Because many conditions either are on a curve, or have a varying effect. Bell curves and other curves are everywhere in nature.

Let's look at something that's easier to diagnose through more objective means though. Down syndrome. Some of them are basically just a bit slow, but can reasonably function. Others have the intelligence of children, others have that of toddlers. Now it's true that the extra chromosome isn't on a spectrum, it's pretty binary*, but its effects are on a very wide curve. We know of plenty of conditions like that.

Vision, hearing, flatulence, fertility... there are conditions that damage these to varying degrees and there are low ends of the normal curve for just natural reasons. We know of plenty of metrics and skills which can be affected on a curve.

Next we have an effect where in medicine we have cutoffs for normal functioning. 2SD is usually the cutoff, bur it can be messy. If your skills are below 2 standard deviations in anything it gets classed as something. Like your IQ. If it's lower than 70, you are mentally retarded. But what if you're just a slower kid from a family that all hover around 75 anyway, do they suddenly have a condition now cause they were below their family average by a mere 6? Classification gets messy.

If you've ever worked with autistic kids and adults, you know that there is indeed a range of effects it has on them, a variety of skills are affected on a curve, and a bunch of behaviors that manifest on a curve. A lot of them have problems with sensory input, easily overstimulated or whatever. Some will shut down, or be functional enough to remove themselves from it. Others go balistic and you won't get anything out of them for a week after it. Some have a bit of trouble with metaphorical and figurative language, and have to really work and spend extra time on things like idioms as a part of their special education. Others do not get it at all. Others aren't even at the point where that's an issue, completely averbal. Some have echolalia, and maybe 10% of what they say will be repetitions of something else. Others it's all they say. I'm not talking about the tumblr selfdiagnoses. I'm talking about the people who absolutely certainly do have it, it's just moderate. But If we accept that its effects can range from extremely severe up to moderate, it therefore stands to reason that its effects can also be less severe still, up to mild and marginal.

You are right to be skeptical of everything the med establishment says and does, and with adhd and autism in particular they have become movements and trends. I agree. But throw out all your biases, look at this purely logically:

If there is 'something' affecting these kids and its effects range from very severe up to moderate, why logical reason is there as to why it couldn't also manifest with mild or marginal systems, particularly if its forming its own curve. Yes, it can be hard to tease apart from the people who are just on the extreme low end for social skills. There's 2% of the population down there just cause that's where they fell on the curve and didn't develop those skills. That's true too. But the fact it might be hard to tease apart one from the other doesn't mean that they can't both be real things. Why is it impossible that if 1) there are easy to diagnose objectively diseases but also diseases (particularly of the mind) that you have to rely on looking at its effects to diagnose and 2) if there are diseases that have wider curves in how they can affect people. Then why is it that you don't expect there to be a group that are currently difficult to diagnose but for the effects it has on you, and which can have wide ranging effects including mild and marginal, overlapping with people who are just shit at something? Of all the possible conditions affecting humanity, there's gotta be at least a couple of conditions like that.

Be careful of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Fine to start with a position of skepticism of anything they say. But not everything the establishment says is a lie. They sprinkle some truths in there, or they focus on one thing to obscure another.

Because many conditions either are on a curve, or have a varying effect. Bell curves and other curves are everywhere in nature.

Let's look at something that's easier to diagnose through more objective means though. Down syndrome. Some of them are basically just a bit slow, but can reasonably function. Others have the iq of children, others that of toddlers. Now it's true that the extra chromosome isn't on a spectrum, it's pretty binary*, but its effects are on a very wide curve. We know of plenty of conditions like that.

Vision, hearing, flatulence, fertility... there are conditions that damage these to varying degrees and there are low ends of the normal curve for just natural reasons. We know of plenty of metrics and skills which can be affected on a curve.

Next we have an effect where in medicine we have cutoffs for normal functioning. 2SD is usually the cutoff, bur it can be messy. If your skills are below 2 standard deviations in anything it gets classed as something. Like your IQ. If it's lower than 70, you are mentally retarded. But what if you're just a slower kid from a family that all hover around 75 anyway, do they suddenly have a condition now cause they were below their family average by a mere 6? Classification gets messy.

If you've ever worked with autistic kids and adults, you know that there is indeed a range of effects it has on them, a variety of skills are affected on a curve, and a bunch of behaviors that manifest on a curve. A lot of them have problems with sensory input, easily overstimulated or whatever. Some will shut down, or be functional enough to remove themselves from it. Others go balistic and you won't get anything out of them for a week after it. Some have a bit of trouble with metaphorical and figurative language, and have to really work and spend extra time on things like idioms as a part of their special education. Others do not get it at all. Others aren't even at the point where that's an issue, completely averbal. Some have echolalia, and maybe 10% of what they say will be repetitions of something else. Others it's all they say. I'm not talking about the tumblr selfdiagnoses. I'm talking about the people who absolutely certainly do have it, it's just moderate. But If we accept that its effects can range from extremely severe up to moderate, it therefore stands to reason that its effects can also be less severe still, up to mild and marginal.

You are right to be skeptical of everything the med establishment says and does, and with adhd and autism in particular they have become movements and trends. I agree. But throw out all your biases, look at this purely logically:

If there is 'something' affecting these kids and its effects range from very severe up to moderate, why logical reason is there as to why it couldn't also manifest with mild or marginal systems, particularly if its forming its own curve. Yes, it can be hard to tease apart from the people who are just on the extreme low end for social skills. There's 2% of the population down there just cause that's where they fell on the curve and didn't develop those skills. That's true too. But the fact it might be hard to tease apart one from the other doesn't mean that they can't both be real things. Why is it impossible that if 1) there are easy to diagnose objectively diseases but also diseases (particularly of the mind) that you have to rely on looking at its effects to diagnose and 2) if there are diseases that have wider curves in how they can affect people. Then why is it that you don't expect there to be a group that are currently difficult to diagnose but for the effects it has on you, and which can have wide ranging effects including mild and marginal, overlapping with people who are just shit at something? Of all the possible conditions affecting humanity, there's gotta be at least a couple of conditions like that.

Be careful of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Fine to start with a position of skepticism of anything they say. But not everything the establishment says is a lie. They sprinkle some truths in there, or they focus on one thing to obscure another.

Because many conditions either are on a curve, or have a varying effect. Bell curves and other curves are everywhere in nature.

Let's look at something that's easier to diagnose through more objective means though. Down syndrome. Some of them are basically just a bit slow, but can reasonably function. Others have the iq of children, others that of toddlers. Now it's true that the extra chromosome isn't on a spectrum, it's pretty binary*, but its effects are on a very wide curve. We know of plenty of conditions like that.

Vision, hearing, flatulence, fertility... there are conditions that damage these to varying degrees and there are low ends of the normal curve for just natural reasons. We know of plenty of metrics and skills which can be affected on a curve.

Next we have an effect where in medicine we have cutoffs for normal functioning. 2SD is usually the cutoff, bur it can be messy. If your skills are below 2 standard deviations in anything it gets classed as something. Like your IQ. If it's lower than 70, you are mentally retarded. But what if you're just a slower kid from a family that all hover around 75 anyway, do they suddenly have a condition now cause they were below their family average by a mere 6? Classification gets messy.

If you've ever worked with autistic kids and adults, you know that there is indeed a range of effects it has on them, a variety of skills are affected on a curve, and a bunch of behaviors that manifest on a curve. A lot of them have problems with sensory input, easily overstimulated or whatever. Some will shut down, or be functional enough to remove themselves from it. Others go balistic and you won't get anything out of them for a week after it. Some have a bit of trouble with metaphorical and figurative language, and have to really work and spend extra time on things like idioms as a part of their special education. Others do not get it at all. Others aren't even at the point where that's an issue, completely averbal. Some have echolalia, and maybe 10% of what they say will be repetitions of something else. Others it's all they say. I'm not talking about the tumblr selfdiagnoses. I'm talking about the people who absolutely certainly do have it, it's just moderate. But If we accept that its effects can range from extremely severe up to moderate, it therefore stands to reason that its effects can also be less severe still, up to mild and marginal.

You are right to be skeptical of everything the med establishment says and does, and with adhd and autism in particular they have become movements and trends. I agree. But throw out all your biases, look at this purely logically:

If there is 'something' affecting these kids and its effects range from very severe up to moderate, why logical reason is there as to why it couldn't also manifest with mild or marginal systems, particularly if its forming its own curve. Yes, it can be hard to tease apart from the people who are just on the extreme low end for social skills. There's 2% of the population down there just cause that's where they fell on the curve and didn't develop those skills. That's true too. But the fact it might be hard to tease apart one from the other doesn't mean that they can't both be real things. Why is it impossible that if 1) there are easy to diagnose objectively diseases but also diseases (particularly of the mind) that you have to rely on more round-about metrics to diagnose, and 2) if there are diseases that have wider curves in how they can affect people. Then why is it that you don't expect there to be a group that are currently difficult to diagnose but for the effects it has on you, and which can have wide ranging effects including mild and marginal, overlapping with people who are just shit at something? Of all the possible conditions affecting humanity, there's gotta be at least a couple of conditions like that.

Be careful of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Fine to start with a position of skepticism of anything they say. But not everything the establishment says is a lie. They sprinkle some truths in there, or they focus on one thing to obscure another.

Because many conditions either are a spectrum, or have a varying effect. Bell curves and other curves are everywhere in nature.

Let's look at something that's easier to diagnose through more objective means though. Down syndrome. Some of them are basically just a bit slow, but can reasonably function. Others have the iq of children, others that of toddlers. Now it's true that the extra chromosome isn't on a spectrum, it's pretty binary*, but its effects are on a very wide curve. We know of plenty of conditions like that.

Vision, hearing, flatulence, fertility... there are conditions that damage these to varying degrees and there are low ends of the normal curve for just natural reasons. We know of plenty of metrics and skills which can be affected on a curve.

Next we have an effect where in medicine we have cutoffs for normal functioning. 2SD is usually the cutoff, bur it can be messy. If your skills are below 2 standard deviations in anything it gets classed as something. Like your IQ. If it's lower than 70, you are mentally retarded. But what if you're just a slower kid from a family that all hover around 75 anyway, do they suddenly have a condition now cause they were below their family average by a mere 6? Classification gets messy.

If you've ever worked with autistic kids and adults, you know that there is indeed a range of effects it has on them, a variety of skills are affected on a curve, and a bunch of behaviors that manifest on a curve. A lot of them have problems with sensory input, easily overstimulated or whatever. Some will shut down, or be functional enough to remove themselves from it. Others go balistic and you won't get anything out of them for a week after it. Some have a bit of trouble with metaphorical and figurative language, and have to really work and spend extra time on things like idioms as a part of their special education. Others do not get it at all. Others aren't even at the point where that's an issue, completely averbal. Some have echolalia, and maybe 10% of what they say will be repetitions of something else. Others it's all they say. I'm not talking about the tumblr selfdiagnoses. I'm talking about the people who absolutely certainly do have it, it's just moderate. But If we accept that its effects can range from extremely severe up to moderate, it therefore stands to reason that its effects can also be less severe still, up to mild and marginal.

