this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2025
98 points (98.0% liked)

United States | News & Politics

2797 readers
1047 users here now

Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.

Post anything related to the United States.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Plaidboy@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Maybe RFK really is just meaning vaccines when he says "environmental contaminant," but couldn't he mean microplastics or PFAS or PCBs or any of the other extremely common, poorly understood (in terms of health effects) actual environmental contaminants?

This article takes a very narrow view of the topic in my opinion. The point is well taken that the recent increase in reported numbers does not represent a sudden spike, but there is a serious conversation to be had about the potential link between pollution and autism. From the article:

Zoe Gross, director of advocacy at the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, said some initial studies have suggested an association between autism and environmental factors such as pollution, but she was unaware of studies "demonstrating a causal link between the two."

Demonstrating a causal link takes a lot of effort! Just because there isn't a clear causal link doesn't mean there isn't an important association. And because some pollutants (like PFAS) are so widely distributed that they are in rainwater pretty much worldwide, you can't find an "unpolluted" control group, so proving that they are causing health impacts is doubly difficult. The way RFK talks about it is dumb but the topic itself is worthy imo.

[–] ansiz@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

Given that he's already said they will find the cause by September tells you he already has labeled vaccines as the cause and is just preparing the 'evidence'. That isn't enough time to actual study a widespread factor like environmental pollution. Also far too many corporations would lobby to directly stop any research into that.