RFK Jr. says U.S. will know cause of autism epidemic by September

Look RFK attempts to speak intelligently on any subject. But you can't claim to know that increased autism rates are not tied to better diagnosis in the modern era when you reference studies from 40 years ago and do not acknowledge the diagnostic techniques of the 1980s or the methodological flaws of past research.

People joke that every statement in this administration is an admission of guilt.

He is referencing 1987 research from North dakota as a baseline expectation for autism. Does anyone think a one research study performed in North Dakota in 1987 is the most accurate assessment of autism rates in history. and that modern medicine and research today could do no better in identifying and diagnosis autism?

I appreciate on some level his skepticism. but his reasoning and arguments he presents essentially show he does not understand what he is talking about.

Also most of his recent career was taking money to fight against vaccines in court. sooo ?

I don't find his voice problems an issue in understanding what he says.

Agree with you summary

Denial of the obvious. Autism rates continue to rapidly increase. It ain't due to genetics. Nor to "better diagnosis". It is an epidemic.

Fighting Big Pharma is a bad thing to you?

You are pointing out the same thing at RFK. IT's an epistemological and perspective issue.

If you can't understand that the baseline comparison comes from a time with:

no internet

no electronic data aggregation

antiquated diagnosis definitions and observational detection methods

potential for inappropriate sample sizes for establishing projections

Then you can't comprehend that an increase detected today could have always been there.

I don't doubt that there are factors today that could be increasing autism- such as the increase in age of mothers at time of birthing kids today.

But saying that the obvious answer is that it's an epidemic while also NOT acknowledging the obvious flaws in the fundamental details that associated with claiming an increased rate is a problem.

Remember, the more studies that show no link between two things, the more likely those two things are linked! - Newname

additionally if we have had an increase in autism rates from 2022 to 2024. Is that in children that were born in the last 5 years? didn't we have a drop in child vaccination rates due to MAGA propaganda and care interruptions created by covid isolation. So if we have a decrase in childhood vaccination rates during a period of increased autism diagnosis it would be big pharma would it?

usafacts.org

How many kids are vaccinated? | USAFacts

@USAFacts

Seventy-three percent of children born in 2020 and 2021 were fully vaccinated with the CDC-recommended vaccines by age 3.

Open link

Available data says there was a roughly 2% drop in child vaccinations rates in preceding the years RFK points to as a continued example of the growth in the autism epidemic

So desperate for RFK not to investigate.

Why/

Safe and effective. The jab will stop transmission. Oxy is non addictive. Thalidomide. Vioxx. Baycol. DES. Fen-Phen. Trust authority!

He can go for it. He's a top scientific mind. understands the scientific method extremely well. And will find something in a few months that the worlds best biostatisticians and scientists haven't been able to parcel out for decades. He'll also do it with a team that's now missing all of the CDC specialist researchers they've fired in recent weeks.

He's got the best and brightest on the job. They'll bring clarity to the situation that has previously been unattainable. All they needed was a team of people that don't know what they are talking about to find the best solution on a predetermined timeline. process and expertise be damned.

Could you link me peer reviewed studies that have those conclusions? Or is it not comparable?

All approved drugs.

Is your argument that the FDA approves drugs without studies?

Yes, all the drugs mentioned—Thalidomide, Vioxx, Fen-Phen, DES, Avandia, Baycol, and OxyContin—were approved by the FDA (or equivalent regulatory bodies in other countries, like Thalidomide in Europe).

The FDA approves drugs based on data submitted by the drug’s manufacturer, which conducts or sponsors premarket studies.

So the FDA relies on Big Pharma data and studies. Works real well

Don't be so naive. Some people undoubtedly know what is causing this explosion in autism. They don't want RFKs people looking into it

adult male learns approved drugs have side effects and unintended outcomes at late age. has hard time holding non-mutually exclusive ideas in big head. cost benefit of side effects to therapeutic effects of drugs hard to understand.

how tight is your tinfoil hat?

Classic Pavlovian reaction

Huh?

Seems to be classic denial of a huge problem. That helps

And the peer reviewed studies that showed them to “not be addictive”? That was your comparison. you said the more studies that show no link means the more likely it is true. So show me all of the studies showing that there is no addictive link with those drugs.

big thinker references lauded early scientist in argument against the merits of science.

Huh? Guess you are talking about Oxy. Which was highly addictive and was known to be so per studies the Sacklers had done on it. Yet they hid those and submitted data showing it not to be addictive and FDA approved and it was marketed as non addictive.

What is your argument? That FDA approved based on studies that showed it to be addictive?