A better classification of autism leads to an increase in the number of diagnosed cases because it allows for more accurate identification of individuals across the spectrum, including those with milder symptoms who may have previously gone undiagnosed, resulting in a higher reported prevalence of autism due to improved diagnostic practices and awareness. Key points about this phenomenon: Broader diagnostic criteria: When the criteria for diagnosing autism are expanded to encompass a wider range of symptoms and presentations, more people are likely to be identified as autistic. Increased awareness: Greater public understanding of autism leads to earlier identification and more individuals seeking diagnosis. Improved diagnostic tools: Advancements in assessment methods and better trained professionals can lead to more accurate diagnoses. Important distinction: While the number of diagnosed cases might increase due to better classification, it does not necessarily mean that the actual prevalence of autism is rising, but rather that more cases are being recognized.
That idea has already been evaluated. The rates are still skyrocketing even when you only look at severely disabled.
In the United States, the average age of first-time mothers has been steadily increasing over the last few decades: 2021: The average age of first-time mothers was 27.3 years old, a record high 2011: The average age of first-time mothers was 25.6 years old 2000: The average age of first-time mothers was almost 25 years old 1970: The average age of first-time mothers was 21.4 years old The increase in the average age of first-time mothers is due to a number of factors, including: A decline in the teen birth rate A rise in birth rates for women in their thirties and forties A shift in the age at which women first become mothers ................................................................................................ Older mothers are more likely to have children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD): Risk increases with age The risk of ASD increases with maternal age after 30. For example, one study found that the risk of ASD was 15% higher for children born to mothers in their 40s compared to those born to mothers in their 20s. Risk increases with age gap The risk of ASD increases with the age gap between parents. For example, one study found that the risk was highest when fathers were between 35 and 44 and their partners were 10 or more years younger. Risk increases for both parents The risk of ASD increases when both parents are older. For example, one study found that the prevalence of autism was 56 per 10,000 for children born to parents over 40 years of age, compared to 34 per 10,000 for all children born between 1992 and 2000. Risk increases for intellectual disability The risk of having a child with both ASD and intellectual disability is larger for older parents. For example, one study found that women between the ages of 40 to 45 had twice the odds of having a child with both autism and intellectual disability compared to 29-year-old parents. Some possible reasons for the increased risk include: Sperm from older men may have accumulated more spontaneous mutations Changes in chemical tags on sperm DNA as men age Elevated odds of autoimmune conditions in older parents
Well that's a good start! Many people are surprised, or in disbelief when they encounter this data, because it's not the picture painted by the media or medical establishment. You'd expect to see high rates of these diseases then a steep decline after the vaccine rolled out. It so happens, that data is accurate. We've been keeping records of causes of death for quite awhile. Cross reference the dates give for the vaccine rollouts if you don't believe it. It's actually well established that the massive decline in mortality is almost entirely due to improved sanitation and nutrition. When people make these gradiose statements about how vaccines did this, it's propaganda. They have perhaps been effective at reducing case counts, but at what cost? You can pump an unlimited amount of immunte aggrevating substances and toxic adjuvants into children, no matter how young, and there is NO potential for harm? You gotta be fucking crazy to believe that, but that is exactly what vaccine advocates like Peter Hotez have claimed.
People repeat this as though no one has ever thought of it before. The argument doesn't rest on that alone, it's the Bradford Hill criteria. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford_Hill_criteria
