![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
Well, apparently closely-spaced second-born children are more likely to be on the spectrum than first-borns or those spaced further apart.
The comments are a morass of "FOOD COLORING! DOES ANYBODY REALLY KNOW ANY GRANDPAS WITH AUTISM???" (Hi, I do!) and "TV WATCHING! THAT STUDY WAS SOOOOOO WELL DONE!" (No, it wasn't!) and "OMG, VACCINATIONS, BIG CONSPIRACY!!! (Uh-huh, you keep saying that!) but this one takes the cake:
There was study conducted to understand the risk of autism based on genealogy. The researcher chose to examined Amish people since they live in a closed society. In case you didn't know, roughly 65% of Amish have the same surname. When they first came over, their were about 300 families. Since their lifestyle isn't that appealing they rarely get new blood. They try not to get closer than 3rd cousins, but still they all pretty close. This of course increases the chance of defects greatly. So reason dictates they would have a greater percentage of autistic children.
S/he goes on from there with the same-old, same-old "Oh, the Amish don't vaccinate and they don't have autism and it's so not a coincidence!" line.
To all this, I can only say the following:
A. Logic doesn't work like that.
B. Genetics doesn't work like that.
C. YOUR PREMISES ARE ALL WRONG! Why do people have this asinine idea that the Amish don't vaccinate, or that they don't have any autism? It's not because they bothered to look up the facts for themselves - you'll notice this person has no idea what study or researcher they're talking about. No, they just repeat the same old tired lines that were worn out the first day anybody ever said them. (And they weren't true then either.)
Oh, and she also goes "As you may know, Autism was unheard of prior to 1900 (right around vaccines were widely introduced). Though many would simply say that it existed but people were simply unable to spot it back then, riiiight. "
That doesn't even merit a response. I mean, I have a few (and they're longer than two words!), but she doesn't deserve the energy.
The comments are a morass of "FOOD COLORING! DOES ANYBODY REALLY KNOW ANY GRANDPAS WITH AUTISM???" (Hi, I do!) and "TV WATCHING! THAT STUDY WAS SOOOOOO WELL DONE!" (No, it wasn't!) and "OMG, VACCINATIONS, BIG CONSPIRACY!!! (Uh-huh, you keep saying that!) but this one takes the cake:
There was study conducted to understand the risk of autism based on genealogy. The researcher chose to examined Amish people since they live in a closed society. In case you didn't know, roughly 65% of Amish have the same surname. When they first came over, their were about 300 families. Since their lifestyle isn't that appealing they rarely get new blood. They try not to get closer than 3rd cousins, but still they all pretty close. This of course increases the chance of defects greatly. So reason dictates they would have a greater percentage of autistic children.
S/he goes on from there with the same-old, same-old "Oh, the Amish don't vaccinate and they don't have autism and it's so not a coincidence!" line.
To all this, I can only say the following:
A. Logic doesn't work like that.
B. Genetics doesn't work like that.
C. YOUR PREMISES ARE ALL WRONG! Why do people have this asinine idea that the Amish don't vaccinate, or that they don't have any autism? It's not because they bothered to look up the facts for themselves - you'll notice this person has no idea what study or researcher they're talking about. No, they just repeat the same old tired lines that were worn out the first day anybody ever said them. (And they weren't true then either.)
Oh, and she also goes "As you may know, Autism was unheard of prior to 1900 (right around vaccines were widely introduced). Though many would simply say that it existed but people were simply unable to spot it back then, riiiight. "
That doesn't even merit a response. I mean, I have a few (and they're longer than two words!), but she doesn't deserve the energy.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: The Amish
Date: 2011-01-11 12:49 am (UTC)Of course, the differences re: Autism in the Amish community couldn't have anything to do with the fact that they eat almost exclusively local, or that they're a genetically different population from the rest of the Western world, or that their use of other technologies that could be contributing factors is far, far more limited than ours.
*facepalm*
Oh, also, the same surname doesn't necessarily mean two people are closely related. Names like Schlabah and Yoder are more or less the Amish equivalent of Smith and Johnson.
Re: The Amish
Date: 2011-01-17 03:24 am (UTC)That's what I've heard as well... along with the fact that they're less likely to get their kids diagnosed. But that doesn't mean they don't have kids on the spectrum.
Of course, the differences re: Autism in the Amish community couldn't have anything to do with the fact that they eat almost exclusively local, or that they're a genetically different population from the rest of the Western world, or that their use of other technologies that could be contributing factors is far, far more limited than ours.
You're expecting the fools to understand something so basic as logic?
no subject
Date: 2011-01-10 08:28 am (UTC)But likewise, take an isolated group and if a gene is absent, say Tay-Sachs which is a risk for my ancestry but is fairly uncommon for many people's ancestries then they can inbreed to their heart's content, they can do sibling-sibling and they have a higher risk of Tay-Sachs from out-breeding than they do from inbreeding. Sure, there is the chance of it randomly mutating and re-arising in the gene pool, but that isn't any more likely because of inbreeding.
So, if autism is a purely genetic trait (which isn't clear and seems unlikely but might be... I'm really not sure at this point) then you'd have to see how prevalent the gene was in the community.
Which I know, you made that point. I just... it's baffling how people can throw such bad arguments around. I have found that with inbreeding in particular people tend to have a lot of misunderstandings. I think it's because they tend to combine a small amount of understanding of genetics with the incest taboo and squick. Even though a single generation of incest isn't actually genetically necessarily a risk to the children (unless you have good reason to believe your family carries a fairly dangerous recessive). And less squicky matings but carried out over multiple generations can actually be a problem, if they do involve cumulative narrowing of the gene pool. Although it does also maximize good traits... see purebreds/thoroughbreds for some of the best and worst of both ends of that.
Oh wait, sorry, logic, reason, facts, data... what on Earth am I doing on the internet?
no subject
Date: 2011-01-10 08:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-10 09:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-10 06:52 pm (UTC)And I don't think that's misdiagnosing. I don't think this is the sort of thing people can develop too far into brain development.
But yes, definitely a strong genetic component, since autistic children often have a parent on the spectrum or at least one who recognizes several of those symptoms in themselves.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-10 09:11 am (UTC)In all seriousness I shudder to imagine the odds on that deal, it's gotta be worse than one-in-a-million, but if you pick your bottleneck very carefully it can't be absolutely impossible, right?
I think it's because they tend to combine a small amount of understanding of genetics with the incest taboo and squick. Even though a single generation of incest isn't actually genetically necessarily a risk to the children (unless you have good reason to believe your family carries a fairly dangerous recessive).
Yeah, I've never understood why some people honestly believe that if you fuck your sibling, half-sibling, first cousin you're going to end up with a four-armed baby. Genetics still doesn't work like that! It'd be funny if it did, in fact.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-10 06:48 pm (UTC)Once I realized that, I really disliked the meme, since among other things, it's very disrespectful to conjoined twins.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-10 09:45 pm (UTC)The author points out that inbreeding has been used for centuries to bring out desired traits in livestock, without deformities or idiocy cropping up in the first generation. (Although some lines of purebreds are starting to make me wonder about the idiocy part, and undesirable traits get accentuated too.)
no subject
Date: 2011-01-10 10:08 am (UTC)I have a more than two word response for the commentators:
I;ve got an f, and a C.. Oh look I found a K too
So the only thing that's missing is a twit like U
no subject
Date: 2011-01-10 04:23 pm (UTC)I meant an actual reasoned reply, though. I'm not wasting it on them.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-10 08:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-10 02:14 pm (UTC)Stupid anti-vax commenter is very ignorant, I must say. Unsurprising!
no subject
Date: 2011-01-24 11:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-24 11:26 pm (UTC)But trying to tell the true believers this is like whistling into the wind!
no subject
Date: 2011-01-24 11:31 pm (UTC)The hell you say! Its not like these same signs start showing up around the same time in non-vaxxed kids, after all...oh hey wait a sec...THEY DO. Ah, well, poo-poo on that annoying little fact. >.>
no subject
Date: 2011-01-25 12:37 am (UTC)/sarcasm
You see, probably some evil person came along and secretly vaccinated those children we thought weren't vaccinated, just to give them autism.
/end sarcasm
no subject
Date: 2011-01-25 12:41 am (UTC)