test

Last December Orac posted his opinion
(http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/1...sebut-not.html)
regarding Dan Olmsted's articles about autism and Amish (and other
unvaccinated groups). I would summarize his (and I think his fans')
attitude towards Olmsted's report on Amish:

1. Olmsted's data about Amish is unreliable but we are not interested in
having it checked. (He indeed did not express any interest.)

2. If there is any difference it may be explained by genetics alone but we
are not interested in having anyone look into Amish genetics. (Again, he
did not say anything to the contrary.)

3. The difference if any can be explained by Amish outdoor lifestyle.
But I cannot be bothered with presenting any evidence that such
possibility exists - that is, that autism rates are lower in rural areas.
I will not even check if the rates in rural areas are indeed lower.

In short, the entire thing must be buried, preferrably with the author
himself.

Not true?

Then reveal YOUR opinion. Orac would not answer questions from humble
mortals like myself but maybe you can answer some questions (for
yourselves of course, not for him). I picked some possible answers to save
your time. They are not all mutually exclusive, check all that applies.
Everybody is welcome, not only ragtags and other Orac fans.

1. Do you favor or oppose collecting data on autism prevalence in Amish
population?
(a) Favor. This is an issue of public health. If his statements are true
we should look further. If his statements are wrong then it is a myth and
not a harmless one. Let's pull this rug from under anti-vac liars.
(b) Favor for other reasons
(c) Oppose because there is no evidence that would warrant such data
collection.
(d) Oppose because the results would be of no significance either way
(e) Oppose for other reasons
(f) No preference, does not matter
(g) collecting hard data is impossible, so the question makes no sense.
Amish parents may hide their autistics from doctors out of shame, so the
doctors' data will be unreliable. Their school districts may be
insufficiently qualified or collaborate with parents. They may give
autistics wrong classification or even keep them in regular classrooms, so
their special ed data is not good either. If we send somebody to observe
their children at school they will not let them in. Not even worth trying.
(h) Don't know, not ready to answer
(i) What part of "this is all crap" don't you understand?
(j) other

2. If you think that Amish genetics can explain most of the difference if
any would you favor or oppose looking into Amish genetics if the
difference exists?
(a) Would not answer a hypothetical question, show me the data first
(b) Favor
(c) Oppose because I do not think Amish genetics plays a role
(d) Oppose because whatever can be learned will not be useful
(e) Oppose for other reasons
(f) No preference, does not matter
(g) Don't know, not ready to answer
(h) your question shows you are a moron
(i) other

3. If you believe that Amish lifestyle contributes to low autism rates do
you have any evidence that the rates are lower in rural areas and would
you favor getting the data on autism rates in rural areas?
(a) Would not answer a hypothetical question, show me the Amish data first
(b) I do have such evidence
(c) Yes, I favor checking autism prevalence rates in rural areas
(d) I am not interested because I do not believe their lifestyle is
relevant.
(e) I am not interested (other reasons)
(f) No preference
(g) Don't know, not ready to answer
(h) Your spam is already too long
(i) Other

4. Lack of exposure to antibiotics is one of the factors distinguishing
the environment of Amish and Chicago Homefirst patients from others.
(Another such factor is lack of vaccinations; there may be more.) Do you
think it might be relevant?
(a) Prove it is a distinguishing factor
(b) There are no environmental factors in autism, it is impossible
(c) It might be possible
(d) It is theoretically possible but there is nothing special about
antibiotics, there are scores of other factors.
(e) Don't know, not ready to answer
(f) All the negative side effects from antibiotics are already known.
The possibility of them contributing to autism is the same as with
thimerosal: zero. What's wrong with you anti-vac liars, you are making
things up all the time.
(g) Other

Thank you for you time and your straight answers.

"mike" wrote in message
...
Last December Orac posted his opinion
(http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/1...sebut-not.html)
regarding Dan Olmsted's articles about autism and Amish (and other
unvaccinated groups). I would summarize his (and I think his fans')
attitude towards Olmsted's report on Amish:

1. Olmsted's data about Amish is unreliable but we are not interested in
having it checked. (He indeed did not express any interest.)

Again, your absurd logic is applied. It is your fundamental assumption that
a failure to express interest implies a lack of interest. By that logic, the
fact that you have not expressed any interest in receiving an income tax
refund means you are not interested in receiving one.



2. If there is any difference it may be explained by genetics alone but we
are not interested in having anyone look into Amish genetics. (Again, he
did not say anything to the contrary.)

And again, your logic is flawed. He did not say genetics "alone" and he did
not express any objection into research into Amish genetics.



3. The difference if any can be explained by Amish outdoor lifestyle.
But I cannot be bothered with presenting any evidence that such
possibility exists - that is, that autism rates are lower in rural areas.
I will not even check if the rates in rural areas are indeed lower.

Bull****. What he said was that if environmental factors contribute to the
development of autism, the rates in the Amish may be different because their
environments are different from the public at large.


In short, the entire thing must be buried, preferrably with the author
himself.

What "entire thing"? Olmsted's report? Not buried, but not taken seriously,
either. Olmsted's stuff is without substance, and to draw conclusions about
a connection between autism and vaccines from his two articles is foolish.


Not true?

Then reveal YOUR opinion. Orac would not answer questions from humble
mortals like myself but maybe you can answer some questions (for
yourselves of course, not for him). I picked some possible answers to save
your time. They are not all mutually exclusive, check all that applies.
Everybody is welcome, not only ragtags and other Orac fans.

1. Do you favor or oppose collecting data on autism prevalence in Amish
population?
(a) Favor. This is an issue of public health. If his statements are true
we should look further. If his statements are wrong then it is a myth and
not a harmless one. Let's pull this rug from under anti-vac liars.
(b) Favor for other reasons
(c) Oppose because there is no evidence that would warrant such data
collection.
(d) Oppose because the results would be of no significance either way
(e) Oppose for other reasons
(f) No preference, does not matter
(g) collecting hard data is impossible, so the question makes no sense.
Amish parents may hide their autistics from doctors out of shame, so the
doctors' data will be unreliable. Their school districts may be
insufficiently qualified or collaborate with parents. They may give
autistics wrong classification or even keep them in regular classrooms, so
their special ed data is not good either. If we send somebody to observe
their children at school they will not let them in. Not even worth trying.
(h) Don't know, not ready to answer
(i) What part of "this is all crap" don't you understand?
(j) other

(j) Actually (g) modified: While collecting hard data is not impossible,
such a study would be extremely difficult. It's unlikely that Amish
autistics have ever actually been diagnosed, so the only way to accurately
count Amish autistics would be through a screening process of ALL Amish
children. This would require the cooperation of the Amish schools, parents,
and political leaders. Since the diagnoses, having been made, would not in
any way benefit the children or their families, schools, parents, and
leaders might all be expected to resist, and rightly so. Considering that
there is NO evidence at all that the incidence of autism is ACTUALLY lower
in the Amish community, undertaking such a study is probably not worth the
cost and turmoil, so if I were on the grant committee, I would oppose the
study.




2. If you think that Amish genetics can explain most of the difference if
any would you favor or oppose looking into Amish genetics if the
difference exists?
(a) Would not answer a hypothetical question, show me the data first
(b) Favor
(c) Oppose because I do not think Amish genetics plays a role
(d) Oppose because whatever can be learned will not be useful
(e) Oppose for other reasons
(f) No preference, does not matter
(g) Don't know, not ready to answer
(h) your question shows you are a moron
(i) other

(i) or (a) Since there is no reason to believe that the Amish have less
autism, there is no reason to start searching for reasons.


3. If you believe that Amish lifestyle contributes to low autism rates do
you have any evidence that the rates are lower in rural areas and would
you favor getting the data on autism rates in rural areas?
(a) Would not answer a hypothetical question, show me the Amish data first
(b) I do have such evidence
(c) Yes, I favor checking autism prevalence rates in rural areas
(d) I am not interested because I do not believe their lifestyle is
relevant.
(e) I am not interested (other reasons)
(f) No preference
(g) Don't know, not ready to answer
(h) Your spam is already too long
(i) Other

(a)


4. Lack of exposure to antibiotics is one of the factors distinguishing
the environment of Amish and Chicago Homefirst patients from others.
(Another such factor is lack of vaccinations; there may be more.) Do you
think it might be relevant?
(a) Prove it is a distinguishing factor
(b) There are no environmental factors in autism, it is impossible
(c) It might be possible
(d) It is theoretically possible but there is nothing special about
antibiotics, there are scores of other factors.
(e) Don't know, not ready to answer
(f) All the negative side effects from antibiotics are already known.
The possibility of them contributing to autism is the same as with
thimerosal: zero. What's wrong with you anti-vac liars, you are making
things up all the time.
(g) Other

(f) and: There is no reason to believe that EITHER the Amish OR the
Homefirst kids have fewer cases of autism. And it's not so much that the
anti-vacs are "making thing up" as that they draw sensational conclusions
from thin or absent evidence.


Thank you for you time and your straight answers.


You're welcome,
--


--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/

Rich wrote:
"mike" wrote in message
...

Last December Orac posted his opinion
(http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/1...sebut-not.html)
regarding Dan Olmsted's articles about autism and Amish (and other
unvaccinated groups). I would summarize his (and I think his fans')
attitude towards Olmsted's report on Amish:

1. Olmsted's data about Amish is unreliable but we are not interested in
having it checked. (He indeed did not express any interest.)


Again, your absurd logic is applied. It is your fundamental assumption that
a failure to express interest implies a lack of interest. By that logic, the
fact that you have not expressed any interest in receiving an income tax
refund means you are not interested in receiving one.



2. If there is any difference it may be explained by genetics alone but we
are not interested in having anyone look into Amish genetics. (Again, he
did not say anything to the contrary.)


And again, your logic is flawed. He did not say genetics "alone" and he did
not express any objection into research into Amish genetics.



3. The difference if any can be explained by Amish outdoor lifestyle.
But I cannot be bothered with presenting any evidence that such
possibility exists - that is, that autism rates are lower in rural areas.
I will not even check if the rates in rural areas are indeed lower.


Bull****. What he said was that if environmental factors contribute to the
development of autism, the rates in the Amish may be different because their
environments are different from the public at large.


In short, the entire thing must be buried, preferrably with the author
himself.


What "entire thing"? Olmsted's report? Not buried, but not taken seriously,
either. Olmsted's stuff is without substance, and to draw conclusions about
a connection between autism and vaccines from his two articles is foolish.


Not true?

Then reveal YOUR opinion. Orac would not answer questions from humble
mortals like myself but maybe you can answer some questions (for
yourselves of course, not for him). I picked some possible answers to save
your time. They are not all mutually exclusive, check all that applies.
Everybody is welcome, not only ragtags and other Orac fans.

1. Do you favor or oppose collecting data on autism prevalence in Amish
population?
(a) Favor. This is an issue of public health. If his statements are true
we should look further. If his statements are wrong then it is a myth and
not a harmless one. Let's pull this rug from under anti-vac liars.
(b) Favor for other reasons
(c) Oppose because there is no evidence that would warrant such data
collection.
(d) Oppose because the results would be of no significance either way
(e) Oppose for other reasons
(f) No preference, does not matter
(g) collecting hard data is impossible, so the question makes no sense.
Amish parents may hide their autistics from doctors out of shame, so the
doctors' data will be unreliable. Their school districts may be
insufficiently qualified or collaborate with parents. They may give
autistics wrong classification or even keep them in regular classrooms, so
their special ed data is not good either. If we send somebody to observe
their children at school they will not let them in. Not even worth trying.
(h) Don't know, not ready to answer
(i) What part of "this is all crap" don't you understand?
(j) other


(j) Actually (g) modified: While collecting hard data is not impossible,
such a study would be extremely difficult. It's unlikely that Amish
autistics have ever actually been diagnosed, so the only way to accurately
count Amish autistics would be through a screening process of ALL Amish
children. This would require the cooperation of the Amish schools, parents,
and political leaders. Since the diagnoses, having been made, would not in
any way benefit the children or their families, schools, parents, and
leaders might all be expected to resist, and rightly so. Considering that
there is NO evidence at all that the incidence of autism is ACTUALLY lower
in the Amish community, undertaking such a study is probably not worth the
cost and turmoil, so if I were on the grant committee, I would oppose the
study.




2. If you think that Amish genetics can explain most of the difference if
any would you favor or oppose looking into Amish genetics if the
difference exists?
(a) Would not answer a hypothetical question, show me the data first
(b) Favor
(c) Oppose because I do not think Amish genetics plays a role
(d) Oppose because whatever can be learned will not be useful
(e) Oppose for other reasons
(f) No preference, does not matter
(g) Don't know, not ready to answer
(h) your question shows you are a moron
(i) other


(i) or (a) Since there is no reason to believe that the Amish have less
autism, there is no reason to start searching for reasons.


3. If you believe that Amish lifestyle contributes to low autism rates do
you have any evidence that the rates are lower in rural areas and would
you favor getting the data on autism rates in rural areas?
(a) Would not answer a hypothetical question, show me the Amish data first
(b) I do have such evidence
(c) Yes, I favor checking autism prevalence rates in rural areas
(d) I am not interested because I do not believe their lifestyle is
relevant.
(e) I am not interested (other reasons)
(f) No preference
(g) Don't know, not ready to answer
(h) Your spam is already too long
(i) Other


(a)


4. Lack of exposure to antibiotics is one of the factors distinguishing
the environment of Amish and Chicago Homefirst patients from others.
(Another such factor is lack of vaccinations; there may be more.) Do you
think it might be relevant?
(a) Prove it is a distinguishing factor
(b) There are no environmental factors in autism, it is impossible
(c) It might be possible
(d) It is theoretically possible but there is nothing special about
antibiotics, there are scores of other factors.
(e) Don't know, not ready to answer
(f) All the negative side effects from antibiotics are already known.
The possibility of them contributing to autism is the same as with
thimerosal: zero. What's wrong with you anti-vac liars, you are making
things up all the time.
(g) Other


(f) and: There is no reason to believe that EITHER the Amish OR the
Homefirst kids have fewer cases of autism. And it's not so much that the
anti-vacs are "making thing up" as that they draw sensational conclusions
from thin or absent evidence.