You are right to be skeptical of everything the med establishment says and does, and with adhd and autism in particular they have become movements and trends. I agree. But throw out all your biases, look at this purely logically:

If there is 'something' affecting these kids and its effects range from very severe up to moderate, why logical reason is there as to why it couldn't also manifest with mild or marginal systems, particularly if its forming its own curve. Yes, it can be hard to tease apart from the people who are just on the extreme low end for social skills. There's 2% of the population down there just cause that's where they fell on the curve and didn't develop those skills. That's true too. But the fact it might be hard to tease apart one from the other doesn't mean that they can't both be real things. Why is it impossible that if 1) there are easy to diagnose objectively diseases but also diseases (particularly of the mind) that you have to rely on more round-about metrics to diagnose, and 2) if there are diseases that have wider curves in how they can affect people. Then why is it that you don't expect there to be a group that are currently difficult to diagnose but for the effects it has on you, and which can have wide ranging effects including mild and marginal, overlapping with people who are just shit at something? Of all the possible conditions affecting humanity, there's gotta be at least a couple of conditions like that.

Be careful of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Fine to start with a position of skepticism of anything they say. But not everything the establishment says is a lie. They sprinkle some truths in there, or they focus on one thing to obscure another.

Because many conditions either are a spectrum, or have a varying effect. Bell curves and other curves are everywhere in nature.

Let's look at something that's easier to diagnose through more objective means though. Down syndrome. Some of them are basically just a bit slow, but can reasonably function. Others have the iq of children, others that of toddlers. Now it's true that the extra chromosome isn't on a spectrum, it's pretty binary*, but its effects are on a very wide curve. We know of plenty of conditions like that.

Vision, hearing, flatulence, fertility... there are conditions that damage these to varying degrees and there are low ends of the normal curve for just natural reasons. We know of plenty of metrics and skills which can be affected on a curve.

Next we have an effect where in medicine we have cutoffs for normal functioning. 2SD is usually the cutoff, bur it can be messy. If your skills are below 2 standard deviations in anything it gets classed as something. Like your IQ. If it's lower than 70, you are mentally retarded. But what if you're just a slower kid from a family that all hover around 75 anyway, do they suddenly have a condition now cause they were below their family average by a mere 6? Classification gets messy.

If you've ever worked with autistic kids and adults, you know that there is indeed a range of effects it has on them, a variety of skills are affected on a curve, and a bunch of behaviors that manifest on a curve. A lot of them have problems with sensory input, easily overstimulated or whatever. Some will shut down, or be functional enough to remove themselves from it. Others go balistic and you won't get anything out of them for a week after it. Some have a bit of trouble with metaphorical and figurative language, and have to really work and spend extra time on things like idioms as a part of their special education. Others do not get it at all. Others aren't even at the point where that's an issue, completely averbal. Some have echolalia, and maybe 10% of what they say will be repetitions of something else. Others it's all they say. I'm not talking about the tumblr selfdiagnoses. I'm talking about the people who absolutely certainly do have it, it's just moderate. But If we accept that its effects can range from extremely severe up to moderate, it therefore stands to reason that its effects can also be less severe still, up to mild and marginal.

You are right to be skeptical of everything the med establishment says and does, and with adhd and autism in particular they have become movements and trends. I agree. But throw out all your biases, look at this purely logically:

If there is 'something' affecting these kids and its effects range from very severe up to moderate, why logical reason is there as to why it couldn't also manifest with mild or marginal systems, particularly if its forming its own curve. Yes, it can be hard to tease apart from the people who are just on the extreme low end for social skills. There's 2% of the population down there just cause that's where they fell on the curve and didn't develop those skills. That's true too. But the fact it might be hard to tease apart one from the other doesn't mean that they can't both be real things. Why is it impossible that if there are easy to diagnose objectively diseases and diseases (particularly of the mind) that you have to rely on more round-about metrics, and if there are diseases that have wider curves in how they can affect people, that you don't expect there to be a group that are currently difficult to diagnose but for the effects it has on you, and which can have wide ranging effects including mild and marginal? Of all the possible conditions, there's gotta be at least a couple of conditions like that.

Be careful of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Fine to start with a position of skepticism of anything they say. But not everything the establishment says is a lie. They sprinkle some truths in there, or they focus on one thing to obscure another.

Because many conditions either are a spectrum, or have a varying effect. Bell curves and other curves are everywhere in nature.

Let's look at something that's easier to diagnose through more objective means though. Down syndrome. Some of them are basically just a bit slow, but can reasonably function. Others have the iq of children, others that of toddlers. Now it's true that the extra chromosome isn't on a spectrum, it's pretty binary*, but its effects are on a very wide curve. We know of plenty of conditions like that.

Vision, hearing, flatulence, fertility... there are conditions that damage these to varying degrees and there are low ends of the normal curve for just natural reasons. We know of plenty of metrics and skills which can be affected on a curve.

Next we have an effect where in medicine we have cutoffs for normal functioning. 2SD is usually the cutoff, bur it can be messy. If your skills are below 2 standard deviations in anything it gets classed as something. Like your IQ. If it's lower than 70, you are mentally retarded. But what if you're just a slower kid from a family that all hover around 75 anyway, do they suddenly have a condition now cause they were below their family average by a mere 6? Classification gets messy.

