Vaccination & epidemic

[Flint]

oh no you di'n't!

[BigV]

Cite your assertion of superior / inferior knowledge, please. How do you know?

[Griff]

Clod lives with the disability. She has immersed herself completely in it. I've been away a while, maybe I missed the part where Tiki actually has any training or background in this at all. I was getting chippy because as someone who is degreed and works in the field, I work with parents of special needs kids who get talked down to constantly by folks who should have a little empathy, but instead accuse them of bad parenting. (this is all apart from the vaccine bit where Tiki seems to know a fair amount)

[Aliantha]

It's a bit like people without kids telling you what you're doing wrong with your kids is what you mean right Griff?

[Griff]

Spot on Ali.

[Aliantha]

Tiki, I don't know if you've read the thread or not, but have a glance through this one if you have a half hour to spare. It might give you a deeper understanding of what people are trying to tell you.

I'm not trying to jump on you. I understand why you're saying the things you are and I agree with some of it, but honestly, if I were in Clods shoes, I'd find some of the suggestions you've made pretty hurtful. I'm sure you haven't meant it that way, but that's how it looks. Maybe I'm wrong about Clod's feelings, but she has a massive burden to bear at the moment, and I think you're being just a little bit inconsiderate. Of course, you can't be expected to know everything about everyone here because you're fairly new, so I just thought it might be helpful for you to know.

Have a blessed day.

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Tiki, I don't know if you've read the thread or not, but have a glance through this one if you have a half hour to spare. It might give you a deeper understanding of what people are trying to tell you.

I'm not trying to jump on you. I understand why you're saying the things you are and I agree with some of it, but honestly, if I were in Clods shoes, I'd find some of the suggestions you've made pretty hurtful. I'm sure you haven't meant it that way, but that's how it looks. Maybe I'm wrong about Clod's feelings, but she has a massive burden to bear at the moment, and I think you're being just a little bit inconsiderate. Of course, you can't be expected to know everything about everyone here because you're fairly new, so I just thought it might be helpful for you to know.

Have a blessed day.

Thanks for linking me to the thread, Ali.

Can I ask what suggestions I've made that are hurtful? All I'm trying to convey is that I find it very easy, from my experience, research, and observations, to see why and how some autistic children may not have been diagnosed in years passed, but similar children are being diagnosed now, because of higher awareness of autism and the ways it can be identified in high-intelligence, high-functioning autistic children... children who are still struggling, but have not historically gotten the recognition or help they need.

I am not saying anything negative about Clodfobble's parenting. This is purely about why I think better diagnosing is adding to the increased incidence of autism. I think it's also important to keep in mind that autism as a diagnosis didn't exist at all until the 1940's, and until the 1960's it was usually diagnosed as schizophrenia! So of course I think recognition rates and correct diagnoses are higher now.

[Aliantha]

No problem. Can I give you one more little tiny bit of advice?

Sure.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by Tiki

Sure.

OK, well I'll try and be as gentle as I can with it because I don't want you to feel persecuted in any way. In fact, I hope you feel welcome here and enjoy the community because it has a lot to offer, and there are some amazing people here, which leads me to my point. Because of the unique nature of this forum, a lot of people have been here for many many years. This of course you already know. There are always going to be disputes between long standing members, and also between newer members. That's always been part of the allure for me personally. That people here can discuss an issue and have a differing view, but not resort to personal attacks (in general).

The problem you have as a new poster is not knowing the history of the older members, and I think that some of the older members could benefit from remembering that too. It's not always easy to find your place here. God knows it's taken me some time, and I've definitely had my ups and downs, with some of the same people you're currently at logger heads with, but the thing that is best to keep in mind is that the older members probably aren't going to go away or change for your benefit, and I'd say most of the forum wouldn't want them to. What I'm getting at is that you need to try and find the positive things, even about the people that annoy you, or you'll have a very bad time here, and none of us wants to see that happen. We'd all love to see you have a positive experience here, but it doesn't seem like that's what you're having lately.

The best advice I have for you, and that which I've learned from personal experience, is that the status quo is not going to change for your benefit no matter how much you fight for it. It might sound harsh, but unless you can find a way to reconcile yourself to those you don't particularly like or find amusing even, you're not going to have a very good time here, and I'd ask why you'd bother if that is the case.

Just try and be a bit more gentle on yourself and on others. We all want to like you, so why not let us?

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Tiki

Maybe it's some inheritable thing.

