But it can’t be a genetic epidemic!, or dumbasses piling up and a Rant (lucky you!)

Certain dumbasses in the autism community like to cry that there can’t be genetic epidemics (autism is not an epidemic). They also like to pile up strawmen arguments that scientists (and individuals following the science) deny the role of environmental factors.  Above is from the NIH’s 16 page book on autism.
I find I have less tolerance for folks who distort what people say, argue made up things, and in general show themselves to be colossal asses. I’m just saying.
**I'm also going to be upfront enough to remind folks I'm going through the prep for tomorrow's colonoscopy. I still have an intact sense of humor, but I'm snarky and damned hungry. Lime green jello sucks. So, when I go out and around and see reminders (you know, in between) that there are individuals who distort and mangle, it really irks me, especially when I realize they've been doing it for years and learned not a thing over the years and they are gonna keep on keeping on, never learning, growing, or contributing anything worthwhile to the community, other than as something to ally against. Asshats. Grow up. Not yall, the dumbasses distorting and mangling. Oh, did I mention, I'm diabetic and probably have low blood sugar, so that cranks up the irritability? And Rick fed the kids yummy smelling hamburgers just a little bit ago while I drank coffee and ate crappy lime green jello? I'm just saying. I'm really glad that the procedure is scheduled first thing in the morning, and I should be eating by 10 at the latest.**

1 comment:

David said...

"No genetic epidemics" is by far the worst argument for "vaccine injury". There are MANY cases of "epidemics" of genetic defects: The royal families of Europe, the Jews, the Amish, the lions of Ngorongoro Crater. The only thing fundamentally different about an "autism epidemic" is that these other cases involve "inbreeding" in small and isolated populations, while the apparent increase in autism involves a much wider gene pool. But, the distinction is quantitative more than qualitative, and a common explanation would at least warrant discussion.