Assuming the data is true (doubt it because of fucking beef jerky man), it's not so much that autism is on the rise so much that autism rates are being diagnosed more and autism is less stigmatized than it was previously.

Autism diagnosis rates. Quite a difference.

taps the chart

I remember when my mum was filling out a form as part of the autism assessment, she was like "sounds a lot like my husband as well... And his dad"

The source is "I made it the fuck up!"

Also ignoring improvements in diagnostics.

Cool but

Number of unvaxxed kids also growing in the past 22 years. I think it proves that autism is caused by lack of vaccine.

Not autism rates, detection rates is what's up, more kids are growing up with adequate helps and therapies so they can grow to be functional adults.

Well the cure is clearly to stop testing.

In other news, visibility bias has been classified as communist propaganda. Anyone who says this isn't representative of an actual increase in the incidence rate is a communist and can safely be ignored.

That line of best fit doesn't even match the data. How can it start above the data and then finish above the data but still be line of best fit. Not that that's the only problem with this graph of course.

Will this administration release data on the impact of fossil emissions on diseases like asthma?

Now show the testing rate over the same time period!

In my country there has been a huge increase in both ADHD and autism diagnoses the last decades. At the same time in those years the methods to discover both diagnoses have improved greatly.
But you know, correlation does not equal causation..

you know, everest was still there before it was discovered.

1. Autism is a spectrum., same as gender ideology. Whether you like it or not, it's true.
2. We're better at diagnosis
3. Preconceived notions about such things aren't as prevalent, until recently for political reasons

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

This graph will live forever, in intro classes, as an example of how not to do things.

Didn't we used to hide it?

Can somebody smarter than me tell me what this is trying to say? There’s a bar for surveillance year and birth year. But, for instance, 2012 is on the graph twice with different values. What does it mean?

Edit:

I think I got it. The graph is of “Autism rates in 8 year olds over time”. And the X axis should just be year (in 2 year increments).

10 out of a 1000 to 30ish out of a 1000 doesn’t even seem like a massive increase, especially if it’s really due to something like a pain medication that is taken by a huge population. Which it’s not as it’s more related to improvements in diagnosing.

I guess they are just hoping people see bar go up and therefore bad.

prevalence of cancer has increased ∞% since 0 BC

There is an 𝑥 axis and it's not too hard to comprehend, although I'd prefer the dividing character to be newline rather than "|", or only show the surveillance year.

Also, the "trendline" is sus, an actual trendline cannot always be above data.

It looks nepotism put a failson in charge of this graph.

When people say autism they think of the nonverbal kind not the model train kind.