Thank you for you time and your straight answers.



You're welcome,


Have you noticed how Mikey is utterly incapable of thinking outside the
box? He needed to structure the answers to his questions, he draws
absurd conclusions when a person's actions and words do not conform to
what he thinks they should be.

He is very strange.

who cares about Orac


"mike" wrote in message
...
Last December Orac posted his opinion
(http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/1...sebut-not.html)
regarding Dan Olmsted's articles about autism and Amish (and other
unvaccinated groups). I would summarize his (and I think his fans')
attitude towards Olmsted's report on Amish:

1. Olmsted's data about Amish is unreliable but we are not interested in
having it checked. (He indeed did not express any interest.)

2. If there is any difference it may be explained by genetics alone but we
are not interested in having anyone look into Amish genetics. (Again, he
did not say anything to the contrary.)

3. The difference if any can be explained by Amish outdoor lifestyle.
But I cannot be bothered with presenting any evidence that such
possibility exists - that is, that autism rates are lower in rural areas.
I will not even check if the rates in rural areas are indeed lower.

In short, the entire thing must be buried, preferrably with the author
himself.

Not true?

Then reveal YOUR opinion. Orac would not answer questions from humble
mortals like myself but maybe you can answer some questions (for
yourselves of course, not for him). I picked some possible answers to save
your time. They are not all mutually exclusive, check all that applies.
Everybody is welcome, not only ragtags and other Orac fans.

1. Do you favor or oppose collecting data on autism prevalence in Amish
population?
(a) Favor. This is an issue of public health. If his statements are true
we should look further. If his statements are wrong then it is a myth and
not a harmless one. Let's pull this rug from under anti-vac liars.
(b) Favor for other reasons
(c) Oppose because there is no evidence that would warrant such data
collection.
(d) Oppose because the results would be of no significance either way
(e) Oppose for other reasons
(f) No preference, does not matter
(g) collecting hard data is impossible, so the question makes no sense.
Amish parents may hide their autistics from doctors out of shame, so the
doctors' data will be unreliable. Their school districts may be
insufficiently qualified or collaborate with parents. They may give
autistics wrong classification or even keep them in regular classrooms, so
their special ed data is not good either. If we send somebody to observe
their children at school they will not let them in. Not even worth trying.
(h) Don't know, not ready to answer
(i) What part of "this is all crap" don't you understand?
(j) other

2. If you think that Amish genetics can explain most of the difference if
any would you favor or oppose looking into Amish genetics if the
difference exists?
(a) Would not answer a hypothetical question, show me the data first
(b) Favor
(c) Oppose because I do not think Amish genetics plays a role
(d) Oppose because whatever can be learned will not be useful
(e) Oppose for other reasons
(f) No preference, does not matter
(g) Don't know, not ready to answer
(h) your question shows you are a moron
(i) other

3. If you believe that Amish lifestyle contributes to low autism rates do
you have any evidence that the rates are lower in rural areas and would
you favor getting the data on autism rates in rural areas?
(a) Would not answer a hypothetical question, show me the Amish data first
(b) I do have such evidence
(c) Yes, I favor checking autism prevalence rates in rural areas
(d) I am not interested because I do not believe their lifestyle is
relevant.
(e) I am not interested (other reasons)
(f) No preference
(g) Don't know, not ready to answer
(h) Your spam is already too long
(i) Other

4. Lack of exposure to antibiotics is one of the factors distinguishing
the environment of Amish and Chicago Homefirst patients from others.
(Another such factor is lack of vaccinations; there may be more.) Do you
think it might be relevant?
(a) Prove it is a distinguishing factor
(b) There are no environmental factors in autism, it is impossible
(c) It might be possible
(d) It is theoretically possible but there is nothing special about
antibiotics, there are scores of other factors.
(e) Don't know, not ready to answer
(f) All the negative side effects from antibiotics are already known.
The possibility of them contributing to autism is the same as with
thimerosal: zero. What's wrong with you anti-vac liars, you are making
things up all the time.
(g) Other

Thank you for you time and your straight answers.

john wrote:
who cares about Orac

Intelligent people.




"mike" wrote in message
...

Last December Orac posted his opinion
(http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/1...sebut-not.html)
regarding Dan Olmsted's articles about autism and Amish (and other
unvaccinated groups). I would summarize his (and I think his fans')
attitude towards Olmsted's report on Amish:

1. Olmsted's data about Amish is unreliable but we are not interested in
having it checked. (He indeed did not express any interest.)

2. If there is any difference it may be explained by genetics alone but we
are not interested in having anyone look into Amish genetics. (Again, he
did not say anything to the contrary.)

3. The difference if any can be explained by Amish outdoor lifestyle.
But I cannot be bothered with presenting any evidence that such
possibility exists - that is, that autism rates are lower in rural areas.
I will not even check if the rates in rural areas are indeed lower.

In short, the entire thing must be buried, preferrably with the author
himself.

Not true?

Then reveal YOUR opinion. Orac would not answer questions from humble
mortals like myself but maybe you can answer some questions (for
yourselves of course, not for him). I picked some possible answers to save
your time. They are not all mutually exclusive, check all that applies.
Everybody is welcome, not only ragtags and other Orac fans.

1. Do you favor or oppose collecting data on autism prevalence in Amish
population?
(a) Favor. This is an issue of public health. If his statements are true
we should look further. If his statements are wrong then it is a myth and
not a harmless one. Let's pull this rug from under anti-vac liars.
(b) Favor for other reasons
(c) Oppose because there is no evidence that would warrant such data
collection.
(d) Oppose because the results would be of no significance either way
(e) Oppose for other reasons
(f) No preference, does not matter
(g) collecting hard data is impossible, so the question makes no sense.
Amish parents may hide their autistics from doctors out of shame, so the
doctors' data will be unreliable. Their school districts may be
insufficiently qualified or collaborate with parents. They may give
autistics wrong classification or even keep them in regular classrooms, so
their special ed data is not good either. If we send somebody to observe
their children at school they will not let them in. Not even worth trying.
(h) Don't know, not ready to answer
(i) What part of "this is all crap" don't you understand?
(j) other

2. If you think that Amish genetics can explain most of the difference if
any would you favor or oppose looking into Amish genetics if the
difference exists?
(a) Would not answer a hypothetical question, show me the data first
(b) Favor
(c) Oppose because I do not think Amish genetics plays a role
(d) Oppose because whatever can be learned will not be useful
(e) Oppose for other reasons
(f) No preference, does not matter
(g) Don't know, not ready to answer
(h) your question shows you are a moron
(i) other

3. If you believe that Amish lifestyle contributes to low autism rates do
you have any evidence that the rates are lower in rural areas and would
you favor getting the data on autism rates in rural areas?
(a) Would not answer a hypothetical question, show me the Amish data first
(b) I do have such evidence
(c) Yes, I favor checking autism prevalence rates in rural areas
(d) I am not interested because I do not believe their lifestyle is
relevant.
(e) I am not interested (other reasons)
(f) No preference
(g) Don't know, not ready to answer
(h) Your spam is already too long
(i) Other

4. Lack of exposure to antibiotics is one of the factors distinguishing
the environment of Amish and Chicago Homefirst patients from others.
(Another such factor is lack of vaccinations; there may be more.) Do you
think it might be relevant?
(a) Prove it is a distinguishing factor
(b) There are no environmental factors in autism, it is impossible
(c) It might be possible
(d) It is theoretically possible but there is nothing special about
antibiotics, there are scores of other factors.
(e) Don't know, not ready to answer
(f) All the negative side effects from antibiotics are already known.
The possibility of them contributing to autism is the same as with
thimerosal: zero. What's wrong with you anti-vac liars, you are making
things up all the time.
(g) Other

Thank you for you time and your straight answers.

Thank you again for your straight answers.
You validated my point well beyond expectations.

Rich wrote:
"mike" wrote in message
...

Last December Orac posted his opinion
(http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/1...sebut-not.html)
regarding Dan Olmsted's articles about autism and Amish (and other
unvaccinated groups). I would summarize his (and I think his fans')
attitude towards Olmsted's report on Amish:

1. Olmsted's data about Amish is unreliable but we are not interested in
having it checked. (He indeed did not express any interest.)


Again, your absurd logic is applied. It is your fundamental assumption that
a failure to express interest implies a lack of interest.

Of course, I know. That was my impression, however, and I wanted to verify
it. I could not hope Orac will answer my questions, so I asked you folks.
And I needed an incentive for you to answer. And what is a better
incentive than a little provocation?

So here is the response I got:

if I were on the grant committee, I would oppose the study.

Could not be clearer.

Oh, wait, did I pull it out of context? There was an argument, let's quote
this hate-ridden drivel, it is worth it.

While collecting hard data is not impossible,
such a study would be extremely difficult. It's unlikely that Amish
autistics have ever actually been diagnosed, so the only way to accurately
count Amish autistics would be through a screening process of ALL Amish
children. This would require the cooperation of the Amish schools, parents,
and political leaders. Since the diagnoses, having been made, would not in
any way benefit the children or their families, schools, parents, and
leaders might all be expected to resist, and rightly so. Considering that
there is NO evidence at all that the incidence of autism is ACTUALLY lower
in the Amish community, undertaking such a study is probably not worth the
cost and turmoil, so if I were on the grant committee, I would oppose the
study.

Screening ALL children? Really? How about checking regular
and special ed classes at randomly chosen 5% of their schools? If no
autistics are found this would mean something, wouldn't it?

And screening is not an evaluation by a child study team. Send a school
psychologist to a school cafeteria during lunch break, let her observe the
children and talk to them, by the end of the break she will have a pretty
good idea if anybody should be evaluated for autism (not in the entire
school but in a class or two). With most non-disabled kids, 30 seconds is
more than enough.

Not that much cost and turmoil really, right?

To see why it is hate-ridden, one can substitute Jews for Amish and see
what it looks like. How about casually saying this:
"It's unlikely that Jewish autistics have ever actually been diagnosed."
without providing a scintilla of evidence? None at all! That would be
anti-semitism. (Are you an anti-semite, Rich? I would not be surprized.)

And why doesn't Orac himself make this argument? Probably not because
he is unaware of it. And not because of political correctness, he has no
qualms about ****ing off people. But this is too much of crap for him.

This is a real gem:
Considering that there is NO evidence at all that the incidence of autism is ACTUALLY lower
in the Amish community, undertaking such a study is probably not worth the
cost and turmoil, so if I were on the grant committee, I would oppose the
study.

There is no evidence, so we will not allow collecting evidence.
This will guarantee that there will never be any evidence. How convenient!


2. If there is any difference it may be explained by genetics alone but
we are not interested in having anyone look into Amish genetics. (Again,
he did not say anything to the contrary.)


And again, your logic is flawed. He did not say genetics "alone" and he
did not express any objection into research into Amish genetics.

He said: "the Amish are a genetically inbred group, and, given that autism
has a strong genetic component, that inbreeding ALONE could explain any
difference, again if there even is a difference". (capitals mine)




3. The difference if any can be explained by Amish outdoor lifestyle.
But I cannot be bothered with presenting any evidence that such
possibility exists - that is, that autism rates are lower in rural
areas. I will not even check if the rates in rural areas are indeed
lower.


Bull****. What he said was that if environmental factors contribute to
the development of autism, the rates in the Amish may be different
because their environments are different from the public at large.



This is the quote:
"the Amish live a simple life on farms out in the countryside. Perhaps the
difference could be explained by different environmental exposures from
that lifestyle".

He did not say their environment is different from the public at large.
It isn't. Plenty of other people "live a simple life on farms out in the
countryside". To credibly suggest it might matter one should have at least
some evidence that the farm people have lower rate of autism.

So this is the approach of autism holocaust deniers as so eloquently
presented by Rich:

- Since there is no scientific evidence about autism prevalence among
Amish population there is no need to collect such evidence. This gives us
a free license to scream that there is no evidence forever.
- We will declare that "most Amish autistics are not diagnosed" but will
not be bothered with evidence. We are not in the evidence business, we are
in the business of demanding evidence.
- Since there will be no evidence there will be no reason to search for
reasons. In the meantime we may freely speculate about seemingly lower
rates and make pronouncements like "their lifestyle may matter", "they may
begenetically different from the rest of humanity in regards to autism"
but again we will not be bothered with supplying evidence. Nobody will
be able to challenge us anyway.

snip

4. Lack of exposure to antibiotics is one of the factors distinguishing
the environment of Amish and Chicago Homefirst patients from others.
(Another such factor is lack of vaccinations; there may be more.) Do you
think it might be relevant?
(a) Prove it is a distinguishing factor
(b) There are no environmental factors in autism, it is impossible
(c) It might be possible
(d) It is theoretically possible but there is nothing special about
antibiotics, there are scores of other factors.
(e) Don't know, not ready to answer
(f) All the negative side effects from antibiotics are already known.
The possibility of them contributing to autism is the same as with
thimerosal: zero. What's wrong with you anti-vac liars, you are making
things up all the time.
(g) Other


(f)

This knee-jerk reaction is instructive. Not (d) (there is nothing special
about antibiotics) but (f) - that is, there is something special. All the
negative side effects are already known - that is, we will not be
disturbed by any new evidence if it ever emerges. Why does farm life
matter but a chemical exposure does not? One would be hard pressed not to
believe that Rich will defend anything coming from the pharmaceutical
industry.



and: There is no reason to believe that EITHER the Amish OR the
Homefirst kids have fewer cases of autism. And it's not so much that the
anti-vacs are "making thing up" as that they draw sensational
conclusions from thin or absent evidence.


