War between the states

In a confluence of ideologies that should worry everyone, Ken Ham (of Answers in Genesis fame) is giving a talk on October 18 sponsored by the "Institute on the Constitution."

It's entitled "Six Days and Millions of Years," and the topic would appear to be the same old nonsense if it weren't for the sponsoring organization.  Because the Institute on the Constitution is an organization run by Michael Peroutka and David Whitney, two individuals who work hand in hand with the "League of the South," a group dedicated to the secession of the southeastern states to create a homeland for Christian whites.

This isn't the first time Ham and Peroutka have teamed up.  Peroutka, you may remember, is the rich dude who obtained an allosaurus skeleton and then sold it to Ham for the Creation Museum.  But that move was only appalling to science types, who were understandably rage-filled at the thought of a beautifully-preserved dinosaur fossil being used to broadcast silly mythology.

Here we have the intersection of far more disturbing ideas; racism, secessionism, religious sanctimony, and biblical literalism.  Don't believe me?  Take a look at a piece David Whitney wrote in which he claims that only Christians should be citizens of the United States:

Loving thy neighbor means protecting their God given rights as Exodus 12:49 commands.  That means preserving the structure of civil government from all who would pervert the civil government into an agency of legalized plunder, whereby the God given rights of no one would be safe and secure.  This means, as we have seen in the commands of Scripture, that we restrict citizenship to those who, because they are committed to the Covenant of Disciples of Jesus Christ, are willing to submit themselves to serve in the roles of responsibility in choosing leaders who will preserve God ordained order.  Those who will serve as Jurors, committed to do justice in judging the law by the eternal standard of God’s Law.  Those who will serve when called up as Representatives to serve in civil government to do justice by God’s Law, and those who will put themselves in harms way serving in the Militia – only in just wars as defined by God’s Law.

And here's Peroutka on secession:

I don’t disagree with Dr. Hill [League of the South president] at all that this regime is beyond reform, and I think that’s an obvious fact, and I agree with him.  However, I agree that when you secede, or however the destruction of the rubble of this regime takes place and how it plays out, you’re going to need to take a biblical world view, and apply it to civil law and government.  That’s what you’re still going to need to do. We’re going to have to have this foundational information in the hearts and minds of the people or else liberty won’t survive the secession either.  You see what I’m saying?  I’m saying that because I don’t want people from League of the South that for one minute that I am about reforming the current regime, and that studying the Constitution is about reforming the current regime.

Oh, and the man that Peroutka, "doesn't disagree with," Michael Hill, president of the League of the South?  Here's a direct quote from him about the purpose of the League:

Just so there’s no chance that you’ll confuse The League with the GOP or any other “conservative” group, here’s what we stand for: the survival, well being, and independence of the Southern people.  And by “the Southern people,” we mean White Southerners who are not afraid to stand for the people of their race and religion.

Kind of curious, then, that when Peroutka was running for a council position in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, and was questioned about his connections to the League of the South, he called it a "smear campaign:"

I am an anti-racist. I have spoken publicly against racism. I've gone out of my way to repudiate racism, and if there are any racists in the League of the South, I repudiate them, and I pray for them.

Well, Mr. Peroutka, it might be a good idea to start praying for the president of the organization, then.

[image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons]

Scared?  You should be.  The only reason these people aren't as bad as the theocrats in Iran is that they haven't been given their opportunity to be in charge of things yet.

The intersection of radical politics and religious fervor is terrifying; the politics for its heartless extremity, and the fervor for the gloss of righteous inviolability it confers.  These people can't imagine being wrong, and (worse) can't imagine that their stance is fundamentally immoral.

And heaven help us all if they are ever elected to lead us.

I'll end with a quote from James Waterman Wise (often misattributed to Sinclair Lewis): "If fascism comes... it will be wrapped up in the American flag and heralded as a plea for liberty and the preservation of the Constitution."

And, I'll add, very likely wearing a cross.

Hearing through your skin

I first ran into David Eagleman when a student of mine loaned me his phenomenal book Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain.

