What gets lost in this debate, which to me seems settled in favor of the actual science done over the last several decades, is how insulting and dehumanizing it is to use autism spectrum disorder as the boogeyman for vaccines, to the point people are passing on treatment for completely preventable, horrible diseases on the belief there is a small chance their kid could come out gasp "autistic."
Up to 70% of people on the autism spectrum are considered high functioning, requiring minimal to moderate support. That's the other insulting thing about it - the fact that the worst autistic outcomes (nonverbal, low IQ, etc.) are used to represent the whole of the population.
The whole thing is gross. Say somehow you could eliminate autism spectrum disorder - there goes half your IT staff.
I think the real issue is simply that the definition of ASD has been expanded to the point of near-meaninglessness. If we're applying the same label to:
1. Someone who is totally nonverbal and effectively unable to function in society
2. Someone who is kind of socially awkward
...then maybe it's time to come up with a new labeling system. ("Autism" in the context of vaccines usually is implicitly referring exclusively to [1])
It's not near meaningless though. Like not even close. And I'm also not sure people at large going for this argument really care to differentiate because these terms already exist that highlight the differences within the DSM for ASD!
I don't agree with all of her book's arguments and associations but Naomi Klein has a compelling explanation for how this happened in her book Doppleganger.
Does there become a point where reporting on this kind of stuff is just feeding the trolls? Ars is both giving them the reaction they want and platforming their nonsense.
The government put up a poster that says vaccines bad very autism and maybe the right response is to just ignore it. This admin seems to be fueled by outrage and very loud showy public displays of basically nothing when you get down to it. Cool story RFK, anyway moving on.
You’ll have to let me know when that has ever really happened. I can’t recall a single government in my lifetime that didn’t push some remarkably stupid and irresponsible nonsense.
People my age probably remember the classic 90s “food pyramid” in school and on the back of sugared cereal boxes — it pushed empty carbs as the the foundation of a healthy diet.
There's a difference between doing something well meant, failing, and improving -vs- going back to theories already proven wrong and harmful. There's a reason we don't have the food pyramid - we're learning.
You don't think that the current crop of vaccine-skeptics are mostly well-intentioned and that the movement will ultimately fade-away decades down the line?
It seems identical to me: soft corruption and bad science shaping government policy. Annoying and bad, but also hopefully temporary (but may do damage in the meantime). I agree that it happens with all governments. Has everyone forgotten the sea of bad science that was COVID policy? Thank god they arrested that paddle-boarder!
> You don't think that the current crop of vaccine-skeptics are mostly well-intentioned
Well intentioned but wrong is only when you have incomplete information. Once your theory has been disproven multiple times and you still ignore it, that's not well intentioned anymore. That's just lying to yourself and others at that point.
Covid policy was bad mostly because it was driven by economic interests, not because of "bad science."
The only major scientific lapses I can think of in the US were the initial insistence that masks don't work and that the virus isn't airborne. The mask issue was influenced by the fact that they wanted to conserve masks for healthcare workers. I strongly suspect the airborne issue was heavily influenced by no one wanting to deal with the consequences: that stronger measures would be needed to reduce the spread of the virus.
Pretty sure it was whole grains. Not what the base of the pyramid ought to be (it should really be vegetables) but hardly "empty" calories.
Japanese eat lots of rice, white rice even, and stay thin. The food pyramid wasn't the problem. Putting sugar in everything, eating cereal and other processed foods, and dropping home economics cooking classes from school was the culprit.
But why? Do you feel the need to respond to those weirdos in the street yelling about how god hates fags and the end of days or whatever? Is anything gained by acknowledging them at all?
There's plenty of real stuff this admin is doing to respond to; focusing on the performative nonsense that exists seemingly to keep them 'winning' in the news cycle to their base might just be wasting your breath.
This is the real stuff this admin is doing. Using the public health apparatus to discredit and dismantle one of the most successful medical projects in human history is real stuff.
Because it normalises dangerous bullshit and that should be a line in the sand for any responsible human. You can’t dismiss it because it’s part of a much wider pattern that is fuelling the justification of other dangerous bullshit we used to suppress in the pursuit of harmony.
> Do you feel the need to respond to those weirdos in the street yelling about how god hates fags and the end of days or whatever?
There's a huge difference between the seriousness of "the official disease control of the US government" saying some nonsense and "random citizens yelling in the street" doing so.
> Is anything gained by acknowledging them at all?
Is there anything gained by ignoring them?
I'm sure it won't seem very performative to the kids who aren't vaccinated and get sick, or autistic folks who don't appreciate the correlation.
> plenty of real stuff this admin is doing to respond to
I highly recommend this deep dive, with some entertainment value: Vaccines and Autism: A Measured Response [1]. It shows how absurd those claims are
[1]: https://youtube.com/watch?v=8BIcAZxFfrc
What gets lost in this debate, which to me seems settled in favor of the actual science done over the last several decades, is how insulting and dehumanizing it is to use autism spectrum disorder as the boogeyman for vaccines, to the point people are passing on treatment for completely preventable, horrible diseases on the belief there is a small chance their kid could come out gasp "autistic."