There is nothing sensational in suggesting that a particular chemical or
drug may be contributing to a particular condition.

There is nothing sensational in suggesting that the industry producing the
chemical or using it in its products would vigorously defend the chemical.

There is nothing sensational about a government exposing millions of
people to a potentially harmful substance.

Have a nice day.

On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 08:39:42 -0500, Mark Probert wrote:

Rich wrote:
"mike" wrote in message
...

Last December Orac posted his opinion
(http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/1...sebut-not.html)
regarding Dan Olmsted's articles about autism and Amish (and other
unvaccinated groups). I would summarize his (and I think his fans')
attitude towards Olmsted's report on Amish:

1. Olmsted's data about Amish is unreliable but we are not interested in
having it checked. (He indeed did not express any interest.)


Again, your absurd logic is applied. It is your fundamental assumption that
a failure to express interest implies a lack of interest. By that logic, the
fact that you have not expressed any interest in receiving an income tax
refund means you are not interested in receiving one.



2. If there is any difference it may be explained by genetics alone but we
are not interested in having anyone look into Amish genetics. (Again, he
did not say anything to the contrary.)


And again, your logic is flawed. He did not say genetics "alone" and he did
not express any objection into research into Amish genetics.



3. The difference if any can be explained by Amish outdoor lifestyle.
But I cannot be bothered with presenting any evidence that such
possibility exists - that is, that autism rates are lower in rural areas.
I will not even check if the rates in rural areas are indeed lower.


Bull****. What he said was that if environmental factors contribute to the
development of autism, the rates in the Amish may be different because their
environments are different from the public at large.


In short, the entire thing must be buried, preferrably with the author
himself.


What "entire thing"? Olmsted's report? Not buried, but not taken seriously,
either. Olmsted's stuff is without substance, and to draw conclusions about
a connection between autism and vaccines from his two articles is foolish.


Not true?

Then reveal YOUR opinion. Orac would not answer questions from humble
mortals like myself but maybe you can answer some questions (for
yourselves of course, not for him). I picked some possible answers to save
your time. They are not all mutually exclusive, check all that applies.
Everybody is welcome, not only ragtags and other Orac fans.

1. Do you favor or oppose collecting data on autism prevalence in Amish
population?
(a) Favor. This is an issue of public health. If his statements are true
we should look further. If his statements are wrong then it is a myth and
not a harmless one. Let's pull this rug from under anti-vac liars.
(b) Favor for other reasons
(c) Oppose because there is no evidence that would warrant such data
collection.
(d) Oppose because the results would be of no significance either way
(e) Oppose for other reasons
(f) No preference, does not matter
(g) collecting hard data is impossible, so the question makes no sense.
Amish parents may hide their autistics from doctors out of shame, so the
doctors' data will be unreliable. Their school districts may be
insufficiently qualified or collaborate with parents. They may give
autistics wrong classification or even keep them in regular classrooms, so
their special ed data is not good either. If we send somebody to observe
their children at school they will not let them in. Not even worth trying.
(h) Don't know, not ready to answer
(i) What part of "this is all crap" don't you understand?
(j) other


(j) Actually (g) modified: While collecting hard data is not impossible,
such a study would be extremely difficult. It's unlikely that Amish
autistics have ever actually been diagnosed, so the only way to accurately
count Amish autistics would be through a screening process of ALL Amish
children. This would require the cooperation of the Amish schools, parents,
and political leaders. Since the diagnoses, having been made, would not in
any way benefit the children or their families, schools, parents, and
leaders might all be expected to resist, and rightly so. Considering that
there is NO evidence at all that the incidence of autism is ACTUALLY lower
in the Amish community, undertaking such a study is probably not worth the
cost and turmoil, so if I were on the grant committee, I would oppose the
study.




2. If you think that Amish genetics can explain most of the difference if
any would you favor or oppose looking into Amish genetics if the
difference exists?
(a) Would not answer a hypothetical question, show me the data first
(b) Favor
(c) Oppose because I do not think Amish genetics plays a role
(d) Oppose because whatever can be learned will not be useful
(e) Oppose for other reasons
(f) No preference, does not matter
(g) Don't know, not ready to answer
(h) your question shows you are a moron
(i) other


(i) or (a) Since there is no reason to believe that the Amish have less
autism, there is no reason to start searching for reasons.


3. If you believe that Amish lifestyle contributes to low autism rates do
you have any evidence that the rates are lower in rural areas and would
you favor getting the data on autism rates in rural areas?
(a) Would not answer a hypothetical question, show me the Amish data first
(b) I do have such evidence
(c) Yes, I favor checking autism prevalence rates in rural areas
(d) I am not interested because I do not believe their lifestyle is
relevant.
(e) I am not interested (other reasons)
(f) No preference
(g) Don't know, not ready to answer
(h) Your spam is already too long
(i) Other


(a)


4. Lack of exposure to antibiotics is one of the factors distinguishing
the environment of Amish and Chicago Homefirst patients from others.
(Another such factor is lack of vaccinations; there may be more.) Do you
think it might be relevant?
(a) Prove it is a distinguishing factor
(b) There are no environmental factors in autism, it is impossible
(c) It might be possible
(d) It is theoretically possible but there is nothing special about
antibiotics, there are scores of other factors.
(e) Don't know, not ready to answer
(f) All the negative side effects from antibiotics are already known.
The possibility of them contributing to autism is the same as with
thimerosal: zero. What's wrong with you anti-vac liars, you are making
things up all the time.
(g) Other


(f) and: There is no reason to believe that EITHER the Amish OR the
Homefirst kids have fewer cases of autism. And it's not so much that the
anti-vacs are "making thing up" as that they draw sensational conclusions
from thin or absent evidence.


Thank you for you time and your straight answers.



You're welcome,


Have you noticed how Mikey is utterly incapable of thinking outside the
box? He needed to structure the answers to his questions, he draws
absurd conclusions when a person's actions and words do not conform to
what he thinks they should be.


Would you be so kind to provide your own answers and demonstrate that
they are outside the box? The choices were given to save your time.

Of course you will not. I suspect you cannot give straight answers.
And even if you can you are too busy keeping yourself the most prolific
poster, you do not have time.

mike wrote:
Thank you again for your straight answers.
You validated my point well beyond expectations.

Rich wrote:
"mike" wrote in message
...

Last December Orac posted his opinion
(http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/1...sebut-not.html)
regarding Dan Olmsted's articles about autism and Amish (and other
unvaccinated groups). I would summarize his (and I think his fans')
attitude towards Olmsted's report on Amish:

1. Olmsted's data about Amish is unreliable but we are not interested in
having it checked. (He indeed did not express any interest.)


Again, your absurd logic is applied. It is your fundamental assumption that
a failure to express interest implies a lack of interest.

