![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ranty rant rant rantingness
many small children have known nothing but shopping centres and processed foods. it is an interesting experiment we have been doing on ourselves for the past few generations. one that has me wondering how connected this new culture of ours is to the 'rise' in certain socio-behavioural 'issues'.
i'm less concerned about microdoses of mercury compounds than the steady supply of complex chemicals in our diets. particularly when most single-event toxins require significant doses or toxicity to have lasting effects on the generally very plastic physiology of small children [we can thank adaptive evolution for that - if the opposite was true, we'd have been extinct long ago.]
this is not to say that i'm claiming any specific consequences of our increasingly modified diets. but i do wonder how much of any 'new' conditions out there flow from our very recent changes in environment and social behaviours.
we should not overlook the impact of changes in diagnosis, classification, and/or transformations in understanding or awareness of differences within the population through developments in psychology, sociology and other social sciences. event he way social sciences are changing the way they position themselves as disciplines has a flow on effect to what they can and do have to say about us.
for anyone to say that something as complex as human social behaviour arises out of, or is solely affected by, any particular event or circumstance is to declare a failure to progress beyond middle school thinking.
even if autism were as simple as mercury poisoning during early infancy, that does not address the question of what to do about the way individuals and society treat autistic people. even if removing mercury from the few vaccines left would prevent further autistic 'onsets' - that resolves nothing of the very real issue of societal ignorance and fear when it come to difference.
by the by, even if there was a connection between thimerosal or its friends with autism [and plenty of studies show no causal connection], autism existed before vaccines. and if these behavioural 'issues' are mercury related, removing a few tiny doses from a child's environment ought to be less pressing than removing the tons of heavy metal pollutants our industrial societies have pumped and continue to pump into our local environments.
my take on the anti-thimerosal community is to wonder how closely they are related to the anti-vaccines community more generally. much like the question of how many 'intelligent design' advocates are also fundamentalist christians.
or how many are associated with litigation hoping to get damages from pharmaceutical companies. [you can even fill out a web form to have your case evaluated ...] this is the connection that dr wakefield fell afoul of above.
it is also interesting to note how many people out there claim to have 'cured' their autism - especially when you consider when they managed this feat, and how much they obsess over the idea. many people with many different 'disorders' learn to manage/cope/adapt to them as they mature. particularly when so many of their treatments have not shown any connection with long term 'improvements' - or even short term ones. much of the 'evidence' can be attributed to the placebo effect. [heck, any kid's gonna be happier when their parents aren't being grumpy shits all the time.]
oh, and i'm loving the websites that claim that mercury poisoning is behind all manner of 'mystery' illnesses.
autism isn't a disease requiring a cure. it's a fact of life. just like homosexuality. part of the normal distribution of difference across the population.
and for the bleeding heart mundanes out there who think i need help, fuck off you patronising fucks. you need to get over your pathetic hang-ups! apparently i'm the one with socialising problems ... at least i'm not a self-paralysed psychosocial twat.
i'm less concerned about microdoses of mercury compounds than the steady supply of complex chemicals in our diets. particularly when most single-event toxins require significant doses or toxicity to have lasting effects on the generally very plastic physiology of small children [we can thank adaptive evolution for that - if the opposite was true, we'd have been extinct long ago.]
this is not to say that i'm claiming any specific consequences of our increasingly modified diets. but i do wonder how much of any 'new' conditions out there flow from our very recent changes in environment and social behaviours.
we should not overlook the impact of changes in diagnosis, classification, and/or transformations in understanding or awareness of differences within the population through developments in psychology, sociology and other social sciences. event he way social sciences are changing the way they position themselves as disciplines has a flow on effect to what they can and do have to say about us.
for anyone to say that something as complex as human social behaviour arises out of, or is solely affected by, any particular event or circumstance is to declare a failure to progress beyond middle school thinking.
even if autism were as simple as mercury poisoning during early infancy, that does not address the question of what to do about the way individuals and society treat autistic people. even if removing mercury from the few vaccines left would prevent further autistic 'onsets' - that resolves nothing of the very real issue of societal ignorance and fear when it come to difference.
by the by, even if there was a connection between thimerosal or its friends with autism [and plenty of studies show no causal connection], autism existed before vaccines. and if these behavioural 'issues' are mercury related, removing a few tiny doses from a child's environment ought to be less pressing than removing the tons of heavy metal pollutants our industrial societies have pumped and continue to pump into our local environments.