Even considering that I have a decent background in neuroscience, this book was an eye-opener.  Eagleman, a researcher at Baylor College of Medicine, not only is phenomenally knowledgeable in his field, he is a fine writer (and needless to say, those two don't always go together).  His insights about how our own brains work were fascinating, revealing, and often astonishing, and for anyone with an interest in cognitive science, it's a must-read.  (The link above will bring you to the book's Amazon page, should you wish to buy it, which all of you should.)

I've since watched a number of Eagleman's videos, and always come away with the feeling, "This guy is going to turn our understanding of the mind upside down."  And just yesterday, I found out about a Kickstarter project that he's undertaking that certainly makes some strides in that direction.

It's widely known that the brain can use a variety of inputs to get sensory data, substituting another when one of them isn't working.  Back in 2009, some scientists at Wicab, Inc. developed a device called the BrainPort that gave blind people the ability to get visual information about their surroundings, through a horseshoe-shaped output device that sits on the tongue.  A camera acts as a sensor, and transmits visual data into the electrode array on the output device, which then stimulates the surface of the tongue.  After a short training period, test subjects could maneuver around obstacles in a room.

And the coolest part is that the scientists found that the device was somehow stimulating the visual cortex of the brain -- the brain figured out that it was receiving visual data, even though the information was coming through the tongue.  And the test subjects were sensing visual images of their surroundings, even though nothing whatsoever was coming through their eyes.

So Eagleman had an idea.  Could you use a tactile sense to replace any other sense?  He started with trying to substitute tactile stimulation for hearing -- because, after all, they both work more or less the same way.  Touch and hearing both function because of mechanoreceptors, which are nerves that fire due to vibration or deflection.  (Taste, which is a chemoreceptor, and sight, an electromagnetic receptor, are much further apart in how they function.)

Thus we have the VEST -- the vibrational extra-sensory transducer.

It's a vest that's equipped with a SmartPhone, and hundreds of tiny motors -- the transducer activates the motors, turning any sounds picked up by the phone into a pattern of vibrations on your upper body.  And just as with the BrainPort, a short training period is all that's needed before your can, effectively, hear with your skin.

Trials already allowed deaf individuals to understand words at a far higher rate than chance guessing; and you can only imagine that the skill, like any, would improve with time.  Eagleman writes:

We hypothesize that our device will work for deaf individuals, and even be good enough to provide a new perception of hearing. This itself has a number of societal benefits: such a device would cost orders of magnitude less than cochlear implants (hundreds-to-thousands as a opposed to tens-of-thousands), be discrete, and give the wearer the freedom to not be attached to it all the time. The cost effectiveness of the device would also make it realistic to distribute it widely in developing countries. 

More exciting than this, however, is what this proof of principle might enable: the ability to feed all sorts of new and profound sensory information into our brains.

I find this sort of thing absolutely fascinating.  The brain, far from being the static and rigid device we used to believe it was, has amazing plasticity.  Given new sources of information, it responds by integrating those into the data set it uses to allow us to explore the world.  And even though the VEST is currently being considered primarily for restoration of a sense to individuals who have lost one, I (like Eagleman) can't help but wonder about its use in sensory enhancement.

What sorts of things are we missing, through our imperfect sensory apparatus, that such a device might allow us to see?

Consider giving Eagleman's Kickstarter your attention -- he's the sort of innovative genius who could well change the world.  Just what he's done thus far is phenomenal, moving us into possibilities that heretofore were confined to science fiction.

And man, do I want to try one of those vests.  I hear just fine, but still.  How cool would that be?

Revisiting Roswell

A couple of years ago, I went to visit my cousin's family in Las Cruces, New Mexico, and while in the state I insisted on making the drive out to see the International UFO Museum in Roswell.

Yes, it was campy, but it was fun.  My wife spent most of the visit rolling her eyes, but I did get a poster for my classroom, and an opportunity to have my photograph taken having a nice drink in an alien bar that would have only been improved by having a band like the one in Mos Eisley spaceport.