Of course, I know. That was my impression, however, and I wanted to verify
it. I could not hope Orac will answer my questions, so I asked you folks.
And I needed an incentive for you to answer. And what is a better
incentive than a little provocation?

So here is the response I got:

if I were on the grant committee, I would oppose the study.

Could not be clearer.

Oh, wait, did I pull it out of context? There was an argument, let's quote
this hate-ridden drivel, it is worth it.

While collecting hard data is not impossible,
such a study would be extremely difficult. It's unlikely that Amish
autistics have ever actually been diagnosed, so the only way to accurately
count Amish autistics would be through a screening process of ALL Amish
children. This would require the cooperation of the Amish schools, parents,
and political leaders. Since the diagnoses, having been made, would not in
any way benefit the children or their families, schools, parents, and
leaders might all be expected to resist, and rightly so. Considering that
there is NO evidence at all that the incidence of autism is ACTUALLY lower
in the Amish community, undertaking such a study is probably not worth the
cost and turmoil, so if I were on the grant committee, I would oppose the
study.

Screening ALL children? Really? How about checking regular
and special ed classes at randomly chosen 5% of their schools? If no
autistics are found this would mean something, wouldn't it?

And screening is not an evaluation by a child study team. Send a school
psychologist to a school cafeteria during lunch break, let her observe the
children and talk to them, by the end of the break she will have a pretty
good idea if anybody should be evaluated for autism (not in the entire
school but in a class or two). With most non-disabled kids, 30 seconds is
more than enough.

Not that much cost and turmoil really, right?

To see why it is hate-ridden, one can substitute Jews for Amish and see
what it looks like. How about casually saying this:
"It's unlikely that Jewish autistics have ever actually been diagnosed."
without providing a scintilla of evidence? None at all! That would be
anti-semitism. (Are you an anti-semite, Rich? I would not be surprized.)

I would, since he is vehemently critical of anti-semites. But don't let
that stop your vile innuendo.

If you can't see the difference between saying that a people who live a
determinedly different lifestyle that involves minimising contact with
strangers are less likely to have a condition such as autism diagnosed
and being anti-semitic, you're an even sadder little man than I
imagined.

Rich said nothing derogatory about the Amish, merely something that
would result from their lifestyle; it was no more "hate-ridden" than
observing that people who, for instance, live in a bedouin camp, a
refugee camp, or anywhere where the resources are unavailable to
diagnose and treat the condition, or the need to have the condition
diagnosed and treated is less because the conditions alone may make the
child more able to cope (and the adults around him also), are less
likely to have kids *diagnosed* with autism.

But do carry on. It amazes me that you can come up with nasty bull****
like this while ignoring Jan Drew's frequent forays into bigotry; have
you ever replied to her accusing her of anti-semitism?




And why doesn't Orac himself make this argument? Probably not because
he is unaware of it. And not because of political correctness, he has no
qualms about ****ing off people. But this is too much of crap for him.

This is a real gem:
Considering that there is NO evidence at all that the incidence of autism is ACTUALLY lower
in the Amish community, undertaking such a study is probably not worth the
cost and turmoil, so if I were on the grant committee, I would oppose the
study.

There is no evidence, so we will not allow collecting evidence.
This will guarantee that there will never be any evidence. How convenient!


2. If there is any difference it may be explained by genetics alone but
we are not interested in having anyone look into Amish genetics. (Again,
he did not say anything to the contrary.)


And again, your logic is flawed. He did not say genetics "alone" and he
did not express any objection into research into Amish genetics.

He said: "the Amish are a genetically inbred group, and, given that autism
has a strong genetic component, that inbreeding ALONE could explain any
difference, again if there even is a difference". (capitals mine)




3. The difference if any can be explained by Amish outdoor lifestyle.
But I cannot be bothered with presenting any evidence that such
possibility exists - that is, that autism rates are lower in rural
areas. I will not even check if the rates in rural areas are indeed
lower.


Bull****. What he said was that if environmental factors contribute to
the development of autism, the rates in the Amish may be different
because their environments are different from the public at large.



This is the quote:
"the Amish live a simple life on farms out in the countryside. Perhaps the
difference could be explained by different environmental exposures from
that lifestyle".

He did not say their environment is different from the public at large.
It isn't. Plenty of other people "live a simple life on farms out in the
countryside". To credibly suggest it might matter one should have at least
some evidence that the farm people have lower rate of autism.

So this is the approach of autism holocaust deniers as so eloquently
presented by Rich:

- Since there is no scientific evidence about autism prevalence among
Amish population there is no need to collect such evidence. This gives us
a free license to scream that there is no evidence forever.
- We will declare that "most Amish autistics are not diagnosed" but will
not be bothered with evidence. We are not in the evidence business, we are
in the business of demanding evidence.
- Since there will be no evidence there will be no reason to search for
reasons. In the meantime we may freely speculate about seemingly lower
rates and make pronouncements like "their lifestyle may matter", "they may
begenetically different from the rest of humanity in regards to autism"
but again we will not be bothered with supplying evidence. Nobody will
be able to challenge us anyway.

snip

4. Lack of exposure to antibiotics is one of the factors distinguishing
the environment of Amish and Chicago Homefirst patients from others.
(Another such factor is lack of vaccinations; there may be more.) Do you
think it might be relevant?
(a) Prove it is a distinguishing factor
(b) There are no environmental factors in autism, it is impossible
(c) It might be possible
(d) It is theoretically possible but there is nothing special about
antibiotics, there are scores of other factors.
(e) Don't know, not ready to answer
(f) All the negative side effects from antibiotics are already known.
The possibility of them contributing to autism is the same as with
thimerosal: zero. What's wrong with you anti-vac liars, you are making
things up all the time.
(g) Other


(f)

This knee-jerk reaction is instructive. Not (d) (there is nothing special
about antibiotics) but (f) - that is, there is something special. All the
negative side effects are already known - that is, we will not be
disturbed by any new evidence if it ever emerges. Why does farm life
matter but a chemical exposure does not? One would be hard pressed not to
believe that Rich will defend anything coming from the pharmaceutical
industry.



and: There is no reason to believe that EITHER the Amish OR the
Homefirst kids have fewer cases of autism. And it's not so much that the
anti-vacs are "making thing up" as that they draw sensational
conclusions from thin or absent evidence.


There is nothing sensational in suggesting that a particular chemical or
drug may be contributing to a particular condition.

There is nothing sensational in suggesting that the industry producing the
chemical or using it in its products would vigorously defend the chemical.

There is nothing sensational about a government exposing millions of
people to a potentially harmful substance.

Have a nice day.

mike wrote:
Thank you again for your straight answers.
You validated my point well beyond expectations.

Rich wrote:
"mike" wrote in message
...

Last December Orac posted his opinion
(http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/1...sebut-not.html)
regarding Dan Olmsted's articles about autism and Amish (and other
unvaccinated groups). I would summarize his (and I think his fans')
attitude towards Olmsted's report on Amish:

1. Olmsted's data about Amish is unreliable but we are not interested in
having it checked. (He indeed did not express any interest.)


