3 ms·

Pretty irresponsible to mention "increased risk" without saying what that risk is, nor what the increase actually is. The article makes it perfectly clear what

Pretty irresponsible to mention "increased risk" without saying what that risk is, nor what the increase actually is. The article makes it perfectly clear what the risk is, how much the increase is, and with what factors it is associated; and what the researchers caveats were about their own findings. The poster you were slamming wasn't spreading FUD or hyperbolizing; he was just simplifying. It's pretty irresponsible (and obnoxious) of you to suggest otherwise.

DanBC 11y ago
> The article makes it perfectly clear what the risk is, how much the increase is, Maybe I'm missing it, but from that article: what's the base rate, what's the rate if a woman takes SSRIs, and what's the increase? (And here rates are provided in X per 100,000)
- kafkaesq 11y ago
  (And here rates are provided in X per 100,000) I'm not playing this game with you. Obviously, the information wouldn't expressed that way in the WP article. You may recall that they're a newspaper, not a scholarly journal. So you know perfectly well that it wouldn't have expressed the information in those terms. The article does mention exactly what the increase is. As to the base rate, the WP article doesn't use that exact term -- but they do give hard numbers for the sample sizes involved, and took care to point out that the smallness of the proportion of infants who developed autism (with or without taking SSRIs) was one of the factors that led the researchers to point out that their findings should be taken with caution. If you want more data and specifics, read the JAMA article. If you think the researchers themselves made some basic flaw in their statistical reasoning -- and, correspondingly, you'd like to bring their reputations and their future funding channels into question -- then the burden of proof lies on you to show it. And I'm sure JAMA Pediatrics would be very interested in getting an email from you. But if you're going to fault the WP article for not conveying every facet of detail from the research article, in as many digits of precision -- even though its overall presentation was basically fair, and on point to the level of detail that would be meaningful to its readers -- then you're basically playing head games.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    You start by saying they give all the details. Now you say that it didn't give the information. Do you at least agree that the article doesn't explain what the quoted 87% increase means in a way the readership is going to understand? Can you explain what that 87% increase means? The article had almost no relevance to this thread; it was dumped here as yet more pill-shaming bollocks; it targets a group who already have to put up with a lot of bullshit; and it's disappointing to see that kind of behaviour defended. The original study is irresponsibly presented and poorly reported and I have no problem pointing that out.
    - kafkaesq 11y ago
      You start by saying they give all the details. That's not what I said. It's basically the opposite of what I said. In my initial response to you, what I was basically saying was that the article presented the key upshot of the researchers' findings, without echoing all the details. That is, it wasn't anything like the FUD piece you were making it out to be. Do you at least agree that the article doesn't explain what the quoted 87% increase means in a way the readership is going to understand? No. It's very clear, from my reading. I'll agree that not every reader is going to understand it, but anyone with say, median freshman-level skills in reading comprehension ought to be able to understand it. Can you explain what that 87% increase means? Yes. But I'm not going to do it for you. The article had almost no relevance to this thread; it was dumped here as yet more pill-shaming bollocks; It's fine if you want to think that. Doesn't seem relevant to what I was saying, though.

DanBC 11y ago

> The article makes it perfectly clear what the risk is, how much the increase is, Maybe I'm missing it, but from that article: what's the base rate, what's the rate if a woman takes SSRIs, and what's the increase? (And here rates are provided in X per 100,000)

kafkaesq 11y ago
(And here rates are provided in X per 100,000) I'm not playing this game with you. Obviously, the information wouldn't expressed that way in the WP article. You may recall that they're a newspaper, not a scholarly journal. So you know perfectly well that it wouldn't have expressed the information in those terms. The article does mention exactly what the increase is. As to the base rate, the WP article doesn't use that exact term -- but they do give hard numbers for the sample sizes involved, and took care to point out that the smallness of the proportion of infants who developed autism (with or without taking SSRIs) was one of the factors that led the researchers to point out that their findings should be taken with caution. If you want more data and specifics, read the JAMA article. If you think the researchers themselves made some basic flaw in their statistical reasoning -- and, correspondingly, you'd like to bring their reputations and their future funding channels into question -- then the burden of proof lies on you to show it. And I'm sure JAMA Pediatrics would be very interested in getting an email from you. But if you're going to fault the WP article for not conveying every facet of detail from the research article, in as many digits of precision -- even though its overall presentation was basically fair, and on point to the level of detail that would be meaningful to its readers -- then you're basically playing head games.
- DanBC 11y ago
  You start by saying they give all the details. Now you say that it didn't give the information. Do you at least agree that the article doesn't explain what the quoted 87% increase means in a way the readership is going to understand? Can you explain what that 87% increase means? The article had almost no relevance to this thread; it was dumped here as yet more pill-shaming bollocks; it targets a group who already have to put up with a lot of bullshit; and it's disappointing to see that kind of behaviour defended. The original study is irresponsibly presented and poorly reported and I have no problem pointing that out.
  - kafkaesq 11y ago
    You start by saying they give all the details. That's not what I said. It's basically the opposite of what I said. In my initial response to you, what I was basically saying was that the article presented the key upshot of the researchers' findings, without echoing all the details. That is, it wasn't anything like the FUD piece you were making it out to be. Do you at least agree that the article doesn't explain what the quoted 87% increase means in a way the readership is going to understand? No. It's very clear, from my reading. I'll agree that not every reader is going to understand it, but anyone with say, median freshman-level skills in reading comprehension ought to be able to understand it. Can you explain what that 87% increase means? Yes. But I'm not going to do it for you. The article had almost no relevance to this thread; it was dumped here as yet more pill-shaming bollocks; It's fine if you want to think that. Doesn't seem relevant to what I was saying, though.