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.
Comment on Who the fuck needs an x axis anyway
princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 hours agoI mean, it says the source right there, it’s the CDC…
Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
Madison420@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
In this case no. It’s the fact that we’re better at diagnosing things, any disease that doesn’t have active treatments is going to be similar.
You could do reports of ED over time and that graph is going to skyrocket not because it’s more or less common but rather more people are willing to get diagnosed to seek remediation. Right around the discovery of Viagra and it’s ilk you’d see skyrocketing ED diagnoses and it’s not like dicks just suddenly stopped working.
piranhaconda@mander.xyz 40 minutes ago
Thought you meant Eating Disorders til the Viagra comment. Had to reread the whole thing
Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world 58 minutes ago
I just mean listing the source as “the CDC” currently isn’t disproving that it’s made up anymore.
It may be accurate, but not because it is from the CDC anymore.
themeatbridge@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
The organization run by a brain worm driving a human suit?
princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 hours 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 4 hours 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.
amotio@lemmy.world 4 hours 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@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 hours ago
I’m aware of that. I guess my point was that the data isn’t inaccurate, but I supposed labelling it as “prevalence” is the point of contention.