Thread by @Jmhenderson58

More to the point, what do you care if the government identifies individuals with an autism spectrum disorder who may benefit from treatments that are currently being developed?

#autismregistry #NIHRegistries
#registryforalzheimersbutnotASD

What do you care if the US Government -- whom you hold accountable for voodoo foods and dyes being in the American diet -- takes a rational step in beginning to understand the problems, including possible environmental causes, of autism?

Do you remember "right to try"?

I do.

I support the right to try. And not just the right to try Big Pharma, but those medical or other healing approaches that, to your mind, are most conducive to the restoration of your health.

But suppose that it were to be discovered that a condition such as ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder), in at least some cases, resulted from a genetically coded problem.

E.g., Favism results from the genetically coded inability of those diagnosed with the condition to digest and eliminate a protein found in the Fava bean. The protein accumulates and poisons those unable to process it. Its worst outcomes are easily avoided by omitting fava beans.

If studies researching such an issue could offer participation in trials that could resolve, or reduce, such a condition, why would your political opposition to Trump lead you to actively obstruct the search for help,
for health, or even just for hope and happiness in the fight?

You WANT an AUTISM registry to be horrid, but not because you object to the creation of such registries.

Be honest.

Did you oppose the dozens of other such registries created or maintained by the @NIH or its partners?

Rather, you want such a registry to be proof of Trump's heretofore unknown interest in eugenics (you know, the "scientific improvement of the human species by the elimination of inferior genetic contributions to the human gene pool).

But, there are problems with such histrionics.

For me, at least two come to mind.

First, eugenics is a practice and policy of progressives and Democrats, not Republicans. This truth is ensconced in your party’s history, but even when you deny it, the records are verifiable.

Even when many Republicans recoiled at the integration of the formerly enslaved into their communities (Lincoln infamously supported the Freedmen's Bureau and its creation of Liberia as a home to which the formerly enslaved might "return"),

They did NOT do as Democrats always do: evaluate the essential humanity of others through any lens but objective science.

Thus, even Thomas Jefferson, when he infamously surmised in his “Notes on Virginia” that the African was a lower order creation than the Caucasian, he did not merely invoke observable, inheritable differences;

He also invoked that apparent (to him, not me) disregard for responsibility for the future, describing them as naturally inclined to drink late into the night, knowing that they would be compelled to rise early and work nonetheless.

That right there?

That is not science; it’s sociology and psychology.

Why isn't an Alzheimer's Registry horrible?

A Tay Sachs Registry?

A brittle bone disease registry?

Second, there is a problem with your motivations for objecting here and objecting now.

I think I know why you suddenly care.

You suddenly care because you are looking for any damn rock to throw at the person that overturned the most excessively and grotesquely unconstitutional decision in Supreme Court history: Roe v. Wade.

That's right.

It's not that you believe that Trump or RFK are targeting folks on the spectrum for isolation and elimination.

You have them confused with the murderers at your local abortion store, and with the nuthatch medical quacks that pretend that killing children is healthcare.

Trump whacked the double FF out of Roe.

You can't get past that.

And so, even though there are dozens of health condition registries maintained by the National Institutes of Health, now you get feisty?

I don't think so.

You don't get to pretend that a person diagnosed with autism needs and deserves the assistance of the society around them, and then demand that, unlike other diseases and disorders, the US government may not begin and maintain a surveillance of the condition.

“Needs and deserves the assistance of the society around them”????????

How dare I?

I DON’T DARE.

The DSM-V© includes a description of three levels of expression of Autism Spectrum Disorder:

Level 3 "Requiring very substantial support”

Level 2 "Requiring substantial support”

Level 1 "Requiring support”

Notice that a diagnostic differentiation in severity of ASD reflects differences in the support and assistance a person diagnosed with ASD requires.

No question presents in the DSM whether ASD-affected individuals NEED such support. It is a diagnostic feature and assumption.

No level of diagnosed ASD exists for which the DSM does not indicate that support and assistance are needed for the individual.

Our government seems to agree, given that, e.g., for FY 2024, the fedgov spent $330+ million on autism and research for causes/cures/treatment.

I'm okay with ending that funding if that's what you want.

But not for your reasons.

W/out a registry, there is no recorded evidence of a problem, its sources, and its spread. Whatever that ASD might be, it should not be a hole into which money is mindlessly poured.

I can't think of a better reason to end a program than that it has been set up without a means of measuring its value and success.

No autism registry?

Everything becomes hyperbole and conflicting claims.

There isn't a reason to support a federal government approach to disease research w/out such registries, and, yes, you do, as you’ve never expressed a view here that we should eliminate the CDC, the FDA, the NIH, or related agencies.

Fanning the flames of fear and irrational and antiscientific behavior puts you dangerously close to falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater.

@threadreaderapp, please roll up.