Two Workers part chopped forests and the third finished a chop that was put into a Barracks per your instructions. I took a few screenshots of your surroundings also.
Interesting discussion on autism. I think its worth adding that 'autism' is just a name for a combination of symptoms, by definition restricted to early on-set. These same symptoms arising later in life are not classed as autism. Everything in the field of knowledge around autism is unstable, aside from the core of socialization problems and restrictive, repetitive behaviours. Even WHEN these symptoms have to arise to be considered autism has been changing, the later diagnostic standards have been relaxing the bound into later life.
We also have nothing near certainty that there's a single underlying condition to these patterns of behaviour. Indeed, until recently there were four conditions where there is now one (ASD), but no-one will bet any amount of money that this won't change again in the future.
In any case, I wanted to address post-natal risk factors for autism — these have been found aplenty, and I'm not sure how you could say otherwise. The vast majority of environmental risk factor reviews focus on pregnancy and first year of life and later years are mostly excluded on procedural grounds, not for the lack of substance. I will give just one link, but many more are searcheable: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4855851/.
My own contribution is from Russia, where my PhD-endowed mother works as a child development specialist at a research hospital — and we have discussed postnatal risk factors of autism with her on multiple occasions, and they come out clearly in her work. And thats even though autism is diagnosed MUCH less liberally in Russia, as doctors arent as reticent to diagnose 'developmental delay' (formerly known as retardation). In US, postnatal factors would be associated with an autism diagnosis even more strongly.
Thanks for the corrections and further information, Bacchus!
(March 24th, 2018, 08:21)Bacchus Wrote: In any case, I wanted to address post-natal risk factors for autism — these have been found aplenty, and I'm not sure how you could say otherwise.
Merely because I wasn't aware of it: Ignorance on my own part, due partly to out-of-date information and partly to too-shallow recent casual research. Thank you for pointing this out, and for the link!
I was already a bit concerned that I was making over-simplistic points, not sufficiently emphasizing the complexity and uncertainty of what autism even is and who "has it" ("everyone is on the spectrum") in the first place, but now I'm embarassed for relying on out-of-date and incomplete information; thanks for bringing me a little more up to speed!
(March 24th, 2018, 08:21)Bacchus Wrote: In any case, I wanted to address post-natal risk factors for autism — these have been found aplenty, and I'm not sure how you could say otherwise. The vast majority of environmental risk factor reviews focus on pregnancy and first year of life and later years are mostly excluded on procedural grounds, not for the lack of substance. I will give just one link, but many more are searcheable: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4855851/.
My own contribution is from Russia, where my PhD-endowed mother works as a child development specialist at a research hospital — and we have discussed postnatal risk factors of autism with her on multiple occasions, and they come out clearly in her work. And thats even though autism is diagnosed MUCH less liberally in Russia, as doctors arent as reticent to diagnose 'developmental delay' (formerly known as retardation). In US, postnatal factors would be associated with an autism diagnosis even more strongly.
Thanks Bacchus, I sensed something was amiss but hadn't had time to properly root through the literature.
RefSteel: 'no environmental causes are involved' just reeks of science journalists and others overhyping 'all the environmental variables tested aren't significantly correlated'.
The paper Bacchus linked commented that "Of note, these studies have not examined the potential influence of vaccine co-factors. Vaccines contain carriers and adjuvants (e.g., aluminum), each of which could possibly cause toxicity, and the active ingredient is an immune trigger that, itself, may be deleterious for the developing nervous system."
That's nice to see because I have suspected that, and consequently haven't been wedded to the thiomersal/mercury hypothesis at all.
And I don't mind the off-topic discussion continuing ... I could use the distraction. I'm still sleepy after having worked until 1 AM (!) last night, so I won't contribute for now.
I played turn 42; Donovan Zoi has a second holkan incoming. He didn't try to attack my warrior outside Tiamat, which I fortified. It'll have reasonable odds against one of the holkans, at least.
Archery is due in 2. I should be able to whip the barracks next turn and overflow into an archer the turn Archery comes in.
Spoiling the off-topic stuff in the hope that the game will become fun enough again that you'll appreciate ease of scrolling past things that have nothing to do with the game.
Ipecac, "no [post-natal] environmental causes are [known risk factors]" was my apparently-mistaken understanding of the situation. Saying that it "reeks of ... overhyping" doesn't really help anything. Pointing out that it's mistaken is helpful though, which is what Bacchus did!
The quote you included from the article is taken out of context, and consequently may convey a mistaken impression. From earlier in the same section, for instance: "Of note, additional community and research attention regarding vaccines and autism has focused on measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, which never contained thimerosal and so is outside the scope of this review." The specific cases referred to by "these studies" are those specifically testing thimerosal only; all the other studies of which I'm aware (i.e. the ones "beyond the scope of this reveiw") have supported the hypothesis that non-thimerosal vaccines also are not associated with ASD.
That said: I'm glad you haven't been wedded to the thiomesrsal/mercury hypothesis. I still don't see you advancing an alternate hypothesis - but it may be that we're still just miscommunicating a lot. (Though I'm kind of glad we've gotten to have the conversation because I learned some new things as a result!) So let's put it this way:
1) As far as I can tell, there is no evidence of any vaccine being a risk factor for ASD, in spite of numerous attempts to find a link.
