatively new diagnosis, just 50 years ago it'd just be "oh yeah Uncle Joe is a little weird he only eats hotdogs and knows everything ever about trains".
  - efavdb 1y ago
    There are severe cases of non verbal children etc
    - NoGravitas 1y ago
      Yes, and 50 years ago, those high-support-needs children would be the only people diagnosed as autistic, unlike today.
    - rtkwe 1y ago
      I'm not 100% sure what you're saying. Yes there are obvious cases like but those instances also used to just get called other things before we figured out autism as a distinct disease and it became widespread knowledge. There's no field in the data that gives us (for lack of a better term) the level of autism for people getting that diagnosis over time and we're recognizing more and more things as being on the spectrum of autism as time goes on which really just feeds back into the "there's more because we're finding/labelling more people as autistic" hypothesis.
- toomanyrichies 1y ago
  The book “Neurotribes” goes into this in great detail. The number of diagnoses have increased, primarily due to a widening of the criteria used to diagnose autism as the DSM [1] has gone from version 3 to 5. In the early days of autism research, it used to be necessary to meet multiple criteria (i.e. profound social withdrawal, language peculiarities such as echolalia, resistance to change, repetitive behaviors, etc., all occurring in very early childhood). Today, it’s possible to receive a diagnosis in adulthood, and to do so while meeting criteria across fewer of the above domains. This widening has multiple causes, not the least of which was an attempt to help parents of autistic children access parenting resources they otherwise couldn’t without a diagnosis in-hand. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_M...
  - sshine 1y ago
    > widening of the criteria used to diagnose Seeing some autism influencers on social media, I'm reminded that every childhood friend I ever had was autistic.
- kiliankoe 1y ago
  The most recent episode of the podcast Science Vs explored this in detail: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/autism-the-real-reason-its-going-up/id1051557000?i=1000713545566 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/autism-the-real-reason... The rise in autism rates (5x over the last 25 years) is almost entirely explained by changes in how autism is defined, diagnosed, and detected. Not by an actual surge in underlying cases or any specific environmental trigger like vaccines, air pollution, heavy metals, plastics, or screen time.
  - normalaccess 1y ago
    I just don't believe that based purely on my personal experience. I've been around many many people and in the last 15-20 years the amount of people with autism has exploded. It was very rare 30 years ago in my area, the occasional led exposure here, farm chemicals there... But now it's seemingly every 10th house that has someone that is nonverbal. I'm all for papers and science but only if it matches the real world.
- SirFatty 1y ago
  Ah.. like Joe Rogan, you're "just asking questions".
relaxing 1y ago
That’s not a helpful way to communicate with the public. Instead you should follow the standards we hold for everyday occurrences, which is if there’s no compelling evidence, it’s safe to say it doesn’t happen.
- mousethatroared 1y ago
  "which is if there’s no compelling evidence, it’s safe to say it doesn’t happen." I call BS. Until there was compelling evidence that antidepressants cause suicidal ideation it's safe to say it doesn't Until there was compelling evidence that contaminated water causes cholera it's safe to say it doesn't Until there was compelling evidence that dirty hands cause maternal death it's safe to say it doesn't Until there was compelling evidence that lack of sunlight causes neo-natal jaundice it's safe to say it doesn't These examples span centuries, including the 21st, that were vigorously rejected by experts
  - rayiner 1y ago
    Also, the internet makes this sort of well-intentioned deception both impossible and counter-productive.
  - guelo 1y ago
    What is your point? You can't suspect things without evidence or you'd never be able to leave your house afraid of everything.
  - relaxing 1y ago
    Yeah man, if you went around telling people not to take their meds because someone suspected jt might cause suicidal ideation, you’d end up causing far more harm to all the unmedicated people.
- wakawaka28 1y ago
  [flagged]
rany_ 1y ago
This is exactly why the whole "vaccine causes autism" got started. We need to improve science literacy before we could say things like that to the general public. When a layperson hears this, they'll think that there's a small but possible chance that vaccines do cause autism; when what the scientist means to say is that "it's highly unlikely that vaccines cause autism."
- taurath 1y ago
  I think it’s okay to mean what you say. Part of improving literacy is also respecting the intelligence of your audience and not talking down to them. Treating everyone like buffoons makes people act like them - treating them as beings capable of thought and reason tends to show the better side.
  - dxuh 1y ago
    I find this argument hard to agree with. We are seeing unprecedented levels of buffoonery in many governments of the world and people enthusiastically agreeing with (objectively) idiots. Before anyone that does not know how to understand a statement as we are talking about, they will understand it the wrong way, tell everyone they know, create social media content and form organizations that oppose vaccines. I would say that this is more likely to happen many times over than them actually learning how to understand a statement like OPs properly. So as sad as it is, I think you are wrong.
    - Althuns 1y ago
      I can understand that this approach seems like the easy quick solution, but the problem is much deeper than that. It's more about a weaponization of language by those who know what they're doing. Getting into a language fight isn't worthless, but doesn't actually resolve the issue, just escalates it. What's more important IMHO, is raising the general understanding of how this science works and not falling into the trap of feeling like we have to debate this buffoonery on the same level. We're so worried about being called "elites" or whatever that we fight on their terms instead of just straight up calling it out as stupid and manipulative and giving it no more time than that.

efavdb 1y ago

would you mind answering a couple questions? I'm very curiuous: Have autism rates increased recently (last few decades)? If so, what are the best theories for why?

