FREE TAPATALK APP

shawmutt · 27th April 2010, 06:02 AM

Sorry if a repost, I searched around and was surprised I didn't see this posted. A buddy of mine posted this a few days ago on Facebook. The stupidity sensors in my brain burned away the sight receptors, and I'm just now regaining my vision.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-..._b_548837.html

Originally Posted by Kirby

If it seems like most of the people you know with autism are 22 or younger, that's because most people diagnosed with autism were born after 1987.

But...wait...huh? I never knew someone could fit so much stupid in a single sentence. I can see that his career as a journalist really paid off.

He goes on:

Quote:

The EPA officials did not offer a list of substances that should be looked at, though they did note that studies on MMR vaccine and the mercury-based vaccine preservative thimerosal, "did not support a relationship with autism," including a 2004 report from the Institute of Medicine.

No studies have been done on other vaccine ingredients and autism risk, however, nor on the entire vaccine schedule.

Slick bit of double-speak there--"it's not the vaccines...or is it???!?!?!?" It's those "other" ingredients.

Ugh, got to stop, the whole article is just a slimy strawman. Is there a HuffPo death count website yet?

Simon39759 · 27th April 2010, 06:42 AM

The actual study seems pretty inconclusive to me. It says that the rate of reported AD increased, but we really knew that.
It mention the definition of AD being consistent, but considering that the problem is with applying this diagnostic, that does not mean much.
It does not address the rate of AD across the population, which is important to determine if new incidence were involved.

The article itself is very prudent and putative in its tone and, really, the only thing they firmly state is how unlikely it is that vaccine are implicated.
Which is, not surprisingly, the only part Kirby does not mention...

Wowbagger · 27th April 2010, 07:06 AM

It seems to me like most people with cancer, today, were born after 1909. Can anyone explain that?!!!

quarky · 27th April 2010, 07:09 AM

Most people were born after me.

Gate2501 · 27th April 2010, 08:12 AM

What does King Dedede have to say about all of this?

samanthakayee · 27th April 2010, 08:37 AM

I was well in my 20's before I knew I had ADHD. Because they really did not 100% know what it was when I was a kid. I was just hyper/lazy kid growing up.

headscratcher4 · 27th April 2010, 08:53 AM

Most people alive today are reported to have been born after 1900. You have a greater chance of dying if you were born on or before 1900.

pgwenthold · 27th April 2010, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by headscratcher4

Most people alive today are reported to have been born after 1900. You have a greater chance of dying if you were born on or before 1900.

The number of people born before 1900 is now less than 1000 - more on the 500 level. Of course, they are all at least 110 years old, so that makes a difference.

It's pretty amazing, we are almost without anyone born before 1900.

Schrodinger's Cat · 27th April 2010, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by shawmutt

Is there a HuffPo death count website yet?

Considering the amount of space they give to new age gurus hawking miracle cures, their constant claims that modern medicine doesn't work, and the amount of anti-vax stuff, there really should be.

Huff Po is the Fox News of the left

KingMerv00 · 27th April 2010, 10:28 AM

Kirby: Most people diagnosed with autism born after 1987

Fixed it for him.

dudalb · 27th April 2010, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat

Considering the amount of space they give to new age gurus hawking miracle cures, their constant claims that modern medicine doesn't work, and the amount of anti-vax stuff, there really should be.

Huff Po is the Fox News of the left

No Kidding.
Any idea that people on the Left are automatically more immune to buying into nonsense then those on the Right should be dispelled by a visit to Huffpo--or The Democratic Underground for that matter.
What amazes me is how many people on the Left have been taking in by that Con Woman Adriana....she wants to be some kind of political kingmaker, and does not care what ideology she adapts to that end. NOt all the long ago she was trying to a conservative big time player, and it is only when she failed at that that she had her conversion to the left.
It's interesting that California Liberals want nothing to do with her; they know too much about her.

Fnord · 27th April 2010, 12:19 PM

Asperger Syndrome (AS) is something a person is born with (research supports the likelihood of a genetic basis). It is a form of behavioral and developmental impairment, and not a form of mental impairment (many people with AS are highly intelligent). AS was first proposed in 1944 to define a set of behavioral characteristics, and has been 'officially' recognized since 1994. Currently classified as a form of High-Functioning Autism, this classification is also currently in dispute. Thus, at least one form of Autism was under study as far back as 70 years ago.

pgwenthold · 27th April 2010, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat

Considering the amount of space they give to new age gurus hawking miracle cures, their constant claims that modern medicine doesn't work, and the amount of anti-vax stuff, there really should be.

Huff Po is the Fox News of the left

Not at all.

Huff Po never, ever claimed to be "fair and balanced."

The problem with Fox News is not that they have a conservative spin. It is that they do it while claiming they don't.

