Link.
This story says that an as yet unpublished study of 12 000 primary school children suggests that 1 in 58 might have some form of ASD. The article then goes on to describe the claims that vaccines, in this case MMR might be to blame. Overall, the skeptics are given far more credibility then the proponents of the vaccine hypothesis, which is as it should be, isn't it?
If I understand well, this is about ASD being caused by something, having a cause, in this case a vaccine.
But maybe ASD is common cause, or in other words "normal, expected variation" instead of special cause. If there is no special cause, but only common cause, then it is complete nonsense to do research after 1 cause (because there is not 1 cause, it is normal variation). See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_caus...cial_cause
It will help if evidence can be found (again in sheer weight of numbers) that ASD's predated the invention of Thiomersal. I'm doing my bit with that as we speak.
Hello,
My great-uncle was autistic (for certain), yet he was born (in the late 1920’s or very early 1930’s) (and his autism was recognized at an early age, e.g. 4 or 5), over a dozen years (at least) before vaccines were mandated in the United States. In addition, a lot of people speculated to have Asperger’s Syndrome (Einstein, Darwin, Newton, among others) were born before (long before) vaccination. I believe it can be agreed that they all at least had Asperger’s traits (Einstein especially).
P.S., does anyone know when doctors began giving Thiomersal vaccinations?
Will
Einstein? The man had an outgoing social life and half a dozen love affairs during his marriage.
A diagnosis cannot be done in this fashion, it must be done on the basis of experience with the person, their developmental history and so on...even if we accepted the idea of post-mortem diagnoses, which as mentioned is already on shaky ground, Einstein is hardly the best example.
Indeed. Everyone wants a genius "on their side", so to speak. But it is almost impossible to diagnose someone after their death.
Indeed. Everyone wants a genius "on their side", so to speak. But it is almost impossible to diagnose someone after their death.
Not if the medical records are complete and detailed, Simen.
You'd be satisfied if someone diagnosed you without seeing you, or even talking to people who knew you, only from your medical records?
And having affairs is actually a reflection on a poor social life in a number of senses
It is? I would think seducing six women, some of whom no doubt knew you were married (especially when he started to get famous) would be some kind of indication of social competence.
(not all of course - but one has to remember this was at a time when affairs weren't common place like they are now)
I severely doubt that.
All in all, this is nothing but loose speculation. Being somewhat eccentric and also brilliant in one field does not make a person autistic; as Dr. Ando said, those same medical records and biographies yield radically different "diagnoses" for other people. You see what you want to see. With your autism-goggles on, everything starts to look that much more neurodiverse.
On the contrary - because adultery in his day and age was so taboo it was an indication of social INcompetence.
You're joking about this right?
Timelord, other people are allowed to have an opinion that differs from yours. That does not make them bad, it does not make them wrong, and it certainly does not mean that they are calling you a liar. It simply means they have a different view.
Timelord, I am a little confused. I don't think you have actually told us what it is that your school textbooks mentioned about Einstein.
That's what I want to know. What did those textbooks say?
Timelord, you are also taking a couple of facts that you learned such as Einstein had affairs, and Eistein was eccentric, then using them to make several conjecutures. You are then passing these conjectures off as fact rather than opinion.
Yeah, but the thing is is that if Timelord can't really answer any of his critics in an adequate way then he loses his credibility.
So unless Timelord comes up with documentation or at least a way to defend his argument in a credible manner there really is no reason to take credence in his argument.
You can't just walk away from an argument by ignoring a person, or by attacking the person, that is Ad Hominem and/or Poisoning the Well.
I don't think that we should all have the feeling of walking on eggshells just because Timelord doesn't like it when his opinions are not all accepted as fact by everyone on the site.
Simen, I personally thought you showed alot of patience on this thread.
Erkolos, strongly held opinions tend to cause conflicts when those who hold them don't respond well to criticism of their opinions. The analogy to religion is dead on. Some forums ban discussions of politics and religion for this very reason.
You're correct, he couldn't have been an "ordinary" person. Genius is an abnormality, it goes totally against the norm. Which only shows that being outside the norm is not valuable per se.
Also, do you have a source for what you said in post #90?
Rossco, after enduring this whole thread I see what you mean.
Woman from mars, I see now that the original news article I linked to doesn't seem to be all that accurate.
This thread has spawned a whole lot of unrelated discussion, though.
When you make a statement of this sort, it is your job to convince the reader that it is true. Of course, if you don't care what the reader thinks, you don't have to.
But at least you're honest about the vague references, which is good.
No, you don't. The expectations should be in line with the effort. If you'd gone to the effort of providing good references, you could expect people to believe you. If you don't, well, it's up to you if you care or not.
(Just for the record: I have no intent to pick on you specifically.)