rtkwe 1y ago
One of the largest reasons is probably we're just looking more. It's a relatively new diagnosis, just 50 years ago it'd just be "oh yeah Uncle Joe is a little weird he only eats hotdogs and knows everything ever about trains".
- efavdb 1y ago
  There are severe cases of non verbal children etc
  - NoGravitas 1y ago
    Yes, and 50 years ago, those high-support-needs children would be the only people diagnosed as autistic, unlike today.
  - rtkwe 1y ago
    I'm not 100% sure what you're saying. Yes there are obvious cases like but those instances also used to just get called other things before we figured out autism as a distinct disease and it became widespread knowledge. There's no field in the data that gives us (for lack of a better term) the level of autism for people getting that diagnosis over time and we're recognizing more and more things as being on the spectrum of autism as time goes on which really just feeds back into the "there's more because we're finding/labelling more people as autistic" hypothesis.
toomanyrichies 1y ago
The book “Neurotribes” goes into this in great detail. The number of diagnoses have increased, primarily due to a widening of the criteria used to diagnose autism as the DSM [1] has gone from version 3 to 5. In the early days of autism research, it used to be necessary to meet multiple criteria (i.e. profound social withdrawal, language peculiarities such as echolalia, resistance to change, repetitive behaviors, etc., all occurring in very early childhood). Today, it’s possible to receive a diagnosis in adulthood, and to do so while meeting criteria across fewer of the above domains. This widening has multiple causes, not the least of which was an attempt to help parents of autistic children access parenting resources they otherwise couldn’t without a diagnosis in-hand. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_M...
- sshine 1y ago
  > widening of the criteria used to diagnose Seeing some autism influencers on social media, I'm reminded that every childhood friend I ever had was autistic.
kiliankoe 1y ago
The most recent episode of the podcast Science Vs explored this in detail: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/autism-the-real-reason-its-going-up/id1051557000?i=1000713545566 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/autism-the-real-reason... The rise in autism rates (5x over the last 25 years) is almost entirely explained by changes in how autism is defined, diagnosed, and detected. Not by an actual surge in underlying cases or any specific environmental trigger like vaccines, air pollution, heavy metals, plastics, or screen time.
- normalaccess 1y ago
  I just don't believe that based purely on my personal experience. I've been around many many people and in the last 15-20 years the amount of people with autism has exploded. It was very rare 30 years ago in my area, the occasional led exposure here, farm chemicals there... But now it's seemingly every 10th house that has someone that is nonverbal. I'm all for papers and science but only if it matches the real world.
SirFatty 1y ago
Ah.. like Joe Rogan, you're "just asking questions".

relaxing 1y ago

That’s not a helpful way to communicate with the public. Instead you should follow the standards we hold for everyday occurrences, which is if there’s no compelling evidence, it’s safe to say it doesn’t happen.

mousethatroared 1y ago
"which is if there’s no compelling evidence, it’s safe to say it doesn’t happen." I call BS. Until there was compelling evidence that antidepressants cause suicidal ideation it's safe to say it doesn't Until there was compelling evidence that contaminated water causes cholera it's safe to say it doesn't Until there was compelling evidence that dirty hands cause maternal death it's safe to say it doesn't Until there was compelling evidence that lack of sunlight causes neo-natal jaundice it's safe to say it doesn't These examples span centuries, including the 21st, that were vigorously rejected by experts
- rayiner 1y ago
  Also, the internet makes this sort of well-intentioned deception both impossible and counter-productive.
- guelo 1y ago
  What is your point? You can't suspect things without evidence or you'd never be able to leave your house afraid of everything.
- relaxing 1y ago
  Yeah man, if you went around telling people not to take their meds because someone suspected jt might cause suicidal ideation, you’d end up causing far more harm to all the unmedicated people.
wakawaka28 1y ago
[flagged]

rany_ 1y ago

This is exactly why the whole "vaccine causes autism" got started. We need to improve science literacy before we could say things like that to the general public. When a layperson hears this, they'll think that there's a small but possible chance that vaccines do cause autism; when what the scientist means to say is that "it's highly unlikely that vaccines cause autism."

taurath 1y ago
I think it’s okay to mean what you say. Part of improving literacy is also respecting the intelligence of your audience and not talking down to them. Treating everyone like buffoons makes people act like them - treating them as beings capable of thought and reason tends to show the better side.
- dxuh 1y ago
  I find this argument hard to agree with. We are seeing unprecedented levels of buffoonery in many governments of the world and people enthusiastically agreeing with (objectively) idiots. Before anyone that does not know how to understand a statement as we are talking about, they will understand it the wrong way, tell everyone they know, create social media content and form organizations that oppose vaccines. I would say that this is more likely to happen many times over than them actually learning how to understand a statement like OPs properly. So as sad as it is, I think you are wrong.
  - Althuns 1y ago
    I can understand that this approach seems like the easy quick solution, but the problem is much deeper than that. It's more about a weaponization of language by those who know what they're doing. Getting into a language fight isn't worthless, but doesn't actually resolve the issue, just escalates it. What's more important IMHO, is raising the general understanding of how this science works and not falling into the trap of feeling like we have to debate this buffoonery on the same level. We're so worried about being called "elites" or whatever that we fight on their terms instead of just straight up calling it out as stupid and manipulative and giving it no more time than that.