If you've ever worked with autistic kids and adults, you know that there is indeed a range of effects it has on them, a variety of skills are affected on a curve, and a bunch of behaviors that manifest on a curve. A lot of them have problems with sensory input, easily overstimulated or whatever. Some will shut down, or be functional enough to remove themselves from it. Others go balistic and you won't get anything out of them for a week after it. Some have a bit of trouble with metaphorical and figurative language, and have to really work and spend extra time on things like idioms as a part of their special education. Others do not get it at all. Others aren't even at the point where that's an issue, completely averbal. Some have echolalia, and maybe 10% of what they say will be repetitions of something else. Others it's all they say. I'm not talking about the tumblr selfdiagnoses. I'm talking about the people who absolutely certainly do have it, it's just moderate. But If we accept that its effects can range from extremely severe up to moderate, it therefore stands to reason that its effects can also be less severe still, up to mild and marginal.

You are right to be skeptical of everything the med establishment says and does, and with adhd and autism in particular they have become movements and trends. I agree. But throw out all your biases, look at this purely logically:

If there is 'something' affecting these kids and its effects range from very severe up to moderate, why logical reason is there as to why it couldn't also manifest with mild or marginal systems, particularly if its forming its own curve. Yes, it can be hard to tease apart from the people who are just on the extreme low end for social skills. There's 2% of the population down there just cause that's where they fell on the curve and didn't develop those skills. That's true too. But the fact it might be hard to tease apart one from the other doesn't mean that they can't both be real things. Why is it impossible that if there are easy to diagnose objectively diseases and diseases (particularly of the mind) that you have to rely on more round-about metrics, and if there are diseases that have wider curves in how they can affect people, that you don't expect there to be a group that are hard to diagnose and have wide ranging effects including mild and marginal? Of all the possible conditions, there's gotta be at least a couple of conditions like that.

Be careful of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Fine to start with a position of skepticism of anything they say. But not everything the establishment says is a lie. They sprinkle some truths in there, or they focus on one thing to obscure another.

Because many conditions either are a spectrum, or have a varying effect. Bell curves and other curves are everywhere in nature.

Let's look at something that's easier to diagnose through more objective means though. Down syndrome. Some of them are basically just a bit slow, but can reasonably function. Others have the iq of children, others that of toddlers. Now it's true that the extra chromosome isn't on a spectrum, it's pretty binary*, but its effects are on a very wide curve. We know of plenty of conditions like that.

Vision, hearing, flatulence, fertility... there are conditions that damage these to varying degrees and there are low ends of the normal curve for just natural reasons. We know of plenty of metrics and skills which can be affected on a curve.

Next we have an effect where in medicine we have cutoffs for normal functioning. 2SD is usually the cutoff, bur it can be messy. If your skills are below 2 standard deviations in anything it gets classed as something. Like your IQ. If it's lower than 70, you are mentally retarded. But what if you're just a slower kid from a family that all hover around 75 anyway, do they suddenly have a condition now cause they were below their family average by a mere 6? Classification gets messy.

If you've ever worked with autistic kids and adults, you know that there is indeed a range of effects it has on them, a variety of skills are affected on a curve, and a bunch of behaviors that manifest on a curve. A lot of them have problems with sensory input, easily overstimulated or whatever. Some will shut down, or be functional enough to remove themselves from it. Others go balistic and you won't get anything out of them for a week after it. Some have a bit of trouble with metaphorical and figurative language, and have to really work and spend extra time on things like idioms as a part of their special education. Others do not get it at all. Others aren't even at the point where that's an issue, completely averbal. Some have echolalia, and maybe 10% of what they say will be repetitions of something else. Others it's all they say. I'm not talking about the tumblr selfdiagnoses. I'm talking about the people who absolutely certainly do have it, it's just moderate. But If we accept that its effects can range from extremely severe up to moderate, it therefore stands to reason that its effects can also be less severe still, up to mild and marginal.

You are right to be skeptical of everything the med establishment says and does, and with adhd and autism in particular they have become movements and trends. I agree. But throw out all your biases, look at this purely logically:

If there is 'something' affecting these kids and its effects range from very severe up to moderate, why logical reason is there as to why it couldn't also manifest with mild or marginal systems, particularly if its forming its own curve. Yes, it can be hard to tease apart from the people who are just on the extreme low end for social skills. There's 2% of the population down there just cause that's where they fell on the curve and didn't develop those skills. That's true too. But the fact it might be hard to tease apart one from the other doesn't mean that they can't both be real things. Why is it impossible that if there are easy to diagnose objectively diseases and diseases (particularly of the mind) that you have to rely on more round about metrics, and if there are diseases that have wider curves in how they can affect people, that you don't expect there to be a group that are hard to diagnose and have wide ranging effects including mild and marginal? Of all the possible conditions, there's gotta be at least a couple of conditions like that.

Be careful of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Fine to start with a position of skepticism of anything they say. But not everything the establishment says is a lie. They sprinkle some truths in there, or they focus on one thing to obscure another.

Because many conditions either are a spectrum, or have a varying effect. Bell curves and other curves are everywhere in nature.

Let's look at something that's easier to diagnose through more objective means though. Down syndrome. Some of them are basically just a bit slow, but can reasonably function. Others have the iq of children, others that of toddlers. Now it's true that the extra chromosome isn't on a spectrum, it's pretty binary*, but its effects are on a very wide curve. We know of plenty of conditions like that.

Vision, hearing, flatulence, fertility... there are conditions that damage these to varying degrees and there are low ends of the normal curve for just natural reasons. We know of plenty of metrics and skills which can be affected on a curve.

