6 ms·
Ignoring the window dressing about the health risks of extreme low-fat diets (which are real, and there's plenty of better writeups on them) this is an article
by mechanical_fish 18y ago
Ignoring the window dressing about the health risks of extreme low-fat diets (which are real, and there's plenty of better writeups on them) this is an article about Vitamin D. And the question you have to ask when you see an article like this is: What's the groundwork-to-hysteria ratio? I see plenty of hysteria here, but no data. There's one cited reference to the scientific literature... but it's on a different subject.
There's nothing wrong with hypothesizing that (a) modern medical practices are leading to deficiencies in Vitamin D among certain populations and (b) Vitamin D deficiency is linked to autism. But the responsible next step is to get some good data, or at least link to some. It's not to write stuff like this:
Since the 1970's, our country has witnessed a 3000% increase in the sales of sunscreen products, alongside a 30% increase in deaths from melanoma[17]. Isn't it time to admit that sunscreen is not working?
This is a telling paragraph. It tells me that the author is prone to making mistakes straight out of Darrell Huff's How to Lie With Statistics: Clock A strikes midnight a few seconds before clock B; isn't it time to admit that A caused B to strike?
Autism seems to be one of those issues that really inspires the quack epidemiologist. When you combine it with the opportunity to lecture new mothers -- our culture's favorite vice -- the temptation becomes irresistable. But it's worth remembering that actual epidemiology is really hard. Diagnosing autism without bias is hard. Randomly sampling the population for autism is even harder. Even something relatively simple, like measuring Vitamin D levels in the blood, is tedious and expensive and difficult to do without bias. But just because anecdotes and handwaving are much easier doesn't make them more believable.
- kingkongrevenge 18y ago> How to Lie With Statistics There is no fallacy in the statement you've focused on. I'm a bit confused. Sunscreen is sold and used to prevent cancer. There's no evidence it has, and sound reasons to suggest sunscreen has contributed to cancer. That's all it's saying. > Diagnosing autism without bias is hard. Are you suggesting the autism epidemic is a product of better diagnosis? If so, where are all the autistic 50 year olds?
- kurtosis 18y agoThis is weak evidence. I would be more convinced by a controlled experiment. Do a study where two demographically equivalent groups are given equal sun exposures one with sunscreen the other without, and then compare their rates of melanoma. The author doesn't have data on sun exposure or evidence that the sunscreen sold is actually used, etc. etc.
- aasarava 18y agoThe problem is that the author assumes that the increasing rate of cancer is due to ineffective sunscreen. But there are many other possible causes: For one, the use of sunscreen may give people a false sense of security, leading them to stay out in the sun longer than they would without sunscreen. Also possible is that advances in healthcare are allowing people to live much longer on average, which in turn has affected statistics as cancer becomes a larger problem to deal with among the elderly.
- kingkongrevenge 18y ago> there are many other possible causes Circumstantial evidence is court admissible.
- StrawberryFrog 18y agoSo? Circumstantial evidence may be admissible in court, but particularly in science, it is not sufficient.
- euccastro 18y agoAnother possibility is that the rise in melanoma and the increase in sunscreen use are caused by the damage to the ozone layer and the corresponding social alarm, respectively. We have mostly forgotten about the ozone layer, but it was a hot topic not so long ago. OTOH, some 10 years ago, some sunscreen makes were forbidden (at least in Spain) because a component in them (I can't recall the name) had been proven to cause melanoma.
- boredguy8 18y ago