What is Autism?
I walk around assuming I know what autism is, but whenever the topic arises, I am hard-pressed to define it. I found this video to be helpful: Peter Boghossian inverviewing Jill Escher:
I transcribed part of the interview:
PB:First of all, who are you? How did you get into it? . . .
JE:
Sure. Well, thanks so much for having me and and for addressing this really important subject that even your son knows something about. So I'm Jill Escher. I wear a bunch of hats in the autism world. Most importantly, I'm the mother to two children with severe non verbal autism. Johnny's now 25 and Sophie is 18. I have another son as well, who's 27 but he's not diagnosed with autism. And over the years, I've become increasingly involved in the autism community on many, many levels. Right now, I serve as president of the National Council on severe autism, which, as the name implies, is a national advocacy group. I been president of Autism Society San Francisco Bay Area, and I'm still on that board, and I'm I run a philanthropy called Escher fund for autism that funds and promotes autism research, especially in the realm of causation and some other things too. But that's enough.
PB
What is it?
JE
Maybe we'll start there and then go into prevalence. What autism is is a very sticky, tricky question, but generally, what it refers to is a bunch of different characteristics and traits that kind of hang together in a kind of syndrome, like way, but it's not a syndrome, so it's classically defined in the DSM five as really two co occurring traits. One is abnormal social communication and the other is repetitive behaviors. And those can occur in many ways and to many different degrees, which is why we see all this heterogeneity. But in addition to what you see in the DSM V, there are a lot of other things that tend to cluster, you know, with autism. For example, sensory sensitivity. Like, you know, my kids are constantly plugging their ears. I have to put headphones on them. For example, anxiety, and my son suffers a ton of anxiety, which can become incredibly explosive. Other things such as difficulty learning, in flexibility in behaviors, lack of abstract thought is really another kind of foundational part of autism. So it's really a lot of different things, and they tend to hang together. And for lack of having a better diagnosis. Clinicians slap autism on a bunch of different presentations, clinical presentations that have these combined to one degree or another and with different traits.
PB
So you've you've written that the prevalence of autism is increasing, and so I was wondering if it's possible the diagnostic criteria changing or expanding, rather than the rates of autism increasing, right?
JE
So that seems to be one of the most fundamental debates in autism. Are the rates truly increasing of this psychopathology, of this neurodevelopmental disorder, or are we just changing the diagnostic criteria to encompass a greater number of children? And I strongly argue that it is the former that we are actually seeing a very dramatic, very obvious increase in neurodevelopmental pathology among children in the US,
PB
just, yeah, I was just gonna say cross culturally, or
JE
In the industrialized countries, that where we've done this epidemiological work, it's very evidence that evident, that this is true, even when we hold the definition constant, right, Even if we're looking at the objectively same criteria for inclusion, we see these dramatic increases. I can give you one example here. I'm in California, and we keep very good data on our developmental disability population. We've done so for decades, really, since the 60s and 70s, because we have a specific legislation that their states don't have. But what we've seen, for example, is an increase in autism in our developmental services system, which only serves the more severe portion of the autism population, from about 3,000 in the mid 1980s to over 180,000 today. Right? And that is obviously increasing at a rate much higher than the general background population increase. When we look at the CDC data again, they're holding the case definition constant and other other federal. Role data, we see an increase from less than 1% 20 years ago to about 3% today. So this is, and I can cite, dozens of studies across from epidemiology to education to social services to other forms of data that we see from, for example, hospital systems, the same exponential curve, even when we're holding the case definition constant. Now that's not to say there isn't also an increase, especially in that very high functioning level that we're including that wasn't included before. I will also say that is true. So I think both are true. But what's so alarming is that even rates of the more profoundly impacting autism has increased,
PB
so that causally, that the reasonable person can infer fact, the inference would have to be that it's environmental,
JE
yes, so I would argue that this raises very important, urgent questions about what might be raising these rates of abnormal neurodevelopment. Because what autism essentially is, I talked about the behaviors and how it manifests, but what it is on the inside is abnormalities and dysregulation of early brain development, starting when the baby is a fetus, mid gestation, when the brain when the neurons are being born and they're growing and they're proliferating and they're migrating and creating the brain and what we've seen in the field of neuroscience is very, very strong evidence that autism, for the most part, there are exceptions, of course, but for the most part, is the result of Abner, abnormal and dysregulated early brain development. So what is causing that? That is the $64 billion question in autism today. . . if we're going to talk about neuroscience, your autism is complex, and they find, you know, different parts of the brain are affected differently in different people. There's not one thing, but there is one. If there is one bottom line, it is in the cerebral cortex, especially with the frontal cortex, they find abnormalities in how the layers of the cortex are formed and how those neurons connect and how those synapses work. Now, I don't know. I mean, we probably don't want to get too deep into neuroscience. This is not a science podcast, but I would start there when we think about what's happening with autism and how it develops early in utero, and how that relates to as I said, you know, there's these dysregulations that could be genetic, but could also have other causes as well.
PB
Now you use the word before, and then I have a few questions that are just pounding out of my brain that I have to discharge, but you use the term before disorder? Yeah, and I know that that is not that must not be without controversy.