Neither Huffington Post or MSNBC, the usual suspects in the "left's version of Fox" never make any such pretense. As such, they are nothing like Fox.

Gate2501 · 27th April 2010, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Not at all.

Huff Po never, ever claimed to be "fair and balanced."

The problem with Fox News is not that they have a conservative spin. It is that they do it while claiming they don't.

Neither Huffington Post or MSNBC, the usual suspects in the "left's version of Fox" never make any such pretense. As such, they are nothing like Fox.

This is like an inverted false analogy fallacy.

Instead of " these 2 things have one thing in common(while ignoring differences relevant to the argument), therefore they are the same."

You say " these 2 things have this one irrelevant difference(while ignoring glaring similarities), therefore they are nothing alike."

Who cares what Fox News' slogan is or if it is false? This is par for the course on cable news and NO ONE believes that they are "fair and balanced" but those who are already biased, thus it doesn't really matter what they call themselves. Fox News' slogan might as well be "watching any other news network gives you AIDS!".

It is a claim that no one takes seriously, and is therefore not relevant IMO.

KingMerv00 · 27th April 2010, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Not at all.

Huff Po never, ever claimed to be "fair and balanced."

I think we can imply that they believe they are fair.

pgwenthold · 27th April 2010, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Gate2501

It is a claim that no one takes seriously, and is therefore not relevant IMO.

You haven't met my family, apparently.

In fact, a very large number of conservatives actually believe that Fox News is "fair and balanced."

Again, the problem with Fox News is not that they are biased, but they assert they are not - and too many buy into it. If Fox News viewers would say, "I like Fox because they put a conservative spin on the news," then I would say they are like Huff Po and MSNBC. But that's not what they say.

stup_id · 27th April 2010, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

The number of people born before 1900 is now less than 1000 - more on the 500 level. Of course, they are all at least 110 years old, so that makes a difference.

It's pretty amazing, we are almost without anyone born before 1900.

500 yet? how many centennials do i have to keep "euthanizing"? geez...

MattTheTubaGuy · 27th April 2010, 03:00 PM

2 factors 'probably causing a higher rate of recorded autism since 1987:
population increase (there were about 5 billion in 1987, now heading for 7 billion), and the diagnosis itself, which most people who are autistic/AS have been diagnosed more recently, and a lot of older people with autism/AS would not have a diagnosis at all. also a lot of people with mild autism/AS might not get diagnosed as a child. (I self diagnosed myself with AS at the end of last year, and got an official diagnosis with AS earlier this year, and I am 19)

shawmutt · 27th April 2010, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

Kirby: Most people diagnosed with autism born after 1987

Fixed it for him.

That's what he wrote, that's not what he's saying in his article.

pgwenthold · 27th April 2010, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by stup_id

500 yet? how many centennials do i have to keep "euthanizing"? geez...

But these are _super_centenerians. Knocking off the old centennials won't get them...

Dancing David · 28th April 2010, 05:29 AM

Originally Posted by Fnord

Asperger Syndrome (AS) is something a person is born with (research supports the likelihood of a genetic basis). It is a form of behavioral and developmental impairment, and not a form of mental impairment (many people with AS are highly intelligent). AS was first proposed in 1944 to define a set of behavioral characteristics, and has been 'officially' recognized since 1994. Currently classified as a form of High-Functioning Autism, this classification is also currently in dispute. Thus, at least one form of Autism was under study as far back as 70 years ago.

Yes, that is very true as is the diagnosis of autism.

However up until the 1950s and then the deinstitutionalization of State Ops, Head Start and early Childhood intervenetion, most peopel with autism ...(on the high impact, lower functioning) ((Hey are going to classify it as a spectrum disorder BTW, with ASD at the dilute end of the spectrum)
... people with autism would not have been assessed for the loss of language from the age of ~2 years old onward. This is one of the hallmarks of severe autism, the child has normal language acquisition until about the age of two and then it declines. And really questions about imaginary play would not have been asked.

Many people with autism would have been classed as 'mute' or 'severe mental retardation', so as diagnosis and early childhood intervention and screening improve there is a whole category of individuals who go from 'retardation' to 'autism spectrum disorder'.

According to wikipedia:
1938- Hans Asperger describes 'autistic psychopaths'.
1943- Leo Kanner describes 'early infantile autism'.

Now those are case studies not wide diagnostic categories, according to wiki the diagnosis did not become prevalent until 1981.

quarky · 28th April 2010, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by MattTheTubaGuy

2 factors 'probably causing a higher rate of recorded autism since 1987:
population increase (there were about 5 billion in 1987, now heading for 7 billion), and the diagnosis itself, which most people who are autistic/AS have been diagnosed more recently, and a lot of older people with autism/AS would not have a diagnosis at all. also a lot of people with mild autism/AS might not get diagnosed as a child. (I self diagnosed myself with AS at the end of last year, and got an official diagnosis with AS earlier this year, and I am 19)

Does this explain the tuba?

