smithoc

> Such a cure can not exist. Autism is something you are born with and that is part of you.

Signs of autism generally show up in early childhood, but it has not been proven that it is something a person is born with. Vaccines have been studied enough to rule them out, but there are still a zillion other things that babies today are exposed to that could be a factor, from antibiotics to endocrine disrupting chemicals to microplastics to viruses or even something we're not even considering medically today.

Also, tons of birth defects and inborn diseases can be cured. We cure cleft palates and spina bifida routinely. We manage diabetes and Phenylketonuria effectively enough that patients can live regular lives. Here's a paper published in the prestigious Cell journal covering 700 different genetic disorders which can be treated today: https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(25)00110-7

It's possible that in the future autism will have a cure, a preventative measure or a highly effective treatment.

Many people view the existence of billionaires as a profound societal flaw. The accumulation of such obscene wealth by an individual is only possible because of systemic problems which prevented employees from capturing their fair share of their productivity, prevented competitors from entering the market to lower margins or prevented customers from being able to purchase at lower prices.

It's a good thing that he's giving away 4% of his wealth. He'll still have $140,000,000,000 left after this donation though, which is relevant context.

So there is no actual evidence, and you're committing a hate crime if you ask to see evidence or point out that there's no evidence.

If a white person has a drunk uncle or crazy aunt tell a wild conspiracy theory at a family gathering, people dismiss them as a kook. But if an indigenous person does the same thing, it's supposed to be treated as sacred cultural knowledge being passed down?

I have an uncle who swears there are thousands of people who've been killed by Bill and Hillary Clinton. He has lists and websites and links to obituaries about deaths "deemed suicides" or "not investigated" or "unsolved". I don't think that my skepticism about his claims is violence or hate.

> they seem to be a potent cause of PTSD

This is somewhere between "False" and "So misleading about an astronomically small risk that we should just treat it as False".

Driving or riding in a car is a more likely cause of PTSD - you might be involved in a horrific crash.

Nothing in this world is risk free, but if we dropped the cultural stigma and history, and these were just discovered by Pfizer today and went through regular FDA processes, this class of drugs would have a risk profile lower than SSRIs, benzodiazepines, and most other drugs used for psychiatric purposes.

> I'm even willing to entertain the notion that this is representative of a systematic staffing problem -- but not when the reporting is so obviously, viciously partisan.

I'm even willing to admit that water might be wet, but not when someone is standing in a swimming pool splashing it around.

It's not, and the current administration isn't conservative.

The MAGA movement has completely purged all the conservatives from the Republican party.

They've increased the deficit by a trillion dollars, built an army of ICE agents and deployed them to terrorize people in cities around the country, added billions of dollars in import taxes, taken state ownership stakes in multiple companies.

They're closer to Stalin or Mao than to any conservative ideology of a small government that stays out of people's business.