Infections and autism

[Martha Ferris]

I didn't read the article. I have no intention of doing so. This is a summary appearing in a business magazine of a technical paper. These articles are generally written by reporters who do not understand the science or methodology used in the original paper. They are almost invariably wrong and sensationalistic, misinterpreting the paper and the results. I ignore them unless they are in a science or specialist oriented publication.

MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY Business Insider - Media Bias/Fact Check (mediabiasfactcheck.com) You can miss a lot by making assumptions. This article can be just a jumping off place to going to the studies themselves. It was about something I had not heard of thus it prompted me to explore further.

 

[Martha Ferris]

I confess, I haven't read the article. When I first saw it a couple of weeks ago I was instantly put off. Autisim is known to be a neurological disorder. Our brains are wired differently.
I have no doubt that viruses can cause autisim like symptoms. After all we know that viruses have been proven to cause other diseases such as lymphoma.

But the title suggests that viruses CAUSE autisim and that immediately puts a false spin on the subject and denis the neurological connection to autisim.

So, even if the study has merit, the article is poorly written with bias and so, can not offer any value to me as a lay person.

Where is the bias? Is not the topic something to consider rather than how the article was written? I was unaware of the subject and the article led me to ask questions and thus explore further. I question everything. I want supported evidence even for opinions.

I try to only get my information from cedible sources and the least biased depending on the article.
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY Business Insider - Media Bias/Fact Check (mediabiasfactcheck.com)

 

[watersprite]

@Martha Ferris. I hope the disagreement with us can be seen as simply a, “we agree to disagree” thing. We are not in a contest.

“Thou canst not stir a flower without troubling of a star.”
- Francis Thompson

 

[Suzette]

@Martha Ferris
I spent about half an hour typing out a detailed and thoughtful response. But I got discontected from my network and lost everything I typed. I do not have the energy to recreate it. But I did read the article. My opinion didn't change.
But I am not well educated so my opinion should never be given undue weight, nor to construed to be an argument against anyones own opinion.

 

[ForestGumpett]

Martha, perhaps you’ve noticed I’ve not been here as much either. My thoughts are right along with yours! Lol, nope I’m not fitting in either....overall I’m not a fit either - and have also been accused like you said you were, judged for what was assumed.

It’s all good the internet is a big place!

Let’s keep in touch, we may have a lot to share on the topic that other people think they already know!

Thank you. I needed this and was about to leave the group primarily because I have a huge intolerance for assumptions being made and, in my opinion based on my experience, those in the ASD community make far more assumptions than those in the NT community about others. I had hoped to have a conversation and nothing more instead I got the above. I made no claim about the article or my opinion of it. I enjoy thinking about a lot of things and seek to understand why and this article offered information about something I had not heard about. That doesn't mean I don't have questions.

I read a wide variety of articles and try to limit those only by credibility. Business Insider as determined by mediabiasfactcheck.com is: MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

My decision to leave was not just about the responses to this post but I am again exhausted by trying to fit in. By turning myself into a pretzel to belong which I did not think I would have to do here. It seems I am too autistic to get along in the NT world but not autistic enough to get along in the ND world. I have felt this for sometime.

Again thanks for the support.

 

[Alexej]

Please don’t stop posting because someone shot you down due to a different opinion, I like what you say and in agreement and believe there are others that are thinking the same but don’t have the gonads to post it like you did!

You Rock Martha!

We need a divergence of voices in this place.
Thank you @Martha Ferris for posting something which you thought might be of interest.

 

[ForestGumpett]

I could be wrong here @watersprite , but my guess if I were speaking for Martha would be that people have not actually read her post, just assumptions were made by speed reading or something? Only about two even understood what she was trying go convey but the rate at which her ideas were put down was just.....rude IMO.

It’s a conversation, well...I took it as one. What I see Martha saying is that well, to put a blanket on it as not to point fingers, the negative dung she got tossed her way for her thoughts was bad form. I don’t blame her one bit.

Martha never said it was a contest? Not sure why that got said but maybe I missed it? What I did see her say was that she was being accused of being bias, and she was not, not even close! There is a word for people that act that way some did to her, it’s being a covert narcissist. Google can be a friend here if someone doesn’t understand how people can act this way or why. Flat out, she was treated poorly then some folks acted like it’s ok?

It’s not ok with me to see someone treated poorly, but not my horse and not my horse track. She want’s greener pastures, nothing wrong with that life is short.

I get it.

@Martha Ferris. I hope the disagreement with us can be seen as simply a, “we agree to disagree” thing. We are not in a contest.

“Thou canst not stir a flower without troubling of a star.”
- Francis Thompson

 

[Neonatal RRT]

I think some of the issue is that there appears to be a lay-person's interpretation of what "scientists say". The title of the article gives away the author's critical misunderstanding of autism:
"New clues hint that young boys who get serious viral infections might be more likely to develop autism"
The critical misunderstandings (1) being that one develops autism after birth and (2) that there is an association with viral infections. Whereas, it might more accurately be said that "young boys with autism may get more serious viral infections."...which there is supporting data from multiple studies.

It is interesting how switching the word order changes things significantly.

 

[Suzette]

I think some of the issue is that there appears to be a lay-person's interpretation of what "scientists say". The title of the article gives away the author's critical misunderstanding of autism:
"New clues hint that young boys who get serious viral infections might be more likely to develop autism"
The critical misunderstandings (1) being that one develops autism after birth and (2) that there is an association with viral infections. Whereas, it might more accurately be said that "young boys with autism may get more serious viral infections."...which there is supporting data from multiple studies.

It is interesting how switching the word order changes things significantly.

Yes! Thank you.

 

[ForestGumpett]

We need a divergence of voices in this place.
Thank you @Martha Ferris for posting something which you thought might be of interest.

I agree totally, this place sure does need divergence of voices.

Honestly do not believe it will be allowed to happen, so off to friendlier pastures for some. It’s not inclusive but dividing and this is sad when this is allowed to happen and is imposed by a small number, very curious and sad.

 

[Martha Ferris]

@Martha Ferris. I hope the disagreement with us can be seen as simply a, “we agree to disagree” thing. We are not in a contest.

“Thou canst not stir a flower without troubling of a star.”
- Francis Thompson

This has to do with my assumed intent in posting not about the article itself. There is no "agree to disagree". Again I made no statement regarding the article one way or another I just posted it in hopes of a conversation. I got a conversation all right but not the one I was aiming for.

 

[LadyS]

How about we clarify one thing: Posting an article doesn't necessarily mean you agree with the content unless you explicitly state it. We, who get misunderstood all the time because others don't always understand our intent, I would think this was easy to empathize.

 

[Martha Ferris]

How about we clarify one thing: Posting an article doesn't necessarily mean you agree with the content unless you explicitly state it. We, who get misunderstood all the time because others don't always understand our intent, I would think this was easy to empathize.

Thank you. It mean a lot.