Friday, December 18, 2009
Through the cracked looking glass
CNN just ran a five-minute feature on the dramatic increase in diagnoses of "autism" among kids, without mentioning or implying even once that the diagnostic criterion has changed. (At least they didn't attribute the increase to "global warming"!) They adduced several possibilities: women starting pregnancies later (plausible) and increased toxins in the environment (implausible because nearly all toxins have steadily decreased.)
What's the truth? From this source:
In other words, the real incidence hasn't changed; we're simply applying the same fraudulent technique to this subject that we apply to every other goddamn subject. Creating fantasy numbers to satisfy a privileged pressure group, then trusting the fantasy numbers without ever examining or mentioning the facts.
We used to call those kids "smart" or "odd", with only the most dramatic cases getting some form of psychological treatment. Nowadays the "smart" and the "odd" must be drugged into dull rigid conformity. ¶ 3:38 PM
What's the truth? From this source:
Rutter, in order to test this latter hypothesis that increased diagnostic rates were due largely to changes in diagnosis and surveillance, reviewed literature that contained sufficient information to assess true historical rates of autism. He found that applying modern criteria to these historical records yields similar rates of diagnoses: 30-60 per 10,000. [As compared to the older incidence of about 10 per 10,000.]
In other words, the real incidence hasn't changed; we're simply applying the same fraudulent technique to this subject that we apply to every other goddamn subject. Creating fantasy numbers to satisfy a privileged pressure group, then trusting the fantasy numbers without ever examining or mentioning the facts.
We used to call those kids "smart" or "odd", with only the most dramatic cases getting some form of psychological treatment. Nowadays the "smart" and the "odd" must be drugged into dull rigid conformity. ¶ 3:38 PM