(Kidding. I like to kid.)
Oops, I just remembered that some Asperger's folks don't really 'get' kidding.

Sorry. I got 'foot-in-mouth' syndrome.

Skeptic Ginger · 28th April 2010, 08:25 PM

Originally Posted by quarky

Most people were born after me.

I conclude you are older than 50% of the population.

Skeptic Ginger · 28th April 2010, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

No Kidding.
Any idea that people on the Left are automatically more immune to buying into nonsense then those on the Right should be dispelled by a visit to Huffpo--or The Democratic Underground for that matter.
What amazes me is how many people on the Left have been taking in by that Con Woman Adriana....she wants to be some kind of political kingmaker, and does not care what ideology she adapts to that end. NOt all the long ago she was trying to a conservative big time player, and it is only when she failed at that that she had her conversion to the left.
It's interesting that California Liberals want nothing to do with her; they know too much about her.

Puhleese, can we not make a distinction between opinion blogs and fake news programs?

Skeptic Ginger · 28th April 2010, 08:27 PM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Not at all.

Huff Po never, ever claimed to be "fair and balanced."

The problem with Fox News is not that they have a conservative spin. It is that they do it while claiming they don't.

Neither Huffington Post or MSNBC, the usual suspects in the "left's version of Fox" never make any such pretense. As such, they are nothing like Fox.

Thank you!

Skeptic Ginger · 28th April 2010, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by Gate2501

....

Who cares what Fox News' slogan is or if it is false? This is par for the course on cable news and NO ONE believes that they are "fair and balanced" but those who are already biased, thus it doesn't really matter what they call themselves. Fox News' slogan might as well be "watching any other news network gives you AIDS!".

It is a claim that no one takes seriously, and is therefore not relevant IMO.

But it is still a valid point when one claims to be news and one only claims to be opinion.

Skeptic Ginger · 28th April 2010, 08:48 PM

I wrote this on the Huff Po blog comments:

Quote:

It is very unfortunate that some in the liberal community view the scientific community as being in bed with profiteers or the right wing political organizations.

The science is very clear on this issue, and the bulk of the research is completely disconnected from any profit motivated company. The vaccine autism-connection is just not there.

By continuing in this conspiracy theory fallacy, one wastes resources which could be focused on pursuing the real cause of autism disorders and viable treatment options. Instead we have this continuing waste of resources based on conspiracy theories, not based on science.

And it does a terrible injustice to the thousands of dedicated medical researchers and health care professionals to falsely accuse them of either being ignorant or in on the conspiracy.

Ignorance of the actual science and what the scientific evidence tells us is the true tragedy here, not the conspiracy parents imagine.

It is currently pending review.

Simon39759 · 28th April 2010, 09:18 PM

Pretty good, although I would have added that, if all available contradict the vaccine-autism connection, it also firmly confirm the benefit of vaccines.
Hence, the vaccine-autism conspiracy theory is not only a wild goose chase, but the detrimental effects it cause are not only real but, in many case, potentially lethal.

Skeptic Ginger · 28th April 2010, 11:58 PM

I posted a bit more. There is a current concern about the seasonal flu vaccine in Australia and someone posted about it in the Huff Po blog comments.

Quote:

While we don't know what the current problem is in Australia, and it is important to get to the bottom of it, the H1N1 flu vaccine prevented thousands of pediatric deaths.

As far as the current events, look at the immediate response health care workers are taking in the situation. This is what we do. We look for problems, stop vaccines when there are problems and get to the bottom of it as soon as possible.

And yet, instead of recognizing the experience, the education, and the good intentions of the health care community, when we immediately address vaccine problems it is seen as evidence all vaccine are doing more harm than good.

The Big Pharma conspiracy theorists who ignore the entire health care community don't seem to notice that if we react like we do immediately to vaccine problems, we would do the same if the problems the conspiracy theorists believe we are overlooking were really occurring. But they are not.

If you give hundreds of thousands of children vaccines, some of them are going to have something happen that day, or soon after.
If you DON'T give hundreds of thousands of children vaccines, some of them are going to have something happen that day or soon after.

This is the thing these misguided parents don't get.

MattTheTubaGuy · 29th April 2010, 03:34 AM

Originally Posted by quarky

Does this explain the tuba?

(Kidding. I like to kid.)
Oops, I just remembered that some Asperger's folks don't really 'get' kidding.

Sorry. I got 'foot-in-mouth' syndrome.

It's not so much 'kidding' as sarcasm that Aspies don't get, since we tend to take things literally. as for jokes, if someone tells me a joke, i sometimes don't get it, but I usually get jokes that are typed.
as for the tuba, I don't know.

ETA: 50 posts, Yay!