Again, your absurd logic is applied. It is your fundamental assumption that
a failure to express interest implies a lack of interest.

Of course, I know. That was my impression, however, and I wanted to verify
it. I could not hope Orac will answer my questions, so I asked you folks.
And I needed an incentive for you to answer. And what is a better
incentive than a little provocation?

So here is the response I got:

if I were on the grant committee, I would oppose the study.

Could not be clearer.

Oh, wait, did I pull it out of context? There was an argument, let's quote
this hate-ridden drivel, it is worth it.

While collecting hard data is not impossible,
such a study would be extremely difficult. It's unlikely that Amish
autistics have ever actually been diagnosed, so the only way to accurately
count Amish autistics would be through a screening process of ALL Amish
children. This would require the cooperation of the Amish schools, parents,
and political leaders. Since the diagnoses, having been made, would not in
any way benefit the children or their families, schools, parents, and
leaders might all be expected to resist, and rightly so. Considering that
there is NO evidence at all that the incidence of autism is ACTUALLY lower
in the Amish community, undertaking such a study is probably not worth the
cost and turmoil, so if I were on the grant committee, I would oppose the
study.

Screening ALL children? Really? How about checking regular
and special ed classes at randomly chosen 5% of their schools? If no
autistics are found this would mean something, wouldn't it?

And screening is not an evaluation by a child study team. Send a school
psychologist to a school cafeteria during lunch break, let her observe the
children and talk to them, by the end of the break she will have a pretty
good idea if anybody should be evaluated for autism (not in the entire
school but in a class or two). With most non-disabled kids, 30 seconds is
more than enough.

Not that much cost and turmoil really, right?

To see why it is hate-ridden, one can substitute Jews for Amish and see
what it looks like. How about casually saying this:
"It's unlikely that Jewish autistics have ever actually been diagnosed."
without providing a scintilla of evidence? None at all! That would be
anti-semitism. (Are you an anti-semite, Rich? I would not be surprized.)

To put it more succinctly, it's no more akin to anti-semitism for Rich
to suggest that an Amish lifestyle makes diagnosis of autism unlikely
than for someone to suggest that an Amish lifestyle makes autism
unlikely.

Your comment "Are you an anti-semite, Rich? I would not be surprized",
apart from showing an ignorance of spelling, demonstrates a nastiness
that surprises me. Unless, of course, you can cite a single thing Rich
has posted that would suggest he was anti-semitic. Of course you can't,
particularly since he is vocal in condemning Jan Drew's anti-semitism.

Welcome to Jan's world, Mike. You've just forfeited all respect anyone
might have for anything you might say. You've demonstrated that you
care nothing for the truth of what you're saying, as long as it
supports your point.

I'd still be interested to know why you brought up this repellent and
illogical analogy when you've never once directly chided Jan Drew for
her gross anti-semitism and other bigotries.


And why doesn't Orac himself make this argument? Probably not because
he is unaware of it. And not because of political correctness, he has no
qualms about ****ing off people. But this is too much of crap for him.

This is a real gem:
Considering that there is NO evidence at all that the incidence of autism is ACTUALLY lower
in the Amish community, undertaking such a study is probably not worth the
cost and turmoil, so if I were on the grant committee, I would oppose the
study.

There is no evidence, so we will not allow collecting evidence.
This will guarantee that there will never be any evidence. How convenient!


2. If there is any difference it may be explained by genetics alone but
we are not interested in having anyone look into Amish genetics. (Again,
he did not say anything to the contrary.)


And again, your logic is flawed. He did not say genetics "alone" and he
did not express any objection into research into Amish genetics.

He said: "the Amish are a genetically inbred group, and, given that autism
has a strong genetic component, that inbreeding ALONE could explain any
difference, again if there even is a difference". (capitals mine)




3. The difference if any can be explained by Amish outdoor lifestyle.
But I cannot be bothered with presenting any evidence that such
possibility exists - that is, that autism rates are lower in rural
areas. I will not even check if the rates in rural areas are indeed
lower.


Bull****. What he said was that if environmental factors contribute to
the development of autism, the rates in the Amish may be different
because their environments are different from the public at large.



This is the quote:
"the Amish live a simple life on farms out in the countryside. Perhaps the
difference could be explained by different environmental exposures from
that lifestyle".

He did not say their environment is different from the public at large.
It isn't. Plenty of other people "live a simple life on farms out in the
countryside". To credibly suggest it might matter one should have at least
some evidence that the farm people have lower rate of autism.

So this is the approach of autism holocaust deniers as so eloquently
presented by Rich:

- Since there is no scientific evidence about autism prevalence among
Amish population there is no need to collect such evidence. This gives us
a free license to scream that there is no evidence forever.
- We will declare that "most Amish autistics are not diagnosed" but will
not be bothered with evidence. We are not in the evidence business, we are
in the business of demanding evidence.
- Since there will be no evidence there will be no reason to search for
reasons. In the meantime we may freely speculate about seemingly lower
rates and make pronouncements like "their lifestyle may matter", "they may
begenetically different from the rest of humanity in regards to autism"
but again we will not be bothered with supplying evidence. Nobody will
be able to challenge us anyway.

snip

4. Lack of exposure to antibiotics is one of the factors distinguishing
the environment of Amish and Chicago Homefirst patients from others.
(Another such factor is lack of vaccinations; there may be more.) Do you
think it might be relevant?
(a) Prove it is a distinguishing factor
(b) There are no environmental factors in autism, it is impossible
(c) It might be possible
(d) It is theoretically possible but there is nothing special about
antibiotics, there are scores of other factors.
(e) Don't know, not ready to answer
(f) All the negative side effects from antibiotics are already known.
The possibility of them contributing to autism is the same as with
thimerosal: zero. What's wrong with you anti-vac liars, you are making
things up all the time.
(g) Other


(f)

This knee-jerk reaction is instructive. Not (d) (there is nothing special
about antibiotics) but (f) - that is, there is something special. All the
negative side effects are already known - that is, we will not be
disturbed by any new evidence if it ever emerges. Why does farm life
matter but a chemical exposure does not? One would be hard pressed not to
believe that Rich will defend anything coming from the pharmaceutical
industry.



and: There is no reason to believe that EITHER the Amish OR the
Homefirst kids have fewer cases of autism. And it's not so much that the
anti-vacs are "making thing up" as that they draw sensational
conclusions from thin or absent evidence.


There is nothing sensational in suggesting that a particular chemical or
drug may be contributing to a particular condition.

There is nothing sensational in suggesting that the industry producing the
chemical or using it in its products would vigorously defend the chemical.

There is nothing sensational about a government exposing millions of
people to a potentially harmful substance.

Have a nice day.

mike wrote:
Thank you again for your straight answers.
You validated my point well beyond expectations.

Rich wrote:

"mike" wrote in message
...


Last December Orac posted his opinion
(http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/1...sebut-not.html)
regarding Dan Olmsted's articles about autism and Amish (and other
unvaccinated groups). I would summarize his (and I think his fans')
attitude towards Olmsted's report on Amish:

1. Olmsted's data about Amish is unreliable but we are not interested in
having it checked. (He indeed did not express any interest.)