Next we have an effect where in medicine we have cutoffs for normal functioning. 2SD is usually the cutoff, bur it can be messy. If your skills are below 2 standard deviations in anything it gets classed as something. Like your IQ. If it's lower than 70, you are mentally retarded. But what if you're just a slower kid from a family that all hover around 75 anyway, do they suddenly have a condition now cause they were below their family average by a mere 6? Classification gets messy.

If you've ever worked with autistic kids and adults, you know that there is indeed a range of effects it has on them, a variety of skills are affected on a curve, and a bunch of behaviors that manifest on a curve. A lot of them have problems with sensory input, easily overstimulated or whatever. Some will shut down, or be functional enough to remove themselves from it. Others go balistic and you won't get anything out of them for a week after it. Some have a bit of trouble with metaphorical and figurative language, and have to really work and spend extra time on things like idioms as a part of their special education. Others do not get it at all. Others aren't even at the point where that's an issue, completely averbal. Some have echolalia, and maybe 10% of what they say will be repetitions of something else. Others it's all they say. I'm not talking about the tumblr selfdiagnoses. I'm talking about the people who absolutely certainly do have it, it's just moderate. But If we accept that its effects can range from extremely severe up to moderate, it therefore stands to reason that its effects can also be less severe still, up to mild and marginal.

You are right to be skeptical of everything the med establishment says and does, and with adhd and autism in particular they have become movements and trends. I agree. But throw out all your biases, look at this purely logically:

If there is 'something' affecting these kids and its effects range from very severe up to moderate, why logical reason is there as to why it couldn't also manifest with mild or marginal systems, particularly if its forming its own curve. Yes, it can be hard to tease apart from the people who are just on the extreme low end for social skills. There's 2% of the population down there just cause that's where they fell on the curve and didn't develop those skills. That's true too. But the fact it might be hard to tease apart one from the other doesn't mean that they can't both be real things.

Be careful of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Fine to start with a position of skepticism of anything they say. But not everything the establishment says is a lie. They sprinkle some truths in there, or they focus on one thing to obscure another.

Because many conditions either are a spectrum, or have a varying effect. Bell curves and other curves are everywhere in nature.

Let's look at something that's easier to diagnose through more objective means though. Down syndrome. Some of them are basically just a bit slow, but can reasonably function. Others have the iq of children, others that of toddlers. Now it's true that the extra chromosome isn't on a spectrum, it's pretty binary*, but its effects are on a very wide curve. We know of plenty of conditions like that.

Vision, hearing, flatulency, fertility... there are conditions that damage these to varying degrees and there are low ends of the normal curve for just natural reasons. We know of plenty of metrics and skills which can be affected on a curve.

Next we have an effect where in medicine we have cutoffs for normal functioning. 2SD is usually the cutoff, bur it can be messy. If your skills are below 2 standard deviations in anything it gets classed as something. Like your IQ. If it's lower than 70, you are mentally retarded. But what if you're just a slower kid from a family that all hover around 75 anyway, do they suddenly have a condition now cause they were below their family average by a mere 6? Classification gets messy.

If you've ever worked with autistic kids and adults, you know that there is indeed a range of effects it has on them, a variety of skills are affected on a curve, and a bunch of behaviors that manifest on a curve. A lot of them have problems with sensory input, easily overstimulated or whatever. Some will shut down, or be functional enough to remove themselves from it. Others go balistic and you won't get anything out of them for a week after it. Some have a bit of trouble with metaphorical and figurative language, and have to really work and spend extra time on things like idioms as a part of their special education. Others do not get it at all. Others aren't even at the point where that's an issue, completely averbal. Some have echolalia, and maybe 10% of what they say will be repetitions of something else. Others it's all they say. I'm not talking about the tumblr selfdiagnoses. I'm talking about the people who absolutely certainly do have it, it's just moderate. But If we accept that its effects can range from extremely severe up to moderate, it therefore stands to reason that its effects can also be less severe still, up to mild and marginal.

You are right to be skeptical of everything the med establishment says and does, and with adhd and autism in particular they have become movements and trends. I agree. But throw out all your biases, look at this purely logically:

If there is 'something' affecting these kids and its effects range from very severe up to moderate, why logical reason is there as to why it couldn't also manifest with mild or marginal systems, particularly if its forming its own curve. Yes, it can be hard to tease apart from the people who are just on the extreme low end for social skills. There's 2% of the population down there just cause that's where they fell on the curve and didn't develop those skills. That's true too. But the fact it might be hard to tease apart one from the other doesn't mean that they can't both be real things.

Be careful of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Fine to start with a position of skepticism of anything they say. But not everything the establishment says is a lie. They sprinkle some truths in there, or they focus on one thing to obscure another.

Because many conditions either are a spectrum, or have a varying effect. Bell curves and other curves are everywhere in nature.

Let's look at something that's easier to diagnose though. Down syndrome. Some of them are basically just a bit slow, but can reasonably function. Others have the iq of children, others that of toddlers. Now it's true that the extra chromosome isn't on a spectrum, it's pretty binary*, but its effects are on a very wide curve. We know of plenty of conditions like that, objective geneticly diagnosed ones.

Vision, hearing, flatulency, fertility... there are conditions that damage these to varying degrees and there are low ends of the normal curve for just natural reasons.

Next we have an effect where in medicine we have cutoffs for normal functioning. 2SD is usually the cutoff. If your skills are below 2 standard deviations in anything it gets classed as something. Like your IQ. If it's lower than 70, you are mentally retarded. But what if you're just a slower kid from a family that all hover around 75 anyway, do they suddenly have a condition now cause they were below their family average by a mere 6? Classification gets messy.