Dancing David · 29th April 2010, 04:32 AM

Part of that is that sarcasm is aggression, it is more insulting than other forms of humor, therefore people (like myself, not autistic) who often take things at face value perceive the aggression and not the alleged humor.

Mark6 · 29th April 2010, 05:20 AM

Originally Posted by MattTheTubaGuy

It's not so much 'kidding' as sarcasm that Aspies don't get, since we tend to take things literally.

When I was a child, I absolutely HATED being kidded by adults. I did not mind kidding from other children because I knew "that's something children do" -- but being told deliberate untruth by adults was very very distressing.

And yes, I have AS.

Jeff Corey · 29th April 2010, 06:00 AM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Yes, that is very true as is the diagnosis of autism.

However up until the 1950s and then the deinstitutionalization of State Ops, Head Start and early Childhood intervenetion, most peopel with autism ...(on the high impact, lower functioning) ((Hey are going to classify it as a spectrum disorder BTW, with ASD at the dilute end of the spectrum)
... people with autism would not have been assessed for the loss of language from the age of ~2 years old onward. This is one of the hallmarks of severe autism, the child has normal language acquisition until about the age of two and then it declines. And really questions about imaginary play would not have been asked.

Many people with autism would have been classed as 'mute' or 'severe mental retardation', so as diagnosis and early childhood intervention and screening improve there is a whole category of individuals who go from 'retardation' to 'autism spectrum disorder'.

According to wikipedia:
1938- Hans Asperger describes 'autistic psychopaths'.
1943- Leo Kanner describes 'early infantile autism'.

Now those are case studies not wide diagnostic categories, according to wiki the diagnosis did not become prevalent until 1981.

Depends on the definition of "prevalent". People working in applied behavior analysis knew of Lovaas's work with severely autistic children in the 1960s and we were working with that population in the early 1970s. Two of my grad students did their theses on reducing self-injurious behavior using extinction and DRO in these people.

Dancing David · 29th April 2010, 07:35 AM

Originally Posted by Jeff Corey

Depends on the definition of "prevalent". People working in applied behavior analysis knew of Lovaas's work with severely autistic children in the 1960s and we were working with that population in the early 1970s. Two of my grad students did their theses on reducing self-injurious behavior using extinction and DRO in these people.

Well, wiki is wiki. I saw the b-mod videos in the late seventies.

Dr. Imago · 29th April 2010, 07:45 AM

This is primarily a nosological problem.

~Dr. Imago

Jorghnassen · 29th April 2010, 07:48 AM

No surprise there. Rain Man came out in 1988, and I never heard of autism before. I blame Hollywood!

Dr. Imago · 11th February 2012, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by Dr. Imago

This is primarily a nosological problem.

~Dr. Imago

Not to quote myself... well, actually to do exactly that...

http://www.periscopepost.com/2012/02...ver-diagnosed/

~Dr. Imago

Brian-M · 11th February 2012, 10:51 PM

Kirby: Most people with autism born after 1987
Statistician: Most people without autism born after 1982^*

^*Assuming "people" refers to only to living persons, and a world median age of 28.4.

Rasmus · 11th February 2012, 11:21 PM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

It's pretty amazing, we are almost without anyone born before 1900.

How is that amazing?

We're *always* almost out of people that are over 110, after all. (OMG! We're all gonna die!)

DevilsAdvocate · 12th February 2012, 02:27 AM

The study this is based on is bull spit, statistical games, and pandering of the worst kind. Even the study is very wishy-washy about whether increases in autism are “real”.

Quote:

The number of individuals identified as having autism has increased dramatically in recent years, but whether some proportion of this increase is real is unknown.

Quote:

Although the debate about the nature of increasing autism continues, the potential for this increase to be real and involve exogenous environmental stressors exists Thus, using extant empirical data does not allow for discrimination as to whether the observed increases are real or apparent.

Quote:

Thus, based on extant studies, it does not seem possible to assess whether or how much of the observed increases in cumulative incidence are real. Whether or not the increase in AD is real, there still is an increase in the number of individuals diagnosed and, with that, the subsequent public health burden associated with delivery of services to them (8, 17). On the basis of the lifetime care costs for an autistic individual….

And in conclusion…

Quote:

Although artifacts associated with observed increases in various studies cannot be ruled out, from a precautionary standpoint, it seems prudent to assume that at least some portion of this increase in incidence is real and results from environmental factors interacting with susceptible populations. As such exposure is potentially preventable, identification of relevant candidate environmental factors should be a research priority.

If you are not familiar with playing statistical games and reading between the lines, this is saying, “We did everything we could to skew the numbers in favor of the desired result and came up with nothing. But you can’t rule it out 100%.” Although the evidence indicates that it is very, very, very, very, likely that this is just misinterpretation of the numbers and it is nothing at all “real”, we don’t know absolutely for certain because we don’t have numbers about everybody for everything for all times. So, maybe it is environmental factors, or vaccines, or invisible dragons, or questionable hairdos, or kaleidoscopes in teapots orbiting Mars.