Up to 70% of people on the autism spectrum are considered high functioning, requiring minimal to moderate support. That's the other insulting thing about it - the fact that the worst autistic outcomes (nonverbal, low IQ, etc.) are used to represent the whole of the population.
The whole thing is gross. Say somehow you could eliminate autism spectrum disorder - there goes half your IT staff.
I think the real issue is simply that the definition of ASD has been expanded to the point of near-meaninglessness. If we're applying the same label to:
1. Someone who is totally nonverbal and effectively unable to function in society
2. Someone who is kind of socially awkward
...then maybe it's time to come up with a new labeling system. ("Autism" in the context of vaccines usually is implicitly referring exclusively to [1])
It's not near meaningless though. Like not even close. And I'm also not sure people at large going for this argument really care to differentiate because these terms already exist that highlight the differences within the DSM for ASD!
That's why the word "Spectrum" is used
I don't agree with all of her book's arguments and associations but Naomi Klein has a compelling explanation for how this happened in her book Doppleganger.
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45992756
Does there become a point where reporting on this kind of stuff is just feeding the trolls? Ars is both giving them the reaction they want and platforming their nonsense.
The government put up a poster that says vaccines bad very autism and maybe the right response is to just ignore it. This admin seems to be fueled by outrage and very loud showy public displays of basically nothing when you get down to it. Cool story RFK, anyway moving on.
If people get used to ignoring government health recommendations, what happens if a responsible government comes back in power?
You’ll have to let me know when that has ever really happened. I can’t recall a single government in my lifetime that didn’t push some remarkably stupid and irresponsible nonsense.
People my age probably remember the classic 90s “food pyramid” in school and on the back of sugared cereal boxes — it pushed empty carbs as the the foundation of a healthy diet.
There's a difference between doing something well meant, failing, and improving -vs- going back to theories already proven wrong and harmful. There's a reason we don't have the food pyramid - we're learning.
You don't think that the current crop of vaccine-skeptics are mostly well-intentioned and that the movement will ultimately fade-away decades down the line?
It seems identical to me: soft corruption and bad science shaping government policy. Annoying and bad, but also hopefully temporary (but may do damage in the meantime). I agree that it happens with all governments. Has everyone forgotten the sea of bad science that was COVID policy? Thank god they arrested that paddle-boarder!
> You don't think that the current crop of vaccine-skeptics are mostly well-intentioned
Well intentioned but wrong is only when you have incomplete information. Once your theory has been disproven multiple times and you still ignore it, that's not well intentioned anymore. That's just lying to yourself and others at that point.
Covid policy was bad mostly because it was driven by economic interests, not because of "bad science."
The only major scientific lapses I can think of in the US were the initial insistence that masks don't work and that the virus isn't airborne. The mask issue was influenced by the fact that they wanted to conserve masks for healthcare workers. I strongly suspect the airborne issue was heavily influenced by no one wanting to deal with the consequences: that stronger measures would be needed to reduce the spread of the virus.
> empty carbs
Pretty sure it was whole grains. Not what the base of the pyramid ought to be (it should really be vegetables) but hardly "empty" calories.
Japanese eat lots of rice, white rice even, and stay thin. The food pyramid wasn't the problem. Putting sugar in everything, eating cereal and other processed foods, and dropping home economics cooking classes from school was the culprit.
> Pretty sure it was whole grains.
It wasn’t.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rebuilding-the-fo...
Like I said, eating white rice has worked out just fine for Japan.
It would be more irresponsible to ignore it than anything else. A tempered response would be better.
But why? Do you feel the need to respond to those weirdos in the street yelling about how god hates fags and the end of days or whatever? Is anything gained by acknowledging them at all?
There's plenty of real stuff this admin is doing to respond to; focusing on the performative nonsense that exists seemingly to keep them 'winning' in the news cycle to their base might just be wasting your breath.
Those weirdos on the street aren't your actual government institutions.
This is 1984 territory, without hyperbole. They are rewriting what you see so that you will always have been at war with Eurasia.
This is the real stuff this admin is doing. Using the public health apparatus to discredit and dismantle one of the most successful medical projects in human history is real stuff.
Because it normalises dangerous bullshit and that should be a line in the sand for any responsible human. You can’t dismiss it because it’s part of a much wider pattern that is fuelling the justification of other dangerous bullshit we used to suppress in the pursuit of harmony.
> Do you feel the need to respond to those weirdos in the street yelling about how god hates fags and the end of days or whatever?
There's a huge difference between the seriousness of "the official disease control of the US government" saying some nonsense and "random citizens yelling in the street" doing so.
> Is anything gained by acknowledging them at all?
Is there anything gained by ignoring them?
I'm sure it won't seem very performative to the kids who aren't vaccinated and get sick, or autistic folks who don't appreciate the correlation.
> plenty of real stuff this admin is doing to respond to
I'm sure we can respond to at least 2 things.
No, one should always present a path of how to explain it. This is hard. get the data. gather it.
Consider how strange this would be for a non American to watch this change go through and no one to bat at eye.
This shit is crazy and it needs to be said.