473
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] princessnorah 50 points 1 month ago

I mean, it says the source right there, it's the CDC...

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 78 points 1 month ago

The organization run by a brain worm driving a human suit?

[-] princessnorah 45 points 1 month ago

I don't understand why you or the person I'm replying to are for some reason seeming to dispute the higher rate of autism diagnosis? It's a fairly well-established fact, the point of contention is why the rate is higher.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 78 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Because that'snot what the graph claims, and it is definitely not what the graph implies.

The graph says that there has been a 400% increase in the prevalence of autism. That's not true, and is unsupported by the evidence. There has been a marked increase in the effective diagnosis and therapeutic interventions, but autism was largely undiagnosed and under-reported for almost all of human history. We're still improving and refining the diagnostic criteria, and any changes in the number of cases should not be suggested to support any causal relationship with anything.

The graph is a lie, intended to push a political narrative that undermines the credibility of actual science, all in a transparent effort to distract from powerful child rapists raping children.

[-] amotio@lemmy.world 28 points 1 month ago

The rate is higher because we can "catch" more cases with better diagnosis.

Imagine machine that is throwing 100 balls per second. Another machine that can catch 10 balls per second. You catch 10 balls.

Now newer machine can catch 20, and newer can catch 50.

Does that mean the number of thrown balls is higher? No. It just means we have machines better at caching them. The same goes for any illness, autism, schizophrenia, cancer, depression...

Some ilnesses we are better at curing, does that mean the the illness is getting weaker?

[-] princessnorah 15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I'm aware of that. I guess my point was that the data isn't inaccurate, but I suppose* labelling it as "prevalence" is the point of contention.

I guess it could be more accurately labeled as "observed prevalence", which is distinct from the actual prevalence

[-] Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

Yeah, after deleting any data the CDC used to have that they didn't agree with. And making up any new data they need to make their preconceived notion as perceivably supported as possible.

[-] FerretyFever0@fedia.io 2 points 1 month ago

Yes, which happened to be the body that made it the fuck up.

this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2025
473 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

17218 readers
1456 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS