- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 9/24/25 at 1:57 pm to Salmon
quote:
the last 3-4 pages are all because AwesomeSauce didn't clarify that the 20-30% increase was in incidence rate, not overall numbers
You’d have to be autistic to not immediately assume he meant increase in incidence rate and instead think theres something out there causing 20-30% of all babies to have autism.
Posted on 9/24/25 at 1:57 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
You’d have to be autistic to not immediately assume he meant increase in incidence rate and instead think theres something out there causing 20-30% of all babies to have autism.
Reported incidence is 1:36 after all.
Posted on 9/24/25 at 1:58 pm to Salmon
quote:
You seemed pretty dismissive of the idea that the increase is largely due to how we diagnose these days Why is that?
I’m not dismissing it. I’m sure that played a role in it. But I’m skeptical that it can explain the huge surge in autism rates seen in the past few decades.
Posted on 9/24/25 at 1:59 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
But I’m skeptical that it can explain the huge surge in autism rates seen in the past few decades.
Based on what?
Other than that’s just how you feel
Posted on 9/24/25 at 1:59 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
But I’m skeptical that it can explain the huge surge in autism rates seen in the past few decades.
Why?
Posted on 9/24/25 at 2:00 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
You’d have to be autistic to not immediately assume he meant increase in incidence rate and instead think theres something out there causing 20-30% of all babies to have autism.
Who said 20-30% of all babies have autism now?
Posted on 9/24/25 at 2:01 pm to JohnnyKilroy
Another thing would personally like to see studied if possible, is the ability for women who before modern medical treatments would have never been able to get pregnant now having the ability to do so
Do those women have a higher incident rate for infant issues? Was their ability to not get pregnant naturally somewhat of a herd protection?
I’ve always wondered where that would lead
Do those women have a higher incident rate for infant issues? Was their ability to not get pregnant naturally somewhat of a herd protection?
I’ve always wondered where that would lead
Posted on 9/24/25 at 2:04 pm to Mingo Was His NameO
quote:
Based on what? Other than that’s just how you feel
Why are you so certain the spike is due to it simply being diagnosed more now? Where is the data backing this up? Or is that just how you feel?
Posted on 9/24/25 at 2:05 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Why are you so certain the spike is due to it simply being diagnosed more now? Where is the data backing this up? Or is that just how you feel?
because the spike directly correlates with the changes in diagnosis
Posted on 9/24/25 at 2:07 pm to lsupride87
Women are also having children much later in life.
The later you have kids, the more likely they are to have issues. What do yall think happens when the average age of pregnant women jumps nearly 10 years since 1970?
The later you have kids, the more likely they are to have issues. What do yall think happens when the average age of pregnant women jumps nearly 10 years since 1970?
Posted on 9/24/25 at 2:08 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Why are you so certain the spike is due to it simply being diagnosed more now? Where is the data backing this up? Or is that just how you feel?
I’m not, but I’m 100% positive we’ve widened the diagnostic for diagnosis by a WIDE margin so that unequivocally accounts for some of the change.
To what degree is the change due to incidence rates or diagnosis rates is a question worth answering and finding the answer to. But that wasn’t your question or former assertion.
This post was edited on 9/24/25 at 2:09 pm
Posted on 9/24/25 at 2:09 pm to Salmon
quote:
because the spike directly correlates with the changes in diagnosis
Ok. That’s makes sense then. Thank you for being civil and explaining that instead of getting hostile like others when someone asks questions or expresses skepticism.
Like I’ve said, I know autism is a huge problem. And I really don’t know much about it past that because I’ve never really (thankfully) had to study it.
Posted on 9/24/25 at 2:10 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
And I really don’t know much about it past that
Yet you have definitive opinions and don’t understand why people call you out on them
Posted on 9/24/25 at 2:13 pm to Mingo Was His NameO
quote:
I’m not, but I’m 100% positive we’ve widened the diagnostic for diagnosis by a WIDE margin so that unequivocally accounts for some of the change.
You really need to go back and re-read my post where I stated I’m sure that an account for some of the growth. Where my skepticism comes from is that it could explain a substantial portion of the change.
Honestly, I have no idea if the change in how autism is defined represents 5%, 50%, or 90%. No clue. But considering it’s gone up north of 300% in just a few decades, then I have to wonder if we’ve opened the definition of autism so wide that it’s lost its meaning.
Posted on 9/24/25 at 2:14 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
then I have to wonder if we’ve opened the definition of autism so wide that it’s lost its meaning.
you’re now on your third wandering argument Posted on 9/24/25 at 2:19 pm to Mingo Was His NameO
quote:
you’re now on your third wandering argument
Your problem is you think I’m arguing a point when I’m actually asking questions. I should not be surprised at your confusion though since you don’t know what an oxymoron is.
Posted on 9/24/25 at 2:27 pm to lsupride87
quote:
Trump said really really dumbass crazy things the other day. That isn’t the media “picking it apart”.
He could say the sky is blue and there would be a “well actually” article attempting to disprove it.
And I’m not saying that he’s always right by any means, but it doesn’t matter if he’s right or wrong whatever he says will be picked apart by the media.
Posted on 9/24/25 at 2:29 pm to Epic Cajun
quote:Ok. But yesterday he said really insane things
He could say the sky is blue and there would be a “well actually” article attempting to disprove it.
So you shouldn’t give him a pass . Dont pick a team. When the media is ridiculous call them out (often), when Trump says something ridiculous call him out
This post was edited on 9/24/25 at 2:30 pm
Posted on 9/24/25 at 2:35 pm to lsupride87
quote:
Ok. But yesterday he said really insane things So you shouldn’t give him a pass . Dont pick a team. When the media is ridiculous call them out (often), when Trump says something ridiculous call him out
I’m not picking a team, I was just laughing as someone asked why the media was picking apart his comments. They are always going to pick apart his comments, so it’s a silly question.
The media has a “boy who cried wolf” problem.
Page 8 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News