But, good golly, this sure is a bad thing and costs lots of money, so let’s consider that maybe, just maybe, there is a .000000000000001% chance that possibly maybe there could be a chance that, even though the numbers can be explained by a bad interpretations, which is probably correct, but is not an absolute, there might perhaps conceivably within some realm of potential possibility actually maybe be something that could maybe be “real” here.

So, let's just be "prudent" and "assume" that it is "real". OK?

In other words: "We got nothing. But we wrote up a nice report."

27th April 2010, 06:02 AM	#1
shawmutt Squirrel Murderer Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Greencastle, PA Posts: 1,992	Kirby: Most people with autism born after 1987 Sorry if a repost, I searched around and was surprised I didn't see this posted. A buddy of mine posted this a few days ago on Facebook. The stupidity sensors in my brain burned away the sight receptors, and I'm just now regaining my vision. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-..._b_548837.html Originally Posted by Kirby If it seems like most of the people you know with autism are 22 or younger, that's because most people diagnosed with autism were born after 1987. But...wait...huh? I never knew someone could fit so much stupid in a single sentence. I can see that his career as a journalist really paid off. He goes on: Quote: The EPA officials did not offer a list of substances that should be looked at, though they did note that studies on MMR vaccine and the mercury-based vaccine preservative thimerosal, "did not support a relationship with autism," including a 2004 report from the Institute of Medicine. No studies have been done on other vaccine ingredients and autism risk, however, nor on the entire vaccine schedule. Slick bit of double-speak there--"it's not the vaccines...or is it???!?!?!?" It's those "other" ingredients. Ugh, got to stop, the whole article is just a slimy strawman. Is there a HuffPo death count website yet?

27th April 2010, 07:06 AM	#3
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 13,673	It seems to me like most people with cancer, today, were born after 1909. Can anyone explain that?!!!
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where *you* could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!

27th April 2010, 07:09 AM	#4
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454	Most people were born after me.
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454

27th April 2010, 08:53 AM	#7
headscratcher4 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 7,759	Most people alive today are reported to have been born after 1900. You have a greater chance of dying if you were born on or before 1900.
	__________________ Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. -- Homer Simpson

27th April 2010, 10:12 AM	#8
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 12,119	Originally Posted by headscratcher4 Most people alive today are reported to have been born after 1900. You have a greater chance of dying if you were born on or before 1900. The number of people born before 1900 is now less than 1000 - more on the 500 level. Of course, they are all at least 110 years old, so that makes a difference. It's pretty amazing, we are almost without anyone born before 1900.
	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

27th April 2010, 06:42 AM	#2
Simon39759 Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 2,285	The actual study seems pretty inconclusive to me. It says that the rate of reported AD increased, but we really knew that. It mention the definition of AD being consistent, but considering that the problem is with applying this diagnostic, that does not mean much. It does not address the rate of AD across the population, which is important to determine if new incidence were involved. The article itself is very prudent and putative in its tone and, really, the only thing they firmly state is how unlikely it is that vaccine are implicated. Which is, not surprisingly, the only part Kirby does not mention...

27th April 2010, 08:12 AM	#5
Gate2501 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,377	What does King Dedede have to say about all of this?

27th April 2010, 08:37 AM	#6
samanthakayee Scholar Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Alaska Posts: 83	I was well in my 20's before I knew I had ADHD. Because they really did not 100% know what it was when I was a kid. I was just hyper/lazy kid growing up.

27th April 2010, 10:25 AM	#9
Schrodinger's Cat Guest Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 3,499	Originally Posted by shawmutt Is there a HuffPo death count website yet? Considering the amount of space they give to new age gurus hawking miracle cures, their constant claims that modern medicine doesn't work, and the amount of anti-vax stuff, there really should be. Huff Po is the Fox News of the left
Schrodinger's Cat Guest Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 3,499

27th April 2010, 10:28 AM	#10
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Kirby: Most people diagnosed with autism born after 1987 Fixed it for him.
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust?

27th April 2010, 11:37 AM	#11
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 23,023	Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat Considering the amount of space they give to new age gurus hawking miracle cures, their constant claims that modern medicine doesn't work, and the amount of anti-vax stuff, there really should be. Huff Po is the Fox News of the left No Kidding. Any idea that people on the Left are automatically more immune to buying into nonsense then those on the Right should be dispelled by a visit to Huffpo--or The Democratic Underground for that matter. What amazes me is how many people on the Left have been taking in by that Con Woman Adriana....she wants to be some kind of political kingmaker, and does not care what ideology she adapts to that end. NOt all the long ago she was trying to a conservative big time player, and it is only when she failed at that that she had her conversion to the left. It's interesting that California Liberals want nothing to do with her; they know too much about her.