JE
So language has been highly controversial in autism, as it has been in other areas of the culture war. So autism has been caught up in the culture war, just like so many other things, and it's been really unfortunate, in my view, because I don't think autism is a culture war question. I think autism is a question of, you know, pathology, you know, of neuropathology, and how we address that scientifically, and how we deal with it in terms of policy. Of course, everybody wants the best for our children with autism. I certainly want the best for my children. I want the best for our community. I literally spend hours every day serving our community to make sure our kids are included to the extent possible, that they get access to the best programs possible, the best therapies possible, can live the best lives possible. I'm on board without 100% what I'm not on board with is this kind of systemic trivialization of autism, which is a what you see in the scientific literature, which you see in the neurodiversity movement, where they're trying to wipe away words like disorder, like risk, like, oh gosh, there's, there's so many of them. We're not allowed to talk about, you the severe behaviors of our children. We're not allowed to talk about the aggression. The property destruction, the self injury, the elopement, you know, the pica, like my daughter does, the ingestion of inedible objects. You know, these things, apparently we're not allowed to talk about because they cause stigma. Well, okay, autism itself is not stigmatizing. That's not stigma comes from something else, other than an essential part of your disorder, right? Stigma comes from, you know, society or individuals, you know, deciding that you are lesser than Well, that's a secondary question, but we're what a lot of the neurodiversity advocates in academia, really entrenched in academia, are trying to do is kind of obliterate the vocabulary of autism, so that we only have these neutral terms left. And those neutral terms do not adequately describe people like my son, my son Johnny, who's 25 and nonverbal, has a functional level of probably an 18 month old, if that, probably less than that, maybe more like a 12 month old. He can't really do anything for himself. He can't dress himself. He can't prepare food, he can't take care of his own hygiene. He can't read, he can't write, he can't talk. He can't use a phone. He can't functionally operate anything he before he was on the right medication.
Our Inexplicably Highly-Coordinated News Media
In what appears to be a highly coordinated maneuver, our self-declared "impartial" corporate news media suddenly goes 180 degrees on a story with no explanation. I'd like to know who is pulling these levers.
Determining One’s Sex Requires Requires One to Consider Anisogamy
Paul Griffith explains in a letter to Nature:
Nature's recent Editorial and collection of opinion articles on sex and gender in research would have benefited from greater attention to evolutionary biology and the definition of sex by anisogamy, or differing gamete size. In the words of evolutionary biologist Joan Roughgarden in her book Evolution's Rainbow (Univ. California Press, 2013): "To a biologist, "male" means making small gametes, and "female" means making large gametes. Period!"Nature 631, 275 (2024)
This definition avoids the 'sex binary' that concerns so many people. Some organisms produce both male and female gametes, and others produce different gametes at distinct life stages or under various conditions. Organisms can be male, female, both at the same time, male at one time and female at another, or have no clear and unambiguous sex. The definition also implies that there are no essential or universal male or female phenotypes: male pipefish gestate their embryos and female jacana birds fight over mates, for example.
Anisogamy is at the heart of the modern theory of why sexes evolved and why they show such extraordinary diversity. Neglecting it makes the varied phenotypic expression of sex, and its interaction with gender in humans, seem unmanageably complex. As with so much of biology, sex makes better sense when viewed in the light of evolution.
doi: https//doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02248-1
The Claim That Vaccines Have Been Carefully Tested
In a recent article, attorney Aaron Siri makes extraordinary claims based on litigation he has handled. An excerpt:
After decades of Dr. Stanley Plotkin and his vaccinologist disciples insisting vaccines are the most well studied products on the planet, they just penned an article admitting precisely the opposite.They just admitted vaccines are not properly studied—neither pre-licensure nor post-licensure. They admitted, for example, “prelicensure clinical trials have limited sample sizes [and] follow-up durations” and that “there are not resources earmarked for postauthorization safety studies.”
That is an incredible reversal. But let me provide context so nobody is fooled at what they are clearly up to:
For decades, the medical community insisted vaccines are the most thoroughly studied product ever; for example, Dr. Paul Offit said, "I think we should be proud of vaccines as arguably the safest, best tested things we put in our body.”
For decades, parents of vaccine injured children, vaccine injured adults, and other stakeholders contested these claims only to be shunned and attacked by the medical community and health agencies.
In 2018, I had the unprecedented opportunity to depose the architect of our vaccination program and the Godfather of Vaccinology, Dr. Plotkin, and lay bare the evidence that showed what these authors are now finally admitting about the utter lack of vaccine safety trials and studies. See https://thehighwire.com/ark-videos/the-deposition-of-stanley-plotkin/.
After this deposition is made public, Dr. Plotkin goes on a tirade, making demands that FDA add “missing information on safety and efficacy” in vaccine package inserts and that CDC exclude harms from its Vaccine Information Sheets, “lobbying the Gates Foundation to support pro-vaccine organizations,” working to have WHO list vaccine hesitancy as a global threat, lobbying AAP, IDSA and PIDS to “support training of witnesses” to support vaccine safety, etc. See https://icandecide.org/article/dr-stanley-plotkin-the-godfather-of-vaccines-reaction-to-being-questioned/.
The problem is, it doesn't work. It doesn’t work because, at bottom, there are no proper safety studies. So, there is no safety data to add to the FDA package inserts, and hiding harms by removing them from CDC inserts doesn’t make them go away. Parents and other adults don’t simply stop believing what they have seen with their own eyes because CDC, WHO, the Gates Foundations, etc., won’t acknowledge them, or worse, they attack them.
- Go to the previous page
- 1
- …
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- …
- 1,986
- Go to the next page