The "Roswell Incident" is one of the most talked about and thoroughly studied UFO stories in history.  In 1947, the museum's website says, "something happened" in the desert plains near Roswell.  The government says it was the crash of a high-altitude weather balloon, but there are alleged whistleblowers (most notably Lieutenant Walter Haut) who claim that it was the wreck of an alien spacecraft.  There are famous photographs of an "alien autopsy," traces of material from the wreckage, and dozens of eyewitness accounts.

What does it all add up to?  Not much, is my opinion.  Could the Roswell debris be the wreckage of an interstellar alien spaceship?  I suppose.  Could it be a hoax, a conglomeration of stories that grew by accretion after a completely natural, terrestrial event?  Yes.  What we have thus far does not meet the minimum standard of evidence that science demands, so for me the jury is still out.

Then of course, there's Neil deGrasse Tyson's comment about the whole thing:  "You're telling me that these aliens flew halfway across the galaxy, and then they couldn't land the damn ship?  If those are the kind of alien visiting the Earth, then they can go home.  I don't want to talk to 'em."

But even given the fact that we have all of the evidence that we're likely to get -- meaning that skeptics like myself will remain unconvinced either way, the believers will continue to believe, and the disbelievers will continue to disbelieve -- the whole thing is still debated endlessly.  People look for new angles, however unlikely those are to lead to anything productive.  And some of those new angles are so odd that they make the original arguments of the UFO crowd seem like peer-reviewed research.

Take, for example the article over at The UFO Iconoclast that says we have only one option for continuing our research into Roswell:

Remote viewing.

Because we all know how much more reliable a study becomes when you compound it with pseudoscience.  Not that that's the way they frame it:

The remote view protocol that we use at Spirit Rescue International is defined as ‘scientific’ and/or ‘coordinate’ remote viewing.  In order to apply it to the Roswell Incident there would need to be more monitor control, protocol modification, use of the correct data type and extended sessions.  The sessions would be conducted by remote viewers who have minimal knowledge of the Roswell Incident. We believe these objectives can be achieved.

Which brings up two rather thorny problems:

1. How do you guarantee "minimal knowledge?"  Anyone who can successfully navigate a Wikipedia page can find out all sorts of facts and speculation about the Roswell Incident.   Given the amount of play this claim has had on television and in movies, and the ubiquity of such information online, "contamination" of the "remote viewers" isn't just likely, it's a near certainty.
2. Since the US government is still denying anything paranormal happened in Roswell in 1947, how would you check the information the remote viewers obtained to determine if it was accurate?

This last issue is the hardest one.  Suppose a remote viewing team determined that the pieces of the Roswell crash -- incontrovertible evidence of a downed spaceship -- were being kept in a warehouse in Topeka.  Can't you just imagine the telephone conversation that might ensue?

UFO investigator:  We know the wreckage of the Roswell spaceship is in Topeka.  Can you let us have a look at it? 

Government official:  It doesn't exist, so no. 

UFO investigator:  Topeka does so exist.  My grandmother lives there.  Ha!  We've caught you in a bald-faced lie. 

Government official:  Not Topeka, the spaceship.  There's no spaceship parts, in Topeka or elsewhere. 

UFO investigator:  Your denial just proves that we're hot on your trail! 

Government official:  *click*

So the whole thing is kind of a non-starter, from a variety of angles.

Understand, though, that no one would be happier than me to have undeniable evidence of alien intelligence.  Even if the aliens in question couldn't successfully land their ship.  Hell, I'm 53 and I still have trouble parallel parking, so I'm not going to judge.  But I'm with Tyson on one thing: the evidence thus far is unconvincing.  And that includes any evidence -- if I can dignify it with that term -- that comes from psychics.

You can't use one unproven thing to prove another unproven thing.  Sorry, but logic just doesn't work that way.

The sound of music

One of the most important things in my life is music, and to me, music is all about evoking emotion.

A beautiful and well-performed song or piece of music connects to me (and, I suspect, to many people) on a completely visceral level.  I have laughed with delight and sobbed helplessly many times over music -- sometimes for reasons I can barely understand with my cognitive mind.