Again, your absurd logic is applied. It is your fundamental assumption that
a failure to express interest implies a lack of interest.

Of course, I know. That was my impression, however, and I wanted to verify
it. I could not hope Orac will answer my questions, so I asked you folks.
And I needed an incentive for you to answer. And what is a better
incentive than a little provocation?

So here is the response I got:

From whom?

if I were on the grant committee, I would oppose the study.


Could not be clearer.

Oh, wait, did I pull it out of context? There was an argument, let's quote
this hate-ridden drivel, it is worth it.

While collecting hard data is not impossible,
such a study would be extremely difficult. It's unlikely that Amish
autistics have ever actually been diagnosed, so the only way to accurately
count Amish autistics would be through a screening process of ALL Amish
children. This would require the cooperation of the Amish schools, parents,
and political leaders. Since the diagnoses, having been made, would not in
any way benefit the children or their families, schools, parents, and
leaders might all be expected to resist, and rightly so. Considering that
there is NO evidence at all that the incidence of autism is ACTUALLY lower
in the Amish community, undertaking such a study is probably not worth the
cost and turmoil, so if I were on the grant committee, I would oppose the
study.

Screening ALL children? Really? How about checking regular
and special ed classes at randomly chosen 5% of their schools? If no
autistics are found this would mean something, wouldn't it?

No, it would not mean anything. As I pointed out to you, Amish schools
are NOT the same as the rest of the USA. For example, they are exempted
from the compulsory education laws of the states. Their approach to
special education is different, and identifies only the most severe
cases. Even at that, those cases are rarely referred out of their school
systems for special education intervention.

What you incorrectly propose is to create a datapool which is NOT
comparable to the rest of the country. For the purpose of accuracy, it
is a waste of time and money. Orac was correct in what he said.

And screening is not an evaluation by a child study team. Send a school
psychologist to a school cafeteria during lunch break, let her observe the
children and talk to them, by the end of the break she will have a pretty
good idea if anybody should be evaluated for autism (not in the entire
school but in a class or two). With most non-disabled kids, 30 seconds is
more than enough.

You utter lack of knowledge of the Autism Spectrum is utterly astounding.

Not that much cost and turmoil really, right?

Wrong. Very wrong. Amish are insular people who do not like or want
outside interventions.

To see why it is hate-ridden, one can substitute Jews for Amish and see
what it looks like. How about casually saying this:
"It's unlikely that Jewish autistics have ever actually been diagnosed."
without providing a scintilla of evidence? None at all! That would be
anti-semitism. (Are you an anti-semite, Rich? I would not be surprized.)

Your "analogy" is utterly specious and demonstrative of your lack of
knowledge of Amish and Jews.

And why doesn't Orac himself make this argument? Probably not because
he is unaware of it. And not because of political correctness, he has no
qualms about ****ing off people. But this is too much of crap for him.

Because he does not want to?

This is a real gem:

Considering that there is NO evidence at all that the incidence of autism is ACTUALLY lower
in the Amish community, undertaking such a study is probably not worth the
cost and turmoil, so if I were on the grant committee, I would oppose the
study.

There is no evidence, so we will not allow collecting evidence.
This will guarantee that there will never be any evidence. How convenient!

Provide some valid evidence that there is a reason to spend money.
Olmsted's crap is NOT some valid evidence. Note how he is backpedalling
on his gold salts crap.

2. If there is any difference it may be explained by genetics alone but
we are not interested in having anyone look into Amish genetics. (Again,
he did not say anything to the contrary.)

And again, your logic is flawed. He did not say genetics "alone" and he
did not express any objection into research into Amish genetics.

He said: "the Amish are a genetically inbred group, and, given that autism
has a strong genetic component, that inbreeding ALONE could explain any
difference, again if there even is a difference". (capitals mine)

COULD not IS

3. The difference if any can be explained by Amish outdoor lifestyle.
But I cannot be bothered with presenting any evidence that such
possibility exists - that is, that autism rates are lower in rural
areas. I will not even check if the rates in rural areas are indeed
lower.


Bull****. What he said was that if environmental factors contribute to
the development of autism, the rates in the Amish may be different
because their environments are different from the public at large.

This is the quote:
"the Amish live a simple life on farms out in the countryside. Perhaps the
difference could be explained by different environmental exposures from
that lifestyle".

Environment means more than the physical environment. There is a
significant social aspect to identification of milder autistics.

He did not say their environment is different from the public at large.
It isn't. Plenty of other people "live a simple life on farms out in the
countryside".

Plenty? Please do show that there are PLENTY who live as the Amish.

To credibly suggest it might matter one should have at least
some evidence that the farm people have lower rate of autism.

So this is the approach of autism holocaust deniers as so eloquently
presented by Rich:

- Since there is no scientific evidence about autism prevalence among
Amish population there is no need to collect such evidence. This gives us
a free license to scream that there is no evidence forever.
- We will declare that "most Amish autistics are not diagnosed" but will
not be bothered with evidence. We are not in the evidence business, we are
in the business of demanding evidence.
- Since there will be no evidence there will be no reason to search for
reasons. In the meantime we may freely speculate about seemingly lower
rates and make pronouncements like "their lifestyle may matter", "they may
begenetically different from the rest of humanity in regards to autism"
but again we will not be bothered with supplying evidence. Nobody will
be able to challenge us anyway.

snip

4. Lack of exposure to antibiotics is one of the factors distinguishing
the environment of Amish and Chicago Homefirst patients from others.
(Another such factor is lack of vaccinations; there may be more.) Do you
think it might be relevant?
(a) Prove it is a distinguishing factor
(b) There are no environmental factors in autism, it is impossible
(c) It might be possible
(d) It is theoretically possible but there is nothing special about
antibiotics, there are scores of other factors.
(e) Don't know, not ready to answer
(f) All the negative side effects from antibiotics are already known.
The possibility of them contributing to autism is the same as with
thimerosal: zero. What's wrong with you anti-vac liars, you are making
things up all the time.

(g) Other


(f)


This knee-jerk reaction is instructive. Not (d) (there is nothing special
about antibiotics) but (f) - that is, there is something special. All the
negative side effects are already known - that is, we will not be
disturbed by any new evidence if it ever emerges. Why does farm life
matter but a chemical exposure does not? One would be hard pressed not to
believe that Rich will defend anything coming from the pharmaceutical
industry.




and: There is no reason to believe that EITHER the Amish OR the
Homefirst kids have fewer cases of autism. And it's not so much that the
anti-vacs are "making thing up" as that they draw sensational
conclusions from thin or absent evidence.



There is nothing sensational in suggesting that a particular chemical or
drug may be contributing to a particular condition.

There is nothing sensational in suggesting that the industry producing the
chemical or using it in its products would vigorously defend the chemical.

There is nothing sensational about a government exposing millions of
people to a potentially harmful substance.

Have a nice day.