Amish getting fined?

[JohnH]

- The Amish have autism a much lower rate. (This is also studied by researchers who want to identify potential causes of autism.)

Of course, the two could be unrelated.

Evidence for the second is thin at best, and possibly absent, the methodology simply is so poor, it proves exactly nothing.

So you're saying that the vast consensus on autism rates actually is not the case bceause "Evidence for the second is thin at best?"

Some things like non-verbal autism are pretty easy to observe. The Amish rate of this is significantly lower. It's the kind of thing that everyone notices when it happens. Likewise, I don't think overcounting is going on with non-verbal autism.

What I find interesting is the steadfast insistant/denial that vaccination could have anything to do with it. (I don't take a position that it does; I just don't also take a position that it doesn't.)

[Judas Maccabeus]

- The Amish have autism a much lower rate. (This is also studied by researchers who want to identify potential causes of autism.)

Of course, the two could be unrelated.

Evidence for the second is thin at best, and possibly absent, the methodology simply is so poor, it proves exactly nothing.

So you're saying that the vast consensus on autism rates actually is not the case bceause "Evidence for the second is thin at best?"

Some things like non-verbal autism are pretty easy to observe. The Amish rate of this is significantly lower. It's the kind of thing that everyone notices when it happens. Likewise, I don't think overcounting is going on with non-verbal autism.

What I find interesting is the steadfast insistant/denial that vaccination could have anything to do with it. (I don't take a position that it does; I just don't also take a position that it doesn't.)

Here is why:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1124634/

https://en.ssi.dk/news/news/2025/large- ... conditions

Total cohort size 1.6 million between them, methodology unimpeachable. You got better?

[JohnH]

Evidence for the second is thin at best, and possibly absent, the methodology simply is so poor, it proves exactly nothing.

So you're saying that the vast consensus on autism rates actually is not the case bceause "Evidence for the second is thin at best?"

Some things like non-verbal autism are pretty easy to observe. The Amish rate of this is significantly lower. It's the kind of thing that everyone notices when it happens. Likewise, I don't think overcounting is going on with non-verbal autism.

What I find interesting is the steadfast insistant/denial that vaccination could have anything to do with it. (I don't take a position that it does; I just don't also take a position that it doesn't.)

Here is why:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1124634/

https://en.ssi.dk/news/news/2025/large- ... conditions

Total cohort size 1.6 million between them, methodology unimpeachable. You got better?

Yet you don't believe the widely-accepted statistics on the rate of autism in the country.

How do you pick and choose?

[Judas Maccabeus]

So you're saying that the vast consensus on autism rates actually is not the case bceause "Evidence for the second is thin at best?"

Some things like non-verbal autism are pretty easy to observe. The Amish rate of this is significantly lower. It's the kind of thing that everyone notices when it happens. Likewise, I don't think overcounting is going on with non-verbal autism.

What I find interesting is the steadfast insistant/denial that vaccination could have anything to do with it. (I don't take a position that it does; I just don't also take a position that it doesn't.)

Here is why:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1124634/

https://en.ssi.dk/news/news/2025/large- ... conditions

Total cohort size 1.6 million between them, methodology unimpeachable. You got better?

Yet you don't believe the widely-accepted statistics on the rate of autism in the country.

How do you pick and choose?

Simple. They are not “widely accepted.” They are well established to be a resutof shifting diagnostic criteria.

[JohnH]

Simple. They are not “widely accepted.” They are well established to be a resutof shifting diagnostic criteria.

Yes they are. Claiming autism rates are not higher now is as much of a fringe belief as is thinking vaccines cause autism.

It's a position you're welcome to have, but you can't hide under the mantle of academic consensus to hold that view.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Simple. They are not “widely accepted.” They are well established to be a resutof shifting diagnostic criteria.

Yes they are. Claiming autism rates are not higher now is as much of a fringe belief as is thinking vaccines cause autism.

It's a position you're welcome to have, but you can't hide under the mantle of academic consensus to hold that view.

Comparing numbers generated using different diagnostic criteria simply doesn’t yield valid results. My answer I that we just don’t know.

[JohnHurt]

Andrew Wakefield published a scholarly article that proved the Amish have less autism due to their opposition to vaccinations. Wakefield was blacklisted as a doctor and the article retracted, not because it wasn't true, but because there really is a connection between autism and vaccines. Big Pharma rules the USA.

I haven’t read the article, but I would ask you a few simple questions. Did he account for genetics? Did he account for under reporting? Did he use two sets of Amish, vaccinated/unvaccinated to evaluate the data? How did he gather his data?

I would like to FIND this article. Opening suspicion is that while in the general culture, a diagnosis of autism can bring all sorts of “services “ who is running around evaluating the Old Order Amish? One of my wife’s great nephews is “autistic.” My suspicion is he simply needs better parenting. They NEVER say “no”and the results are predictable.

Here is the Wakefield article summary:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanc ... 8/fulltext

Here is what the CDC now says:

The claim "vaccines do not cause autism" is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism.

Studies supporting a link have been ignored by health authorities.

HHS has launched a comprehensive assessment of the causes of autism, including investigations on plausible biologic mechanisms and potential causal links.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/about/autism.html

There was another article that showed that autism rates dropped in Scandinavia for three years because of vaccine hesitancy due to the Wakefield article.

No one wants to endure what Wakefield (or Semmelweiss) went through, having their reputations destroyed, etc. for promoting health. And no one will pay $500,000 for a double blind test - to then have their reputation destroyed. We can only look at trends, and since the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was passed in 1986, which made it impossible to sue Big Pharma for faulty vaccines, we have seen a rise in many types of degenerative diseases, but no testing of any link between these disease and the vaccines.

What is amazing is how the media lined up with Big Pharma, Big Medicine to crush Wakefield, which looks like the media and Big Pharma are all controlled by the same entity.