And what is most curious to me is that the same bit of music doesn't necessarily evoke the same emotion in different people.  My wife, another avid music lover, often has a completely neutral reaction to tunes that have me enraptured (and vice versa).  I vividly recall arguing with my mother when I was perhaps fifteen years old, before I recognized what a fruitless endeavor arguing with my mother was, over whether Mason Williams' gorgeous solo guitar piece "Classical Gas" was sad or not.  (My opinion is that it's incredibly wistful and melancholy, despite being lightning-fast and technically difficult.  But listen to the recording, and judge for yourself.)

Which brings us to the subject of artificial intelligence.  Recently there has been a lot of work done in writing software that composes music; composer David Cope has invented a program called "Emily Howell" that is capable of producing listenable music in a variety of styles, including Bach, Rachmaninoff, Barber, Copland, and Chopin.

[image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons]

"Listenable," of course, isn't the same as "brilliant" or "emotionally evocative."  As Chris Wilson, author of the Slate article I linked, concluded, "I don't expect Emily Howell to ever replace the best human composers...  Yet even at this early moment in AC research, Emily Howell is already a better composer than 99 percent of the population.  Whether she or any other computer can bridge that last 1 percent, making complete works with lasting significance to music, is anyone's guess."

And now, Ryan Stables, a professor of audio engineering and acoustics at Birmingham City University in England has, perhaps, crossed another bit of the remaining 1%.  Stables and his team have created a music processing software that is capable of recognizing, and tweaking, recordings of music to alter its emotional content.

"We put [pitch, rhythm, and texture] together into a higher level representation," Stables told a reporter for BBC.  "[Until now] computers represented music only as digital data. You might use your computer to play the Beach Boys, but a computer can't understand that there's a guitar or drums, it doesn't ever go surfing so it doesn't really know what that means, so it has no idea that it's the Beach Boys - it's just numbers, ones and zeroes...  We take computers… and we try and give them the capabilities to understand and process music in the way a human being would."

In practice, what this has meant is feeding in musical tracks to the program, along with descriptors such as "warm" or "dreamy" or "spiky."  The software then makes guesses from those tags about what features of music led to those descriptions -- what, for example, all of the tracks labeled "dreamy" have in common.  Just like a child learning to train his ears, the program becomes better and better at these guesses as it has more data.  Then once trained, the program can add those same effects to digital music recordings in post-production.

Note that like Cope's Emily Howell software, Stables is not claiming that his program can supersede music as performed by gifted human musicians.  "These are quite simple effects and would be very intuitive for the amateur musician," Stables said.  "There are similar commercially available technologies but they don't take a semantic input into account as this does."

Film composer Rael Jones, who has used Stables' software, concurs. "Plug-ins don't create a sound, they modify a sound; it is a small part of the process.  The crucial thing is the sound input -- for example you could never make a glockenspiel sound warm no matter how you processed it, and a very poorly recorded instrument cannot be fixed by using plug-ins post-recording.  But for some amateur musicians this could be an interesting educational tool to use as a starting point for exploring sound."

What I wonder, of course, is how long it will take before Cope, Stables, and others like them begin to combine forces and produce a truly creative piece of musical software, that is capable of composing and performing emotionally charged, technically brilliant music.  And at that point, will we have crossed a line into some fundamentally different realm, where creativity is no longer the sole purview of humanity?  You have to wonder how that will change our perception of art, music, beauty, emotion... and of ourselves.  When you talk to people about artificial intelligence, you often hear them say that of course computers could never be creative, that however good they are at other skills, creativity has an ineffable quality that will never be replicated in a machine.

I wonder if that's true.

I find the possibility tremendously exciting, and a little scary.  As a musician and a writer, who values creativity above most other human capacities, it's humbling to think that what I do might be replicable by something made out of circuits and relays.  But how astonishing it is to live in a time when we are getting the first glimpses of what is possible -- both for ourselves and for our creations.

Meet the "Crystal Children"

Last year I wrote a piece on the phenomenon of people labeling themselves or their kids "Indigo Children."  An "Indigo Child," it's said, is empathetic, sensitive, creative, and tends not to fit in well with regards to other people's expectations.  They are highly intelligent, and are especially gifted in areas that require thinking outside the box.

Oh, yeah.  They also have "indigo-colored auras."