27th April 2010, 12:19 PM	#12
Fnord Metasyntactic Variable Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 6,633	Asperger Syndrome (AS) is something a person is born with (research supports the likelihood of a genetic basis). It is a form of behavioral and developmental impairment, and not a form of mental impairment (many people with AS are highly intelligent). AS was first proposed in 1944 to define a set of behavioral characteristics, and has been 'officially' recognized since 1994. Currently classified as a form of High-Functioning Autism, this classification is also currently in dispute. Thus, at least one form of Autism was under study as far back as 70 years ago.
	__________________ Belief is the subjective acceptance of a (valid or invalid) concept, opinion, or theory; Faith is the unreasoned belief in improvable things; *and Knowledge* is the reasoned belief in provable things. Belief itself proves nothing.**

27th April 2010, 12:23 PM	#13
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 12,119	Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat Considering the amount of space they give to new age gurus hawking miracle cures, their constant claims that modern medicine doesn't work, and the amount of anti-vax stuff, there really should be. Huff Po is the Fox News of the left Not at all. Huff Po never, ever claimed to be "fair and balanced." The problem with Fox News is not that they have a conservative spin. It is that they do it while claiming they don't. Neither Huffington Post or MSNBC, the usual suspects in the "left's version of Fox" never make any such pretense. As such, they are nothing like Fox.
	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

27th April 2010, 12:44 PM	#14
Gate2501 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,377	Originally Posted by pgwenthold Not at all. Huff Po never, ever claimed to be "fair and balanced." The problem with Fox News is not that they have a conservative spin. It is that they do it while claiming they don't. Neither Huffington Post or MSNBC, the usual suspects in the "left's version of Fox" never make any such pretense. As such, they are nothing like Fox. This is like an inverted false analogy fallacy. Instead of " these 2 things have one thing in common(while ignoring differences relevant to the argument), therefore they are the same." You say " these 2 things have this one irrelevant difference(while ignoring glaring similarities), therefore they are nothing alike." Who cares what Fox News' slogan is or if it is false? This is par for the course on cable news and NO ONE believes that they are "fair and balanced" but those who are already biased, thus it doesn't really matter what they call themselves. Fox News' slogan might as well be "watching any other news network gives you AIDS!". It is a claim that no one takes seriously, and is therefore not relevant IMO.

27th April 2010, 12:53 PM	#15
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Originally Posted by pgwenthold Not at all. Huff Po never, ever claimed to be "fair and balanced." I think we can imply that they believe they are fair.
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust?

27th April 2010, 01:18 PM	#16
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 12,119	Originally Posted by Gate2501 It is a claim that no one takes seriously, and is therefore not relevant IMO. You haven't met my family, apparently. In fact, a very large number of conservatives actually believe that Fox News is "fair and balanced." Again, the problem with Fox News is not that they are biased, but they assert they are not - and too many buy into it. If Fox News viewers would say, "I like Fox because they put a conservative spin on the news," then I would say they are like Huff Po and MSNBC. But that's not what they say.
	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

27th April 2010, 02:18 PM	#17
stup_id Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Ubiquitous Posts: 262	Originally Posted by pgwenthold The number of people born before 1900 is now less than 1000 - more on the 500 level. Of course, they are all at least 110 years old, so that makes a difference. It's pretty amazing, we are almost without anyone born before 1900. 500 yet? how many centennials do i have to keep "euthanizing"? geez...

27th April 2010, 03:00 PM	#18
MattTheTubaGuy Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 262	2 factors 'probably causing a higher rate of recorded autism since 1987: population increase (there were about 5 billion in 1987, now heading for 7 billion), and the diagnosis itself, which most people who are autistic/AS have been diagnosed more recently, and a lot of older people with autism/AS would not have a diagnosis at all. also a lot of people with mild autism/AS might not get diagnosed as a child. (I self diagnosed myself with AS at the end of last year, and got an official diagnosis with AS earlier this year, and I am 19)

27th April 2010, 04:12 PM	#19
shawmutt Squirrel Murderer Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Greencastle, PA Posts: 1,992	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 Kirby: Most people diagnosed with autism born after 1987 Fixed it for him. That's what he wrote, that's not what he's saying in his article.