2) Those attempts have not covered every possible subgroup of vaccines and vaccine co-agents, and therefore have not completely ruled out every possible case for every subgroup of the population; doing that would presumably be difficult if not impossible. (This may have been your original point?)
3) Just to be sure I don't misunderstand: Do you think that any actual parent should ever consider not having a child vaccinated on the basis of the idea, "What if there is a risk of the child getting autism?"
If your answer to 3 is "No, there's no evidence at all that there is any such risk," I think we basically agree. If your answer to 3 is "Yes," then under what circumstances do you think it would be worth considering that course on that basis?
(March 24th, 2018, 22:11)RefSteel Wrote: Spoiling the off-topic stuff in the hope that the game will become fun enough again that you'll appreciate ease of scrolling past things that have nothing to do with the game.
Nah, it's a welcome distraction. OSG-32A also is one of those, incidentally.
Donovan Zoi promoted his 5-XP holkan to Woodsman II, so it can attack one turn sooner than I was planning on, but it'll suck at attacking cities. He can attack my capital one turn before I can get an archer in there; I won't have Archery until next turn and I don't think it's worthwhile whipping a warrior at the empty box penalty.
So I whipped the barracks instead (which had enough hammers to complete naturally if I wanted it to), which will finish next turn and overflow into an archer next turn, and then I should have the archer the turn after that.
My warrior should have odds on the holkan -- just barely (40% culture + 15% fortify + 25% warrior city defense bonus + 25% hill), which is ~64% odds of winning on defense once he is place to attack on the turn after this one. He might try to capture one of my workers instead, though -- I should have considered that more, oh well.
His other holkan and my other warrior are in a staring contest at Tiamat right now -- he won't attack me or leave the city, and I'm not leaving the jungle hill.
Coming from not being in academia past what was needed to get through college, is it usually appropriate to just go to the conclusion of those big articles like the one Bacchus listed? If so, I find the one for this article to be helpful and not susceptible to cherry picking favored lines from the meat of the paper.
Quote:The environment is not one entity, and the question about whether environmental exposures/compounds, as a whole, cause autism, is not sufficient to guide the primary prevention of autism. Instead, important questions address individual environmental chemicals, during discrete critical periods of development for the fetus or infant, in relation to specific phenotypic domains of autism symptoms. Definitive causal conclusions cannot yet be drawn from this emerging body of literature. So far, evidence suggests that some criteria air pollutants, some metals, and several pesticides, with suggestions that some volatile organic compounds (e.g., methylene chloride, trichloroethylene, and styrene) and phthalates, may be linked to autism. These associations have emerged despite difficulties of study in this area, most notably the error in accurately measuring exposure concentrations and obtaining sufficient sample sizes.
Increasingly, studies that examine exposures by developmental time period suggest that all windows are not equal. Although evidence for a discrete developmental window of susceptibility for autism is in its early stages, results shown here suggest that early pregnancy may be a period of susceptibility to pesticides, whereas later pregnancy may be a period of susceptibility to criteria air pollutants. Different critical windows for different exposures is not unexpected given the various biological activities of environmental chemicals and the many, interwoven events of neurodevelopment, taking place during pregnancy and postnatal life, which, if disrupted, could manifest in autism symptoms.
The volume of questions that remain are staggering, constituting an important gap in pediatric health. The number of chemicals not yet studied is large—chemicals that are widely detectable in humans and have animal or mechanistic evidence of the endocrine, immune, epigenetic, and other pathophysiologies that may be involved in causing autism. Even more daunting is the large number of permutations of relevant research questions when it is considered that each chemical exposure is best studied in combination with many critical windows of exposure, several autism phenotypic subdomains, each child’s gender, and a myriad of genetic susceptibilities, many of which remain undiscovered. Lastly, the issue of potentiation due to chemical mixtures and autism, that is, whether the neurodevelopmental response to chemical X differs when combined with chemical Y (and Z, and so on), has only been addressed in a handful of reports.
In the meantime, clinicians have an important role to play in protecting the vulnerable brains of fetuses, infants, and children. Clinicians are on the front lines of autism diagnosis and can advocate for the equitable early diagnoses that are so important in assisting children toward appropriate therapy, diagnoses that ultimately support the validity of research studies in this area. The demonstrated racial/ethnic and social disparities in the timely receipt of an autism diagnosis remain pressing public health problems. Clinicians serve as the experts on autism symptomatology, raising observations that may provide the clues for future study, refining the understanding of autism phenotype, and participating as autism experts in epidemiological research. Clinicians advise pregnant women and parents toward avoiding harmful substances in their environment. Yet more powerful than these is the leadership role of the clinician in advocating for a healthy environment and the societal prevention activities that have the most impact. Clinicians increasingly must have a strong voice in advocating for policies that protect the public’s health, including calls for research into environmental chemicals, potentially modifiable factors that may contribute to autism or other neurodevelopmental problems in childhood.
I'm very interested in this topic, seeing as i'm in the middle of 3 generations of people with diagnosed ASD: my father, brother, and son (And with hindsight, maybe myself on the very light end of the spectrum). Through our varied first few years of upbringing, the circumstantial evidence says to me that vaccines are not a cause of autism, but could very likely increase severity in symptoms if given in the wrong window.
I'm still sleepy after having worked until 1 AM (!) last night, so I won't contribute for now.