So what we have here is yet another example of people trying to find an explanation and a label for something that really is best classified under the heading "People Are All Different."  Even, apparently, with respect to the color of their auras.

But "Indigo" is becoming passé, apparently.  As C. S. Lewis observed, "Fashions come and go... but mostly they go."  "Indigo Children" are now a dime a dozen.  So we have to move on to a new designation, an even more special kind of person.  One that shows up those silly Indigos for the bush-league posers that they are.

Now, we have "Crystal Children."

I'm not making this up.  In an opening passage that should win some kind of award for New Age Doublespeak, we read that the "empathetic and sensitive" Indigos better just step aside:

After discovering more about Indigo Children and the (often misunderstood) gifts that they possess, the question arose: now what?  The answer came in the form of the Crystal Children. 

The Crystal Children are the generation following the Indigo Children. Still thought to be relatively young, they have begun to be born from around 2000, though there is some speculation that they arrived earlier, around 1995.  Similar to their Indigo counterparts, these children are thought to be extremely powerful, with a main purpose to take humanity to the next level in our evolution and reveal to us our inner power and divinity.  Some things that make them unique from Indigo Children are that they function as a group consciousness rather than as individuals, and they live by the law that we are all one.  However, they are still are a powerful force for love and peace on the planet.

Yes, I have to say that when I read about the Indigo Children, my response was to shake my head and say, "Now what?"  But I don't think I meant it the same way.

And my goodness, those "Crystal Children!"  They're going to "take humanity to the next level in our evolution and reveal to us our inner power and divinity!"  Who could resist that?

We're then told the twenty-three ways to recognize a "Crystal Child," beginning with the first, that "Crystal Children" possess "large eyes with an intense stare."  I don't know about you, but that sounds vaguely terrifying to me.  If a large-eyed child was staring at me intensely, I wouldn't suspect that I was dealing with a child who was trying to "bring out my inner power and divinity," I would suspect that I was in an episode of The X Files and was about to have all of my blood removed via my eye sockets.

[image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons]

The rest of the ways that you tell if your kid is a "Crystal Child" are suspiciously like the rules for detecting "Indigo Children;" empathy, sensitivity, intelligence, creativity, and so on.  So once again this seems to me to be a way for gullible parents to find a way to feel better about having a child who might be experiencing trouble fitting in in school.  Not that this isn't an understandable goal; my younger son had a rough time in middle school, as many do, and it was a struggle sometimes as a parent to find ways to get him through the experience with his confidence and spirit intact.

But I'm just not convinced that making up a goofy label, and appending to it all sorts of pseudoscientific bosh, is the way to go about it.  Some good old-fashioned coping strategies are usually what's called for, not sticking a wacky name tag on your kid.  The latter, I'd think, would make it more likely the kid wouldn't fit in, especially if (s)he starts babbling to peers that they'd better be nice because you never know how a "Crystal Child" will react when provoked.

So that's our swim in the deep end for today.  I've got to wrap this up so I can go try and teach all of the various types of actual children out there.  I'll make sure to check out their auras.  That's bound to give me some valuable information about how to get them to understand science.

Stargates in my inbox

I get the weirdest emails sometimes.

I suppose it comes with the territory, given some of the stuff I blog about.  The problem is, not knowing anything about perhaps 80% of the people who email me with responses or comments, I often can't tell if the person was serious or not.

This leaves me in the awkward position of not being able to determine if an individual who has my email address is insane.  Take, for example, the email I got yesterday, from someone who signed it only as "A Devoted Reader:"

Dear Skeptophilia: 

Sometimes I like what you write but sometimes it just makes me mad.  Because I think you are determined not to see whats [sic] right under your nose.  I'm not calling it paranormal because that makes it sound made-up, infact [sic] it's science it's just science we humans don't know anything about.  That doesn't mean it's not real and there could be other civilizations that have that information and might be willing to share it with us if we would pull our heads out of the sand. 

Here are two websites that will hopefully make you think.  Keep an open mind when you read them and stop thinking that skeptic means a person who disbelieves everything and makes fun of what they don't understand. 

