Lon g ago I was proven right in my "you are a kook if:" series, as to my conclusioni that you ARE a kook if you ever thought there was EVIDENCE taht vaccines csused autism.
Here is the updated conslustion for my 'you are a kook if" series: autism kooks division:
You ARE a kook if;
183. You bellieve that there is any EVIDENCE that thre is a 78% real rise in autims caused by environmental factors.
184: You believe (takng this further) that there is ANY evidence of ANY increase in autims because of environmental factors.
185. You are Sanjay Gupta, who is a kook (not aone, of course, but Dr. Gupt is much more LEFTIST than he is a medical man of science.).
Here is what I HEARD Dr. Gupta say this weekend: "There has been a 78% rise in autism in a decade. There is an argument whether this increase is due to environment or genes, but it is impossible for genes to have changed so much in a decade to increase autism 78%. Therefore, it must be environmental."
As the hadline states: Dr.Gupta, you are either incompetent or dhihonest, or both. Test for the reader : Can you spot what is wrong with what Dr Gupta said, before I tell you?
It is simply NO TTURE that the "argument" is over whether environment or genetic defects represesent the "cause" of the INCREASE in autism. That is absurd. The INCREASE is ABSURD. Neither genetics or "environment" (absent the Earth passing through something like Sir Aruhur Conan Doyle's "The Poisen Belt") can "explain" a 78% increase in autism. That is because such an increase DID NOT OCUR. Waht occurred was a 78% increase in the DIAGNOSIS of autism, helped along by a CHANGE in the very medical DEFINIION of what consitutes the condition of "autimsm". You don't have to be a medical doctor, or even "trained" in science (as I once was), to realize this MUST be true. A 78% REAL increase in autism is virtuallly IMPOSSIBLE--esepcailly without an OBVIUS "cause".
No. The "argument has NOT been over whether "genes" or "environment" "cause" autism. What Dr. Gupta has doen is DISHONEST< whether he knows it or not. . If your PREMISE is that autism has RELLY increased 78%, then you are BEGGING THE QUESTION (a classic logical fallacy). You are looking at the questin backwards, as Dr. Gupta (deliberatgtely?) did. IF autism is a GENETIC disease, then autism has a genetaic origin, PERIOD. That is the real argument: Is autimsm a genetic condition, or is it "caused"--at leaast in part--by enviropnmental factors (maybe even actiong on fetuses). The EVIDENCE is that autism is probably ENTIRELY a genetic condition. This does NOT "explain" teh 78% "increase" in autism, because that "increase" CANNOT BE EXPLAINED. It does not acutally exist. And it "proves" way TOO MUCH to suggest that it does exist. It is no more likely to propose that such a huge increase is the result pof ENVIRONMENT than it is to suggest that it resulkts from some genetic change.
"But, Skip, isn't it possible BOTH that autism is mainly genetic, but can be TRIGGERED (or even caused)) by changed environmental factors? Sure, that is POSSIBLE. It is not really that likely, but it is POSSIBLE (especially with the EXPANSION of what constitutes autism, ,since maybe we are dealing with SEVERAL conditions, rather than ONE). However, you can see where this is going. This merelyl means that there may not have been an INCREASE in autism at all. And if there ARE environmental factors, they may be factors we cannot do anything about (like background radiation). lThe ponit here is that there is ONLLY one way to actually 'prove" that LEFTIST assertions that environmental "contamination" (not adopting leftists policies of pretty much making us all Amish) have CAUSED an "increase" in autism. More correctly, peple like Dr. Gupta have to "prove' that a SPECIFIC environmental contaminat, or facttor, CAUSES cases of autism. NO such EVIDENCE exists. This is where Dr. Gupta is either incompetent or dishonest. You CAN'T 'prove' that autism is"caused" by "encironment" (translation: MAN'S effect on the environment) by using UNCONTROLLED statistics. We cannot KNOW how much of the "increase" in autism has been "caused" by merely the INCREASE iIN DIAGNOISIS (not just the change in definitioin, but the ATTENTION given to diagnosing the condition).
Nope. Dr. Gupta is a kook. Note, as I always say in my "your are a kook if:" series, I have called mYSELF a "kook" (for my position that women should never have been given the vote), as well as my mother and my daughters. So Dr.. Gupta is in good company. However, in this case, he sis also incompetent or disohonest. No. This is not even a matter of opinion. You simply cannot use UNCONTROLLED "statistics" to standin for real scientific PROOF of the SPECIFIC causes of autism.
Have I just lost 10%, or more, of my "audience"? Am I trying to sabotage myself, so that I don't waste my time on these blog entries anymore? What am I talking aobut? Well, one of my small number of '"followers" (who knows whether they really read the articles, or try to read them by working through the typos?) is named "Gupta" (at least from the info that Googe provides). Is that person realated to Dr. Gupta? I hpe not. Or, if he is, I hope he does not get along with this relative. Now this does seem unlikely, unless lyou are talking about a bvvery distant "relationship". Why? Well, my older daughter works for a Nasdaq listed companty called "Virtusa". That company has extensive operations in INDIA, and my daughter deals with peole in India all of the time. In fact, I suggested to my daughter that "MY" Gupta might be someone connected with HER. My daughter laughed. She says that HALF of the hundreds of millions of people in India are named "Gupta". I am sure she is exaggerating. Further, I can't trust my daughter (who would not want me tryong to, for example, contact someone connected with her at work. Both of my daughters prefer it not to be spread around that their father writes this blog.)In all events, I hope that "my" Gupta either does not really read this blog's articles, or even pay attentino to the headlines, or else is not offended by this "attack" on a namesake of his. I assure him that I have nothing against the "Guptas) of the world. It is certainly not as suspicious a name as "Kennedy". I jsut have a problem with Dr. Sanjay Gupta. And no, I am NOT saying that "my" Gupta is directly connected with INDIA. It had just previously occurred to me that he might be, because my daughter has this "connection" with India. But my aughter pretty much exploded the idea that there is any necessary connectin. I don't even know that "Gupta" is only an Indian name. In a way, of course, I know that it isn't. Obviusly, people named "Gupta" live all over the world, including in the United States. But my daughter did confirm that "Gupta" is a COMMON name in India, which I had thoiught. Anyway, I am not trying to make funof Mr. Gupta's name. I can't afford to offend ANY of my few regualr readers (:if they really are). In fact, even if the people who are wiling to "risk" being known as a "follower" of this blog do NOTHING but make sure and DELETE themselves, my APPARENT 'readershp" immediately falls by an enormous PERCENTAGE. This could easily cause me to become suicidal. Seriously, I do appreciate Mr. Gupta's loyalty to this blog--whatever that means in terms of him actually trying to read it--and hoep it continues. Mr. Gupta, I hope you forgive me for having a little fun with your name., which is hardly as unusual (even in the U.S.A.) as the FIRST names I stuck my daughters with (Kyla and Kenda). That is antoher thing my daughters have not forgiven me for.
I invite anyone, of ocurse, who wants to stand up for Dr. Sanjay Gupta to comment (the standard DODGE of the mainstream media, which I like to throow in from time to time--even though no one has been stupid enough to take the bait yet).
P.S No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).