Investigations Reveal an Unreported Conflict of Interest and Problems With Reporting in Wakefield's 1998 Autism-MMR Study. Information on the investigation by The Lancet into problems with Andrew Wakefield's study. February 27, 2004. |
my take on the anti-thimerosal community is to wonder how closely they are related to the anti-vaccines community more generally. much like the question of how many 'intelligent design' advocates are also fundamentalist christians.
or how many are associated with litigation hoping to get damages from pharmaceutical companies. [you can even fill out a web form to have your case evaluated ...] this is the connection that dr wakefield fell afoul of above.
it is also interesting to note how many people out there claim to have 'cured' their autism - especially when you consider when they managed this feat, and how much they obsess over the idea. many people with many different 'disorders' learn to manage/cope/adapt to them as they mature. particularly when so many of their treatments have not shown any connection with long term 'improvements' - or even short term ones. much of the 'evidence' can be attributed to the placebo effect. [heck, any kid's gonna be happier when their parents aren't being grumpy shits all the time.]
oh, and i'm loving the websites that claim that mercury poisoning is behind all manner of 'mystery' illnesses.
autism isn't a disease requiring a cure. it's a fact of life. just like homosexuality. part of the normal distribution of difference across the population.
and for the bleeding heart mundanes out there who think i need help, fuck off you patronising fucks. you need to get over your pathetic hang-ups! apparently i'm the one with socialising problems ... at least i'm not a self-paralysed psychosocial twat.
"but my child requires so much work!"
what the fuck did you expect?
children are not pets for fuck's sake!
what the fuck did you expect?
children are not pets for fuck's sake!
no subject
it just seems a convenient way to 'justify' avoiding responsibility. which hardly assuages ones conscience - if anything, it is the bruised conscience that prevents these people from facing up to reality ... after all, if they are wrong ...
autism, being genetic, has been around for a long time. likely as long as people. quite a few historical figures are suspected of falling on the autism spectrum.
far from being something to be 'cured', like homosexuality, autism is a natural part of human diversity - and if accomodated appropriately, enhances the creative capacity of our societies. of course, we don't really need more of that ...
the doses complained of by the 'mercury in vaccines' crowd are spectacularly tiny. the general population of most industrialised cities absorb more from their surroundings on a regular basis. particularly in polluted cities. it is one of the things catalytic converters are supposed to strip out of car exhaust fumes, for instance.
the mob have taken to arguing that some people are genetically predisposed to becoming autistic from these tiny doses. they conveniently ignore the facts
ockham's razor (and basic biology) would say that being a genetic condition is a simpler fit for the observed facts - and a better fit as well. but then most people don't really understand genetics or statistics. even people who should (they often delude themselves that they do understand. again with the refusing to accept responsibility and the possibility of making a mistake).
autism was first described as a discrete condition by kanner around wwii. asperger's syndrome by asperger around the same time (though being austrian effectively buried his work until the 1980s). there is no evidence to suggest that either was 'dicovering' a new phenomena. indeed, both were exploring behavioural issues that had long been a cuase for institutionalisation.
no subject
became acceptable {if recent is the last 20 years}. It's a shame it was buried for so long.
Of course if there was more acceptance and accommodation in the world certain things/people wouldn't have to be "fixed" or "cured".
Some research the last couple of years suggests that homosexuality is more physiological than anything else. (brains are actually structured differently} although the various factions don't want that to become publically known fearing a reprisal/retraction on equality laws.
btw I am on your side. :)
biology is a wonderful thing
i figured as much :)
homosexuality is a normal sexual component of mammalian populations. as a rough 10% of both genders, it has a clear underlying genetic basis. just like bisexuality, transexuality, and other variations on the male-female, masculine-feminine spectrums. it is expected that there would be physiological differences as a consequence. sexuality is more than just a response to pheremones [which is no simple thing itself].
indeed, these would be expected to exist given the way sexual reproduction works. it is one of the advantages of sexual reproduction that makes it so common amongst more complex organisms - plants or animals. non-breeding individuals in social populations have more free time to assist in child-raising, etc.
it's only narrow-minded people who demand that variable sexual populations conform to their binary delusions. and have created the so-called nuclear family - having torn apart the old communal/extended family networks to achieve this selfish power structure debarcle.
the issue surrounding the biological basis of homosexuality has less to do with equality laws - whcih are designed to address socially constructed imbalances - and more to do with the promulgation of dogma that created the imbalances, including the idea that non-hetero is 'unnatural' (try telling that to my cat. he's gay as, and has no interest in girls beyond playfighting). it's about power, the power to enforce conformity to a particular view of what should be rather than what is or might be.