A Devoted Reader

The two websites turned out to be called "Saddam or Stargate?  What is Task Force 20's Main Objective?" and "2014 War for Men's Souls."   And I was going to say that these two websites read like a script for a movie on the Syfy channel, but that isn't entirely correct, because movies on the Syfy channel at least have to have some kind of plot.

Whereas these two websites make the random ravings of Alex Jones sound like a pinnacle of rationality.  Here are a couple of selections from "Saddam or Stargate?":

Imagine this scenario.  The U.S. government obtains intelligence that hidden somewhere in central Iraq is an actual stargate, placed there by the Anunnaki 'gods' of ancient Sumeria...  In this scenario, when Nibiru is closest to Earth, the Anunnaki will "take the opportunity to travel to Earth through that same stargate and will set up their encampment in Iraq." 

With time running out, President Bush invades Iraq.  American scientists raid the (Iraqi national) museum and close the stargate, thus frustrating the grandiose ambitions of the self-styled reincarnation of Nebuchadnezzar, Saddam Hussein, and making the world safe for the New World Order. 

Is this the sequel to the movie Stargate?  Is it a new episode of the TV series?  Is it a new Star Trek movie?  No, it is none of these.  According to Dr. Michael Salla, it is probably exactly what happened!

Probably exactly!  Spoken like a true scientist, Dr. Salla.  "We're probably almost kind of exactly sort of sure.  Maybe."

How do we know all of this for kind of definitely certain?  Our evidence includes seeing a soldier with wacky sunglasses in Baghdad:

As a U.S. soldier peered out of a passing tank, a young engineering student and a retired accountant contemplated one of the more common questions on the streets of Baghdad: Did the soldier's wraparound sunglasses give him X-ray vision? 

"With those sunglasses, he can definitely see through women's clothes," said the engineering student, Samer Hamid.  "It makes me angry. We are afraid to take our families out on the street."

So soldier with funny sunglasses = x-ray vision = being able to see what we look like naked = Saddam Hussein was in contact with aliens who gave him a magic stargate.

I can't see any flaw in the argument there, can you?

[image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons]

But that website reads like a treatise on formal logic when compared to the other one.  A brief passage will suffice:

Some orbs appear to be the manifestation of the human soul after we die; only visible to ultraviolet and infrared non-filtered cameras.  To days [sic] cameras pick them up because it is much cheaper to manufacture them without such filters.  This is why both UFOs (who the ancients said were “spirit” gods who could take human form-cloaked in the UV and IR) and ghosts can be captured by today’s technology, when not visible to the human eye.  The ancient Mesopotamia bible spoke of both spirits and the soul.  Nearly every ancient civilization makes reference to the soul; Egypt built a technological civilization around them.  They were quite obviously doing something with high voltage; Tesla coils and particle accelerators, to harness and launch the soul.  From the Zoroastrians, to Mesopotamia, even the Maya and pre-Columbians, all had this knowledge.

So there you are, then.  And I don't know about you, but having my soul launched by a particle accelerator seems like a cool idea.  I'd go for that as a sendoff when I die, except that I'd pretty much already decided that I want a Viking funeral.  Lay my body out on my canoe, set it on fire, and shove it out into my pond, and then all of my friends and family throw a huge party with lots of alcohol and music and debauchery.  More fun than your typical church funeral, don't you think?

But I digress.

I live in hope that the people who send me these emails aren't serious, but I fear that this one was.  It seemed awfully... sincere.  And to A Devoted Reader, a personal message:  I tried to keep my mind open, I honestly did.  But I still don't believe in stargates and Annunaki and spirit orbs and so on.  I'm not saying it wouldn't be cool if this stuff existed; hell, I'd love it if Bigfoot and aliens and so on were real.  But I'm just not seeing it.

So thanks for the emails, and do keep them coming, even though some of them make me a little worried that you people might know where I live.  Toward that end, allow me to mention, offhand and in-passing-like, that I recently moved to a small uncharted island off the coast of Mauritania.  The view is lovely, and it even has wifi.  Drop by to visit any time.

Facts about a non-epidemic

Having participated in raising two boys who presented nothing more than the usual challenges of parenting a couple of rambunctious and strong-willed kids, I cannot begin to imagine the difficulties faced by parents of an autistic child.