27th April 2010, 05:57 PM	#20
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 12,119	Originally Posted by stup_id 500 yet? how many centennials do i have to keep "euthanizing"? geez... But these are _super_centenerians. Knocking off the old centennials won't get them...
	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

28th April 2010, 05:29 AM	#21
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,919	Originally Posted by Fnord Asperger Syndrome (AS) is something a person is born with (research supports the likelihood of a genetic basis). It is a form of behavioral and developmental impairment, and not a form of mental impairment (many people with AS are highly intelligent). AS was first proposed in 1944 to define a set of behavioral characteristics, and has been 'officially' recognized since 1994. Currently classified as a form of High-Functioning Autism, this classification is also currently in dispute. Thus, at least one form of Autism was under study as far back as 70 years ago. Yes, that is very true as is the diagnosis of autism. However up until the 1950s and then the deinstitutionalization of State Ops, Head Start and early Childhood intervenetion, most peopel with autism ...(on the high impact, lower functioning) ((Hey are going to classify it as a spectrum disorder BTW, with ASD at the dilute end of the spectrum) ... people with autism would not have been assessed for the loss of language from the age of ~2 years old onward. This is one of the hallmarks of severe autism, the child has normal language acquisition until about the age of two and then it declines. And really questions about imaginary play would not have been asked. Many people with autism would have been classed as 'mute' or 'severe mental retardation', so as diagnosis and early childhood intervention and screening improve there is a whole category of individuals who go from 'retardation' to 'autism spectrum disorder'. According to wikipedia: 1938- Hans Asperger describes 'autistic psychopaths'. 1943- Leo Kanner describes 'early infantile autism'. Now those are case studies not wide diagnostic categories, according to wiki the diagnosis did not become prevalent until 1981.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

28th April 2010, 07:38 PM	#22
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454	Originally Posted by MattTheTubaGuy 2 factors 'probably causing a higher rate of recorded autism since 1987: population increase (there were about 5 billion in 1987, now heading for 7 billion), and the diagnosis itself, which most people who are autistic/AS have been diagnosed more recently, and a lot of older people with autism/AS would not have a diagnosis at all. also a lot of people with mild autism/AS might not get diagnosed as a child. (I self diagnosed myself with AS at the end of last year, and got an official diagnosis with AS earlier this year, and I am 19) Does this explain the tuba? (Kidding. I like to kid.) Oops, I just remembered that some Asperger's folks don't really 'get' kidding. Sorry. I got 'foot-in-mouth' syndrome.
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454

28th April 2010, 08:25 PM	#23
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,799	Originally Posted by quarky Most people were born after me. I conclude you are older than 50% of the population.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

28th April 2010, 08:26 PM	#24
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,799	Originally Posted by dudalb No Kidding. Any idea that people on the Left are automatically more immune to buying into nonsense then those on the Right should be dispelled by a visit to Huffpo--or The Democratic Underground for that matter. What amazes me is how many people on the Left have been taking in by that Con Woman Adriana....she wants to be some kind of political kingmaker, and does not care what ideology she adapts to that end. NOt all the long ago she was trying to a conservative big time player, and it is only when she failed at that that she had her conversion to the left. It's interesting that California Liberals want nothing to do with her; they know too much about her. Puhleese, can we not make a distinction between opinion blogs and fake news programs?
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

28th April 2010, 08:27 PM	#25
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,799	Originally Posted by pgwenthold Not at all. Huff Po never, ever claimed to be "fair and balanced." The problem with Fox News is not that they have a conservative spin. It is that they do it while claiming they don't. Neither Huffington Post or MSNBC, the usual suspects in the "left's version of Fox" never make any such pretense. As such, they are nothing like Fox. Thank you!
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

28th April 2010, 08:29 PM	#26
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,799	Originally Posted by Gate2501 .... Who cares what Fox News' slogan is or if it is false? This is par for the course on cable news and NO ONE believes that they are "fair and balanced" but those who are already biased, thus it doesn't really matter what they call themselves. Fox News' slogan might as well be "watching any other news network gives you AIDS!". It is a claim that no one takes seriously, and is therefore not relevant IMO. But it is still a valid point when one claims to be news and one only claims to be opinion.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

28th April 2010, 08:48 PM	#27
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,799	I wrote this on the Huff Po blog comments: Quote: It is very unfortunate that some in the liberal community view the scientific community as being in bed with profiteers or the right wing political organizations. The science is very clear on this issue, and the bulk of the research is completely disconnected from any profit motivated company. The vaccine autism-connection is just not there. By continuing in this conspiracy theory fallacy, one wastes resources which could be focused on pursuing the real cause of autism disorders and viable treatment options. Instead we have this continuing waste of resources based on conspiracy theories, not based on science. And it does a terrible injustice to the thousands of dedicated medical researchers and health care professionals to falsely accuse them of either being ignorant or in on the conspiracy. Ignorance of the actual science and what the scientific evidence tells us is the true tragedy here, not the conspiracy parents imagine. It is currently pending review.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

28th April 2010, 09:18 PM	#28
Simon39759 Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 2,285	Pretty good, although I would have added that, if all available contradict the vaccine-autism connection, it also firmly confirm the benefit of vaccines. Hence, the vaccine-autism conspiracy theory is not only a wild goose chase, but the detrimental effects it cause are not only real but, in many case, potentially lethal.

