The Cellar
Page 16 of 63 « First 69101112131415 16 1718192021222326 Last »
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Vaccination & epidemic (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=20308)

Tiki 05-22-2009 12:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clodfobble (Post 567833)
The diagnosis didn't exist--or the disease itself basically didn't exist? When did widespread vaccination use begin, again? Oh yes, the 1940s.




Many people suspect that. It's called the "Hidden Horde" theory. Because what is undeniable is the vast majority of these autistic individuals are not capable of caring for themselves into adulthood (please recall again that in this case I am talking about diagnoses of pure autism--not PDD, not Asperger's, not ADHD. All of those are rising too, as you say, but those individuals are often capable of caring for themselves and confound the data, so we look at the data without them to get a clearer picture.) So if these people were formerly not diagnosed at all, there must be hundreds of thousands of adults, aged anywhere from 30 to 70, either in institutions with a different diagnosis, homeless on the streets, or being cared for by relatives completely removed from the social services system.



I can type out the footnote references to the actual studies if you really need me to, but there are dozens of them.

ETA: Just to make sure the reference is all in one post: the current prevalence rate as of 2009 is 67 per 10,000.
http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/history-of-autism

Clodfobble 05-22-2009 12:54 PM
Tiki, seriously. Come on now. If I am typing out large passages from highly technical books about autism, do you really think I've never read the webmd page on the subject? The detailed history of autism has entire chapters dedicated to it, in multiple books that I have read. Want to post some wikipedia links for me too, and get it out of your system? We're beyond general definitions at this point in the discussion--do you, or do you not, have evidence of a study that can prove the existence of the "hidden horde?" Because it is the holy grail of researchers who believe the same things you do. They are increasingly desperate to prove that autism has been with us all along. The first one who could would be shouting it from the rooftops.

Flint 05-22-2009 01:17 PM
The crown falls deathly ill... silent I mean silent.

Tiki 05-22-2009 02:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clodfobble (Post 567887)
Tiki, seriously. Come on now. If I am typing out large passages from highly technical books about autism, do you really think I've never read the webmd page on the subject? The detailed history of autism has entire chapters dedicated to it, in multiple books that I have read. Want to post some wikipedia links for me too, and get it out of your system? We're beyond general definitions at this point in the discussion--do you, or do you not, have evidence of a study that can prove the existence of the "hidden horde?" Because it is the holy grail of researchers who believe the same things you do. They are increasingly desperate to prove that autism has been with us all along. The first one who could would be shouting it from the rooftops.
I think this has become a religious discussion, at this point. Your books contradict the majority of the body of knowledge and history of autism, but you continue to argue that they are more valid than all other study on the subject, because...

... well, because.

Clodfobble 05-22-2009 03:35 PM
If a 200-word webMD article constitutes the history of autism from your perspective, then perhaps you ought to consider expanding your sources. The article mentions Leo Kanner in passing--I have read excerpts of Kanner's actual notes from his actual cases when he first began seeing autistic individuals in his practice. My books do not contradict the body of knowledge about autism, because they are for the most part nothing but collections of the body of knowledge about autism. They put all the studies in one accessible place, and point out methodological flaws where they see them. It is the current body of knowledge itself which contradicts what the CDC and various other institutions are telling the public. Either they can back up their assertions with study data, or they can't. And so far, they can't.

Undertoad 05-22-2009 03:53 PM
In order for there to be new levels of diagnosis of autism, there would have to be reduced diagnoses of other things... that would spring out if we had the right numbers to look at, but the numbers are hard to find... but surely other people have looked at numbers.

Clodfobble 05-22-2009 03:57 PM
You'll see it, pages 24 through 41. I already posted a photo of just one of the charts showing that other diagnoses have held steady.

Undertoad 05-22-2009 04:22 PM
OK cool. That gets us an awfully long way.

What I think is interesting about your graph is how it has no sudden shifts, it's all just up and up, slowly over time. It's quite even.

There are no bumps in your graph, therefore the introduction of one single vaccine, or change in one particular vaccine, is probably not the cause. If it was, there would be a spike 2 years after the change, followed by a plateau once the percentage of affected children had been diagnosed. Would you agree?

Clodfobble 05-22-2009 05:04 PM
That graph only shows the increase from 1994 to 2002. The other graphs show a steady level starting in the 1960s, then a bit of a slope upward starting around 1971, a more significant jump up in 1979, a huge spike upward after 1984, and another increase in slope after 1987.

Clodfobble 05-22-2009 05:12 PM
It is interesting to note that as recently as 2007 the CDC used to post historical vaccination schedules on their site. They have now taken them down. But post #2 from this page is a basic rundown of the years that certain vaccines were added:

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=655582

1984 is when the aggressive addition of new vaccines every few years began.

lumberjim 05-23-2009 07:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad (Post 567223)
this surely isn't the old LJ we've known and loved all these years.

get over it NANCY

see...i noticed that TGRR came to the defense of his friend Tiki.

Undertoad 05-23-2009 08:11 PM
say what now

Bullitt 05-24-2009 11:53 AM
Humorous: Jenny Mccarthy

Griff 05-25-2009 07:03 AM
Jenny McCarthy is Amanda Peete. These are really difficult questions with spokesmodels randomly choosing up sides. It is like Al Gore being the face of Global Warming. His (lack of) credibility probably shouldn't be part of the conversation, but the science is so difficult people look for a short-cut finding someone they trust to do their thinking for them. We've had too damn much side-choosing over the last several years, hopefully we can get at the truth. If we cannot sort the science ourselves, at the least, we should put our trust in folks with a history of intelligence and intellectual honesty. Look for respected people who change sides.

Perry Winkle 05-25-2009 08:35 AM
"There are no fundamental philosophical differences; there is bad grammar."


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:51 PM.
Page 16 of 63 « First 69101112131415 16 1718192021222326 Last »
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.