If you've ever worked with autistic kids and adults, you know that there is indeed a range of effects it has on them, a variety of skills are affected on a curve, and a bunch of behaviors that manifest on a curve. A lot of them have problems with sensory input, easily overstimulated or whatever. Some will shut down, or be functional enough to remove themselves from it. Others go balistic and you won't get anything out of them for a week after it. Some have a bit of trouble with metaphorical and figurative language, and have to really work and spend extra time on things like idioms as a part of their special education. Others do not get it at all. Others aren't even at the point where that's an issue, completely averbal. Some have echolalia, and maybe 10% of what they say will be repetitions of something else. Others it's all they say. I'm not talking about the tumblr selfdiagnoses. I'm talking about the people who absolutely certainly do have it, it's just moderate. But If we accept that its effects can range from horrificly severe up to moderate, it therefore stands to reason that its effects can also be less severe still, up to mild and marginal.

You are right to be skeptical of everything the med establishment says and does, and with adhd and autism in particular they have become movements and trends. I agree. But throw out all your biases, look at this purely logically:

If there is 'something' affecting these kids and its effects range from very severe up to moderate, why logical reason is there as to why it couldn't also manifest with mild or marginal systems, particularly if its forming its own curve. Yes, it can be hard to tease apart from the people who are just on the extreme low end for social skills. There's 2% of the population down there just cause that's where they fell on the curve and didn't develop those skills. That's true too. But the fact it might be hard to tease apart one from the other doesn't mean that they can't both be real things.

Be careful of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Fine to start with a position of skepticism of anything they say. But not everything the establishment says is a lie. They sprinkle some truths in there, or they focus on one thing to obscure another.

Because many conditions either are a spectrum, or have a varying effect. Bell curves and other curves are everywhere in nature.

Let's look at something that's easier to diagnose though. Down syndrome. Some of them are basically just a bit slow, but can reasonably function. Others have the iq of children, others that of toddlers. Now it's true that the extra chromosome isn't on a spectrum, it's pretty binary*, but its effects are on a very wide curve. We know of plenty of conditions like that, objective geneticly diagnosed ones.

Vision, hearing, flatulency, fertility... there are conditions that damage these to varying degrees and there are low ends of the normal curve for just natural reasons.

Next we have an effect where in medicine we have cutoffs for normal functioning. 2SD is usually the cutoff. If your skills are below 2 standard deviations in anything it gets classed as something. Like your IQ. If it's lower than 70, you are mentally retarded. But what if you're just a slower kid from a family that all hover around 75 anyway, do they suddenly have a condition now cause they were below their family average by a mere 6? Classification gets messy.

If you've ever worked with autistic kids and adults, you know that there is indeed a range of effects it has on them, a variety of skills are affected on a curve, and a bunch of behaviors that manifest on a curve. A lot of them have problems with sensory input, easily overstimulated or whatever. Some will shut down, or be functional enough to remove themselves from it. Others go balistic and you won't get anything out of them for a week after it. Some have a bit of trouble with metaphorical and figurative language, and have to really work and spend extra time on things like idioms as a part of their special education. Others do not get it at all. Others aren't even at the point where that's an issue, completely averbal. Some have echolalia, and maybe 10% of what they say will be repetitions of something else. Others it's all they say. I'm not talking about the tumblr selfdiagnoses. I'm talking about the people who absolutely certainly do have it, it's just moderate. But If we accept that its effects can range from horrificly severe up to moderate, it therefore stands to reason that its effects can also be less severe still, up to mild and marginal.

You are right to be skeptical of everything the med establishment says and does, and with adhd and autism in particular they have become movements and trends. I agree. But throw out all your biases, look at this purely logically:

If there is 'something' affecting these kids and its effects range from very severe up to moderate, why logical reason is there as to why it couldn't also manifest with mild or marginal systems, particularly if its forming its own curve. Yes, it can be hard to tease apart from the people who are just on the extreme low end for social skills. There's 2% of the population down there just cause that's where they fell on the curve and didn't develop those skills. That's true too. But the fact it might be hard to tease apart one from the other doesn't mean that they can't both be true.

Be careful of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Fine to start with a position of skepticism of anything they say. But not everything the establishment says is a lie. They sprinkle some truths in there, or they focus on one thing to obscure another.

Because many conditions either are a spectrum, or have a varying effect. Bell curves and other curves are everywhere in nature.

Let's look at something that's easier to diagnose though. Down syndrome. Some of them are basically just a bit slow, but can reasonably function. Others have the iq of children, others that of toddlers. Now it's true that the extra chromosome isn't on a spectrum, it's pretty binary*, but its effects are on a very wide curve. We know of plenty of conditions like that, objective geneticly diagnosed ones.

Blindness, hearing, flatulency, fertility... there are conditions and there are low ends of the normal curve for just natural reasons.

Next we have an effect where in medicine we have cutoffs for normal functioning. 2SD is usually the cutoff. If your skills are below 2 standard deviations in anything it gets classes as something. Like your IQ. If it's lower than 70, you are mentally retarded. But what if you're just a slower kid from a family that all hover around 75 anyway, do they suddenly have a condition now cause they were below their family average by a mere 6? Classification gets messy.

