Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan
It's certainly possible that our diet contributes to disease in some way--type 2 diabetes and heart disease are just two examples. But Autism is a poor example for any kind of historical argument because the one thing that has changed most dramatically is the method by which it is detected.
What this means is that comparing autism "rates" as a baseline to years ago is very, very dumb. It's maybe the dumbest thing about the "Jim and Jenny" argument. The reason there appears to be more autism now than in the past is probably in large part that we are now better at detecting it.
|
See while I don't disagree that we are more efficient at detecting and properly diagnosing Autism (and many other diseases), to say that the number of cases has not increased over the years and that we are simply finding and catogorizing them better seems very wrong to me. Sure our diagnostic abilities have increased but not to the extent that we have seen autism cases rise.
Imrpoved detection may explain some of the increase but I would find it hard to believe it explains away all of it.