PETA utterly distorted the science. They link to studies that reduce or eliminate not only milk products (casein) from diets but also gluten and then pretend that milk (casein) is the only thing there. Even then, those few studies don’t claim that milk (casein) causes autism. They simply say that in some instances, diets which reduce/eliminate casein AND gluten (which is more likely down to FODMAPs than gluten) may reduce some behavioral problems in those already afflicted. If you don’t see the problem with these sorts of psuedoscientific distortions, then you aren’t looking.
4 Likes
Wait, so are they basing this on the gluten-free casein-free diet?
If so, it’s not just like the anti-vax crowd, it is the anti-vax crowd.
2 Likes
To me seeing the words “studies have shown” just means “we’re leaping to the conclusion that we want because we don’t science properly”.
I know the dairy industry is hella bad for any animal involved and just step one in the “get minced up and eaten” industry but PETA aren’t doing their cause any favours by releasing batshit statements like that (even if it was 6 years ago before it was popular to be stupidly wrong about autism).
It’s not like you’d ever know from talking to a PETA activist that the organization scrapes the bottom of the intellectual barrel to find activist members.
3 Likes
You’re correct, but I still fixed it for you.
Err, thanks! In my experience however “studies have shown” is only ever used to justify pseudo science and all sorts of advertising for cosmetics and health stuff. If it is accompanied by the immediate and credible citation then it has a chance to redeem itself and be totally important and true, but to me that phrase immediately translates as “just ask this scientician, he’ll tell you…”
Oh ya, don’t put words in my mouth, it’s a kind of abuse.
Talking of spurious claims, I’ve got a buddy that works at Sky. I asked him “Why does Sky One keep saying it’s channel of the year? How did it come to this conclusion?” and he mumbles something about it really is the channel of the year and he doesn’t know. Rupert’s personal favourite channel of the year I expect.
1 Like
not having a sense of humor is a form of self-abuse. Go outside.
1 Like
Sorry dude, I was joking. I say that whenever anyone misquotes me.
5 Likes
ahh, it fell down deep into the Sarchasm. Happens. 
6 Likes
2 Likes
I’m no fan of PETA. This campaign is yet another clumsy attempt to further their agenda without producing any real evidence to support their claims. BUT I have a 9-year-old son with autism who loves milk. And one of the reasons he loves it is because he believes it intensifies his autism.
The thing is, I’m almost always quite firmly on the side of ascribing things to stupidity rather than malice, so for me, this is really saying something. For some of the things PETA have done, stupidity doesn’t actually explain things, because the actions weren’t “stupid” per se. What does explain things is that their stated goals for the organization are not their actual goals, at least with regard to certain specific actions. If we’re being charitable, their actual goals are bring attention (or notoriety) to PETA, and they simply don’t care that they’re ultimately undermining their ostensible organizational goals. Either way, for some part of PETA at least, their stated goals are not what really motivates them. Given how many charitable organizations don’t actually do the things the profess to do, I don’t think I’m being too much of a conspiracy theorist here.
2 Likes
Funny that, as I’m not a fan of cruelty to animals, either, but every time I see a PETA ad, it makes me want to protest by wearing a coat made out of the pelts of PETA board members…
Update: Seeing how every extremist, closed-minded group of anti-science bullies is using “autism” as the new leprosy – “This Scary Thing Gives Your Children Autism!” – the same heartless tactic is also being used by the anti-GMO crowd. For example: http://www.donotlink.com/jTk
1 Like
Oh, yeah I know! It’s because there’s no specific identified cause for autism that all types of horrible people can run about making overly-generalized or wholly incorrect claims. Parents, who are desperate for any assistance for their children, fall for it and try every “cure” (spending outrageously and possibly physically damaging their children in the process).
Just because their actions aren’t in line with their stated goals doesn’t mean they have ulterior motives and secret “actual” goals.
They may very well care that their actions undermine their goals - they may just be completely unable to realise that fact. They may genuinely think their actions are going to help, and then when things play out the opposite way they may simply be attributing it to the malice of others who oppose them (real or imagined).
‘I’m fighting for the environment! It can’t possibly be my methods that are hurting the cause! We’re just being undermined by anti-environment forces, and the Corporate Cult, and the fatcats in Washington! We’re trying to spread The Truth, but they keep turning people against us with their chemtrails and their mass media and their mind control vaccinations! It’s the only logical explanation!’
If it was just their completely incompetent campaigns, I’d agree with you. But their worst actions are highly successful attention-seeking behaviors, while also undermining their (stated) goals. That says to me that, at best, they’re looking to get attention (and therefore donations), and this is more important than their stated goals. (Like many charitable organizations.) In specific I’m thinking about instances like the orca lawsuit - there were a number of lawyers working on animal personhood issues, with a whole strategy and roadmap of legal waypoints that had to be reached before that sort of lawsuit had any hopes of success. PETA blundered in, was told they were going to ruin this long-term strategy and they had no hope of winning, and they went ahead with their own lawsuit anyways that failed spectacularly. They were clearly just grandstanding, not caring that they were going to lose. Added to the fact that PETA have a history of things like operating kill-shelters, their commitment to their rhetoric is questionable to begin with.
1 Like
I’ve never heard of anyone being afraid of or disgusted by autistic people, beyond parents’ fear that their child will turn out autistic. Bemused, maybe.
If it walks like a cult and quacks like a cult then it must be a you know what.
1 Like