If you've ever worked with autistic kids and adults, you know that there is indeed a range of effects it has on them, a variety of skills are affected on a curve, and a bunch of behaviors that manifest on a curve. A lot of them have problems with sensory input, easily overstimulated or whatever. Some will shut down, or be functional enough to remove themselves from it. Others go balistic and you won't get anything out of them for a week after it. Some have a bit of trouble with metaphorical and figurative language, and have to really work and spend extra time on things like idioms as a part of their special education. Others do not get it at all. Others aren't even at the point where that's an issue, completely averbal. Some have echolalia, and maybe 10% of what they say will be repetitions of something else. Others it's all they say. I'm not talking about the tumblr selfdiagnoses. I'm talking about the people who absolutely certainly do have it, it's just moderate. But If we accept that its effects can range from horrificly severe up to moderate, it therefore stands to reason that its effects can also be less severe still, up to mild and marginal.

You are right to be skeptical of everything the med establishment says and does, and with adhd and autism in particular they have become movements and trends. I agree. But throw out all your biases, look at this purely logically:

If there is 'something' affecting these kids and its effects range from very severe up to moderate, why logical reason is there as to why it couldn't also manifest with mild or marginal systems, particularly if its forming its own curve. Yes, it can be hard to tease apart from the people who are just on the extreme low end for social skills. There's 2% of the population down there just cause that's where they fell on the curve and didn't develop those skills. That's true too. But the fact it might be hard to tease apart one from the other doesn't mean that they can't both be true.

Be careful of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Fine to start with a position of skepticism of anything they say. But not everything the establishment says is a lie. They sprinkle some truths in there, or they focus on one thing to obscure another.

Because many conditions either are a spectrum, or have a varying effect. Bell curves and other curves are everywhere in nature.

Down syndrome. Some of them are basically just a bit slow, but can reasonably function. Others have the iq of children, others that of toddlers. Now it's true that the extra chromosome isn't on a spectrum, it's pretty binary*, but its effects are on a curve. Blindness, hearing, flatulency, fertility... there are conditions and there are low ends of the normal curve for just natural reasons.

Next we have an effect where in medicine we have cutoffs for normal functioning. 2SD is usually the cutoff. If your skills are below 2 standard deviations in anything it gets classes as something. Like your IQ. If it's lower than 70, you are mentally retarded. But what if you're just a slower kid from a family that all hover around 75 anyway, do they suddenly have a condition now cause they were below their family average by a mere 6? Classification gets messy.

If you've ever worked with autistic kids and adults, you know that there is indeed a range of effects it has on them, a variety of skills are affected on a curve, and a bunch of behaviors that manifest on a curve. A lot of them have problems with sensory input, easily overstimulated or whatever. Some will shut down, or be functional enough to remove themselves from it. Others go balistic and you won't get anything out of them for a week after it. Some have a bit of trouble with metaphorical and figurative language, and have to really work and spend extra time on things like idioms as a part of their special education. Others do not get it at all. Others aren't even at the point where that's an issue, completely averbal. Some have echolalia, and maybe 10% of what they say will be repetitions of something else. Others it's all they say. I'm not talking about the tumblr selfdiagnoses. I'm talking about the people who absolutely certainly do have it, it's just moderate. But If we accept that its effects can range from horrificly severe up to moderate, it therefore stands to reason that its effects can also be less severe still, up to mild and marginal.

You are right to be skeptical of everything the med establishment says and does, and with adhd and autism in particular they have become movements and trends. I agree. But throw out all your biases, look at this purely logically:

If there is 'something' affecting these kids and its effects range from very severe up to moderate, why logical reason is there as to why it couldn't also manifest with mild or marginal systems, particularly if its forming its own curve. Yes, it can be hard to tease apart from the people who are just on the extreme low end for social skills. There's 2% of the population down there just cause that's where they fell on the curve and didn't develop those skills. That's true too. But the fact it might be hard to tease apart one from the other doesn't mean that they can't both be true.

Be careful of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Fine to start with a position of skepticism of anything they say. But not everything the establishment says is a lie. They sprinkle some truths in there, or they focus on one thing to obscure another.

Because many conditions either are a spectrum, or have a varying effect. Bell curves and other curves are everywhere in nature.

Down syndrome. Some of them are basically just a bit slow, but can reasonably function. Others have the iq of children, others that of toddlers. Now it's true that the extra chromosome isn't on a spectrum, it's pretty binary, but its effects are on a curve. Blindness, hearing, flatulency, fertility... there are conditions and there are low ends of the normal curve for just natural reasons.

Next we have an effect where in medicine we have cutoffs for normal functioning. 2SD is usually the cutoff. If your skills are below 2 standard deviations in anything it gets classes as something. Like your IQ. If it's lower than 70, you are mentally retarded. But what if you're just a slower kid from a family that all hover around 75 anyway, do they suddenly have a condition now cause they were below their family average by a mere 6? Classification gets messy.

If you've ever worked with autistic kids and adults, you know that there is indeed a range of effects it has on them, a variety of skills are affected on a curve, and a bunch of behaviors that manifest on a curve. A lot of them have problems with sensory input, easily overstimulated or whatever. Some will shut down, or be functional enough to remove themselves from it. Others go balistic and you won't get anything out of them for a week after it. Some have a bit of trouble with metaphorical and figurative language, and have to really work and spend extra time on things like idioms as a part of their special education. Others do not get it at all. Others aren't even at the point where that's an issue, completely averbal. Some have echolalia, and maybe 10% of what they say will be repetitions of something else. Others it's all they say. I'm not talking about the tumblr selfdiagnoses. I'm talking about the people who absolutely certainly do have it, it's just moderate. But If we accept that its effects can range from horrificly severe up to moderate, it therefore stands to reason that its effects can also be less severe still, up to mild and marginal.