Friends of mine who have children with autism spectrum disorder have told me that the experience is not without its rewards, and I am certain that it is true.  But the obstacles that those children themselves face -- not least in the realm of acceptance by the outside world -- must present their parents with a formidable and exhausting task, and one for which I have nothing but the utmost respect.

Such a diagnosis often leaves parents searching for a cause as well as a treatment, and in such periods of emotional strain people will sometimes grasp at straws.  Thus the completely discredited Andrew Wakefield "study" pinning the cause of autism on routine vaccinations.  The truth is that medical researchers still have not identified a single clear cause for autism spectrum disorder; a genetic basis is strongly suspected, with perhaps a variety of epigenetic effects contributing, along with possible environmental triggers as well.

That, of course, is still not enough for some people, and the vaccine myth persists.  It has been debunked roundly by more authoritative individuals than myself, and a quick Google search will provide you with all of the reputable information you need (and scads of specious and fear-laden pseudoscience, as well).  I want to deal with a different facet of the misinformation here -- the idea that autism rates have skyrocketed in the past few decades.

That we are in the midst of an "autism epidemic."

Such claims are rampant, and bolster the (unsupported) conjecture that autism is caused solely by some toxin in our modern lifestyle (once again, the mercury-based preservative thimerosal in vaccines is often named, although its use was discontinued in the USA and EU in 2003).  Take, for example, this article by Dan Olmstead, that not only refers to autism as an "epidemic," but claims that the "medico-industrial complex" is trying to hush the fact up.

The first problem is, Olmstead is trying to support his point using information that simply isn't true.  He claims, for example, that the first children with autism were identified in 1943, even though Houston and Frith's book Autism in History makes an excellent case that one Hugh Blair of Borgue, Scotland exhibited all of the classic symptoms of autism spectrum disorder -- way back in 1747.

But the difficulties run deeper than that.  If Olmstead and (many) others are correct, then there is not only a correlation between vaccination and other environmental toxins in the industrial west, there's also a causative link.

And a study just published in Psychological Medicine demonstrates conclusively that there isn't even a correlation.

This paper does an exhaustive analysis of the data, worldwide, of the incidence of autism in the last twenty years.  And not only does it indicate that the rates of autism haven't changed appreciably in the last twenty years -- pretty curious if it's an "epidemic" -- the incidence of autism in sub-Saharan Africa (30.0 affected children per 100,000), where very few children are vaccinated, is actually higher than that for western Europe (24.8 affected children per 100,000), where almost all children are immunized.

Kind of blows a hole in the idea of a human-induced autism epidemic being suppressed by the evil medico-industrial complex and "Big Pharma."  The authors of the study, of course, put it in more measured terms, stating, "After accounting for methodological variations, there was no clear evidence of a change in prevalence for autistic disorder or other ASDs between 1990 and 2010.  Worldwide, there was little regional variation in the prevalence of ASDs."

And if you add that to a further study that found that in places where rates of autism diagnosis have risen, diagnosis of mental retardation has fallen, the situation becomes even clearer.  Consider this graph, developed by from United States Department of Education data:

[after Shattuck et al.]

It is evident that in times past autistic children were lumped in with those who suffered from other developmental disorders -- those unfortunates who were labeled in the US Census starting in 1850 as "idiots, imbeciles, deaf & dumb, blind, or insane" and who were often institutionalized in conditions so horrible that they defy belief.

In taking issue with the people who are publicizing false information about an "autism epidemic," I am in no way trying to minimize the struggles that autistic children and their parents go through, nor am I unsympathetic with their desire to understand the cause.  But no one -- least of all the children with ASD -- are helped in any way by fear-mongering, alarmism, and conspiracy theories.

As with anything: we are always best off knowing the facts, even if those facts still leave us in a state of ignorance regarding ultimate causes.  Recent advances in identifying the genetic underpinning of autism and related disorders leave me hopeful that we may soon have answers; in the meantime, what we need is compassion and understanding for ASD children and their caregivers, and some caution about promoting spurious and unscientific theories about the disorder's origins.