28th April 2010, 11:58 PM	#29
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,799	I posted a bit more. There is a current concern about the seasonal flu vaccine in Australia and someone posted about it in the Huff Po blog comments. Quote: While we don't know what the current problem is in Australia, and it is important to get to the bottom of it, the H1N1 flu vaccine prevented thousands of pediatric deaths. As far as the current events, look at the immediate response health care workers are taking in the situation. This is what we do. We look for problems, stop vaccines when there are problems and get to the bottom of it as soon as possible. And yet, instead of recognizing the experience, the education, and the good intentions of the health care community, when we immediately address vaccine problems it is seen as evidence all vaccine are doing more harm than good. The Big Pharma conspiracy theorists who ignore the entire health care community don't seem to notice that if we react like we do immediately to vaccine problems, we would do the same if the problems the conspiracy theorists believe we are overlooking were really occurring. But they are not. If you give hundreds of thousands of children vaccines, some of them are going to have something happen that day, or soon after. If you DON'T give hundreds of thousands of children vaccines, some of them are going to have something happen that day or soon after. This is the thing these misguided parents don't get.
	__________________ (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.) Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 29th April 2010 at 12:00 AM.*

29th April 2010, 03:34 AM	#30
MattTheTubaGuy Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 262	Originally Posted by quarky Does this explain the tuba? (Kidding. I like to kid.) Oops, I just remembered that some Asperger's folks don't really 'get' kidding. Sorry. I got 'foot-in-mouth' syndrome. It's not so much 'kidding' as sarcasm that Aspies don't get, since we tend to take things literally. as for jokes, if someone tells me a joke, i sometimes don't get it, but I usually get jokes that are typed. as for the tuba, I don't know. ETA: 50 posts, Yay!
	Last edited by MattTheTubaGuy; 29th April 2010 at 03:40 AM.

29th April 2010, 04:32 AM	#31
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,919	Part of that is that sarcasm is aggression, it is more insulting than other forms of humor, therefore people (like myself, not autistic) who often take things at face value perceive the aggression and not the alleged humor.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

29th April 2010, 05:20 AM	#32
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,252	Originally Posted by MattTheTubaGuy It's not so much 'kidding' as sarcasm that Aspies don't get, since we tend to take things literally. When I was a child, I absolutely HATED being kidded by adults. I did not mind kidding from other children because I knew "that's something children do" -- but being told deliberate untruth by adults was very very distressing. And yes, I have AS.
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,252	__________________ Gamemaster: "A horde of rotting zombies is shambling toward you. The sign over the door says 'Accounting'"

29th April 2010, 06:00 AM	#33
Jeff Corey New York Skeptic Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 13,797	Originally Posted by Dancing David Yes, that is very true as is the diagnosis of autism. However up until the 1950s and then the deinstitutionalization of State Ops, Head Start and early Childhood intervenetion, most peopel with autism ...(on the high impact, lower functioning) ((Hey are going to classify it as a spectrum disorder BTW, with ASD at the dilute end of the spectrum) ... people with autism would not have been assessed for the loss of language from the age of ~2 years old onward. This is one of the hallmarks of severe autism, the child has normal language acquisition until about the age of two and then it declines. And really questions about imaginary play would not have been asked. Many people with autism would have been classed as 'mute' or 'severe mental retardation', so as diagnosis and early childhood intervention and screening improve there is a whole category of individuals who go from 'retardation' to 'autism spectrum disorder'. According to wikipedia: 1938- Hans Asperger describes 'autistic psychopaths'. 1943- Leo Kanner describes 'early infantile autism'. Now those are case studies not wide diagnostic categories, according to wiki the diagnosis did not become prevalent until 1981. Depends on the definition of "prevalent". People working in applied behavior analysis knew of Lovaas's work with severely autistic children in the 1960s and we were working with that population in the early 1970s. Two of my grad students did their theses on reducing self-injurious behavior using extinction and DRO in these people.

29th April 2010, 07:35 AM	#34
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,919	Originally Posted by Jeff Corey Depends on the definition of "prevalent". People working in applied behavior analysis knew of Lovaas's work with severely autistic children in the 1960s and we were working with that population in the early 1970s. Two of my grad students did their theses on reducing self-injurious behavior using extinction and DRO in these people. Well, wiki is wiki. I saw the b-mod videos in the late seventies.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

29th April 2010, 07:45 AM	#35
Dr. Imago Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2,055	This is primarily a nosological problem. ~Dr. Imago
Dr. Imago Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2,055	__________________ DISCLAIMER: The above post is for informational and/or educational purposes only. It is not a substitute for the professional judgment of, in direct consultation with, a health care professional in diagnosing, treating, and/or preventing any disease or disorder. It is not to be construed as individualized medical advice, diagnosis, or a treatment recommendation. Your reliance upon the information obtained or used by you at, through, or as a result of this post is solely at your own risk.