You are right to be skeptical of everything the med establishment says and does, and with adhd and autism in particular they have become movements and trends. I agree. But throw out all your biases, look at this purely logically:

If there is 'something' affecting these kids and its effects range from very severe up to moderate, why logical reason is there as to why it couldn't also manifest with mild or marginal systems, particularly if its forming its own curve. Yes, it can be hard to tease apart from the people who are just on the extreme low end for social skills. There's 2% of the population down there just cause that's where they fell on the curve and didn't develop those skills. That's true too. But the fact it might be hard to tease apart one from the other doesn't mean that they can't both be true.

Be careful of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Fine to start with a position of skepticism of anything they say. But not everything the establishment says is a lie. They sprinkle some truths in there, or they focus on one thing to obscure another.

Because many conditions either are a spectrum, or have a varying effect. Bell curves and other curves are everywhere in nature.

Down syndrome. Some of them are basically just a bit slow, but can reasonably function. Others have the iq of children, others that of toddlers. Now it's true that the extra chromosome isn't on a spectrum, it's pretty binary, but its effects are on a curve. Blindness, hearing, flatulency, fertility... there are conditions and there are low ends of the normal curve for just natural reasons.

Next we have an effect where in medicine we have cutoffs for normal functioning. 2SD is usually the cutoff. If your skills are below 2 standard deviations in anything it gets classes as something. Like your IQ. If it's lower than 70, you are mentally retarded. But what if you're just a slower kid from a family that all hover around 75 anyway, do they suddenly have a condition now cause they were below their family average by a mere 6? Classification gets messy.

If you've ever worked with autistic kids and adults, you know that there is indeed a range of effects it has on them, a variety of skills are affected on a curve, and a bunch of behaviors that manifest on a curve. A lot of them have problems with sensory input, easily overstimulated or whatever. Some will shut down, or be functional enough to remove themselves from it. Others go balistic and you won't get anything out of them for a week after it. Some have a bit of trouble with metaphorical and figurative language, and have to really work and spend extra time on things like idioms as a part of their special education. Others do not get it at all. Others aren't even at the point where that's an issue, completely averbal. Some have echolalia, and maybe 10% of what they say will be repetitions of something else. Others it's all they say. I'm not talking about the tumblr selfdiagnoses. I'm talking about the people who absolutely certainly do have it, it's just moderate. But If we accept that its effects can range from horrificly severe up to moderate, it therefore stands to reason that its effects can also be less severe still, up to mild and marginal.

You are right to be skeptical of everything the med establishment says and does, and with adhd and autism in particular they have become movements and trends. I agree. But throw out all your biases, look at this purely logically:

If there is 'something' affecting these kids and its effects range from very severe up to moderate, why logical reason is there as to why it couldn't also manifest with mild or marginal systems, particularly if its forming its own curve. Yes, it can be hard to tease apart from the people who are just on the extreme low end for social skills. There's 2% of the population down there just cause that's where they fell on the curve and didn't develop it. That's true too. But the fact it might be hard to tease apart one from the other doesn't mean that they can't both be true.

Be careful of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Fine to start with a position of skepticism of anything they say. But not everything the establishment says is a lie. They sprinkle some truths in there, or they focus on one thing to obscure another.

Because many conditions either are a spectrum, or have a varying effect. Bell curves and other curves are everywhere in nature.

Down syndrome. Some of them are basically just a bit slow, but can reasonably function. Others have the iq of children, others that of toddlers. Now it's true that the extra chromosome isn't on a spectrum, it's pretty binary, but its effects are on a curve. Blindness, hearing, flatulance, fertility.

Next we have an effect where in medicine we have cutoffs for normal functioning. 2SD is usually the cutoff. If your skills are below 2 standard deviations in anything it gets classes as something. Like your IQ. If it's lower than 70, you are mentally retarded. But what if you're just a slower kid from a family that all hover around 75 anyway, do they suddenly have a condition now cause they were below their family average by a mere 6? Classification gets messy.

If you've ever worked with autistic kids and adults, you know that there is indeed a range of effects it has on them, a variety of skills are affected on a curve, and a bunch of behaviors that manifest on a curve. A lot of them have problems with sensory input, easily overstimulated or whatever. Some will shut down, or be functional enough to remove themselves from it. Others go balistic and you won't get anything out of them for a week after it. Some have a bit of trouble with metaphorical and figurative language, and have to really work and spend extra time on things like idioms as a part of their special education. Others do not get it at all. Others aren't even at the point where that's an issue, completely averbal. Some have echolalia, and maybe 10% of what they say will be repetitions of something else. Others it's all they say. I'm not talking about the tumblr selfdiagnoses. I'm talking about the people who absolutely certainly do have it, it's just moderate. But If we accept that its effects can range from horrificly severe up to moderate, it therefore stands to reason that its effects can also be less severe still, up to mild and marginal.

You are right to be skeptical of everything the med establishment says and does, and with adhd and autism in particular they have become movements and trends. I agree. But throw out all your biases, look at this purely logically:

If there is 'something' affecting these kids and its effects range from very severe up to moderate, why logical reason is there as to why it couldn't also manifest with mild or marginal systems, particularly if its forming its own curve. Yes, it can be hard to tease apart from the people who are just on the extreme low end for social skills. There's 2% of the population down there just cause that's where they fell on the curve and didn't develop it. That's true too. But the fact it might be hard to tease apart one from the other doesn't mean that they can't both be true.

Be careful of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Fine to start with a position of skepticism of anything they say. But not everything the establishment says is a lie. They sprinkle some truths in there, or they focus on one thing to obscure another.