It is, in fact, demonstrably genetic. Siblings of autistic children have a 2-8% chance of being autistic, somewhere between 50 to 200 times the rate of the general population. But the debate rages over whether it is purely genetic, or whether it is the susceptibility which is genetic, and that without the environmental triggers it would remain dormant, so to speak. (As a comparison, diabetes is also known to be genetic, but the rate of diabetes is much higher today than it used to be because of environmental triggers setting off the disease, like poor diet and lack of exercise.) If one acknowledges that the actual rate of autism is rising, mathematically speaking they must acknowledge that there is an environmental factor, because there is no such thing as a genetic epidemic. This is why many institutions are desperate to prove there are not actually more cases of autism now than there used to be, because if there are, it means there's a cause.

Originally Posted by Tiki

It seems like the only thing we are arguing here is whether some people with autism have in the past evaded diagnosis. I have posted my reading and my experiences which explain why I am sure they have. Clodfobble disagrees, but instead of posting an actual argument why, I'm getting "she knows better than you, so shut up".

It's a question of overall prevalence. No doubt some people with autism have escaped diagnosis in the past, just as some do today, and I acknowledged that earlier. But it is impossible that all of the people currently diagnosed today would have escaped diagnosis in the past, because there are just too many of them. Far, far too many of them. I have posted my reading on the subject repeatedly--which Undertoad has also agreed to read, as an objective non-parent, and let us know what he thinks--as well as my own personal experience: as I said, I have personally sat in a room full of local autistic children who are not at a functioning level. They are not the handful of hyper-intelligent ones who manage to get by in school for a few years, they are the non-communicative, self-injurious, classically autistic ones, all diagnosed before the age of three, and they all live within my school district. This number of them simply could not have abounded in the past like they do now. These children would have been diagnosed. There are more cases today than there were in the past, and what's more, the rate appears to be accelerating.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

It's a question of overall prevalence. No doubt some people with autism have escaped diagnosis in the past, just as some do today, and I acknowledged that earlier. But it is impossible that all of the people currently diagnosed today would have escaped diagnosis in the past, because there are just too many of them. Far, far too many of them. I have posted my reading on the subject repeatedly--which Undertoad has also agreed to read, as an objective non-parent, and let us know what he thinks--as well as my own personal experience: as I said, I have personally sat in a room full of local autistic children who are not at a functioning level. They are not the handful of hyper-intelligent ones who manage to get by in school for a few years, they are the non-communicative, self-injurious, classically autistic ones, all diagnosed before the age of three, and they all live within my school district. This number of them simply could not have abounded in the past like they do now. These children would have been diagnosed. There are more cases today than there were in the past, and what's more, the rate appears to be accelerating.

But it is indisputable that all of them evaded diagnosis in the past, or were misdiagnosed, because the diagnosis itself didn't exist until the 1940's and was not really in clinical use until the 1960's. It's come a long way in just the last twenty years, for that matter... my friend M is a social worker who specializes in working with severely autistic people, and in the past 20 years he's seen the diagnostic criteria, and treatment, change a lot... for the better, in his opinion. The definition of autism has been revised significantly, meaning far more people are now diagnosed with it.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/330/7483/112-d

A lot of disorders, such as ADHD, OCD, and depression, are sharply on the rise, and it's possible (perhaps even likely) that there are environmental factors, but I also suspect that diagnostic tools are simply getting a lot more refined and more people who would formerly not have been diagnosed at all, now are.

I appreciate the advice, but I'd have a lot less fun if I was just lurking around quietly, because 90% of the time this forum is dead boring for me. I hope I'm not unforgivably insulting anyone by saying that, but most forums, without interesting topics, lively debate, and a bit of controversy, become basically group Livejournals. I think there are interesting people here, and I enjoy rousing them a bit and challenging them to show off how interesting they are.

Until I can get them to talk, I don't know.

I've been here a few months and I'm never going to find my place here by lurking. If I tried, I would probably just get bored reading about what a bunch of strangers had for lunch, and drift away. I could certainly do that if everyone still finds my presence unwelcome in another few months, but it's just as likely that you will have gotten used to me, I will have gotten used to you, I will have found a place, and everything will be just fine.

I don't think suppressing my natural personality is going to work very well. I went through a very abrasive phase for several months after my husband left, but... this *is* the softer version of me.

I don't want anyone else to go away, either, but if people are going to poke at me for fun, I'm going to do my level best to make it not fun for them.

[Aliantha]

Tiki, you just basically said that you like the arguments and if there are none then it's boring.

If that's the case, then don't take offence when people get personal.

Sure a bit of drama every now and then makes things a bit more lively, but not every single topic you choose to discuss surely?

eta: There are always going to be shitstirers who really have nothing more to contribute than smart arse remarks. Why bother with them? It only makes it unpleasant for everyone if you lower yourself that far.

Um, that's not actually what I said. At all. I said "interesting topics, lively debate, and a bit of controversy". That doesn't have to include ad-hominem and namecalling.