4 ms·
Why is that more convincing? Since people can move around, and your exposure levels during pregnancy won't necessarily line up with the environment the child li
by Bjartr 8y ago
Why is that more convincing? Since people can move around, and your exposure levels during pregnancy won't necessarily line up with the environment the child lives in (and thus informs the rate of autism statistic), I would expect this serum assay to be a more convincing measure. Am I missing something?
- alexandercrohde 8y agoWhat you're missing is that most chemical damage to infants is done in-utero, at their most vulnerable time (why you don't drink when pregnant).
- Bjartr 8y agoNo, I explicitly accounted for that, which is why I mentioned that measuring the rate of autism (which is measured as the number of people diagnosed with autism in a region) might not line up with exposure during pregnancy (which could have occurred in a different region entirely, especially if the autism diagnosis lags behind the birth)
- alexandercrohde 8y agoWhat are you talking about? Region and location has nothing to do with this study. They took the serum of the pregnant mother, measured that for the pesticide, and found it was a statistically significant predictor of autism.
- nerdponx 8y agoThe whole thread is responding to my suggestion that you ought to also find a geographical relationship between DDT application and autism.
- alexandercrohde 8y agoOh, shit, you're right. I didn't read your part not-in-italics. Well, I suck. I was rude and incorrect. Thank you for taking the time to keep me humble.
- nerdponx 8y agoPeople don't move around that much, especially not in the first few years of their life.
- codyb 8y agoPerhaps you could discount the results based on county or state migration records? Although it seems plausible some families might move to places with better care which might affect how you weight your values.