3 ms·
The correlation is perhaps not the smoking gun OP thinks but your analysis seems to be based on the assumption there is no time lag in the population of childre
by svnt 3y ago
The correlation is perhaps not the smoking gun OP thinks but your analysis seems to be based on the assumption there is no time lag in the population of children 6-21 with autism and glyphosate use on grains.
The most obvious one would be a six year lag. But it might have variance depending on crop cycles and whether glyphosate is handed off through the placenta and/or mother’s milk, and depending on the proposed mechanism of action and weaning age.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> The correlation is perhaps not the smoking gun OP thinks but your analysis seems to be based on the assumption there is no time lag in the population of children 6-21 with autism and glyphosate use on grains. No, if there was just a time lag, than the variations would still be reflected, but with a time lag.
- svnt 3y agoThere is variation in the data that could be reflective of that time lag. If the population had no awareness of the effect and no ability to observe the impact of grain consumption on their children, then maybe it would proceed like some chemical process. But the population can learn and change behavior. My point is that your dismissal, in the way you framed it, is possibly just as much a random walk as the correlation in the way it is presented. Neither is conclusive.