Autism Figures – Existing Studies Show Shocking Real Increase Since 1988

In case you come up against the argument that the increase in autistic cases is only because the diagnostic criteria were broadened in the early 1990′s [in DSM IV] here is information published in the Journal of the Israeli Medical Association which you can use to show a benchmark was established for the position pre 1989 using the very same modern criteria claimed by some diehards to be solely responsible for  the increase: Time Trends In Autism IMAJ Nov 2010:12,711. 

The particularly shocking aspect is that the Paternal Age paper cited below shows that conditions like Asperger’s syndrome practically did not exist pre 1989 such that predominantly all the cases were of autism.  It has pretty much sprung from nowhere to be the front runner.

QUICK SUMMARY:

Baird UK – 1 in 86CHILDREN [figures for 2006 - children born two year period 1995-6]

Baron Cohen UK – 1 in 64CHILDREN when yet to be diagnosed are accounted for [figures for schoolchildren 2005]

Reichenberg, Israel – 1 in 1190CHILDREN with childhood autism and next to no Asperger cases [figures in 2005 - for 17 year old conscripts for Israeli military all born in 6 year period ending 1988].

Brugha UK – 1 in 100ADULTS [figures collected in 2007]

[The latter is not a particularly inspiring piece of work.  Brugha did not find a single adult with childhood autism, nor did he refer to Baird or Baron Cohen but baldly claimed for comparison a childhood figure of 1 in 100, and he changed the standard diagnostic criteria to catch adults who would not normally have a diagnosis.  Of the 14,000 potential participants there was a 50% drop out rate with 7000 responding to the original telephone survey.  The survey looked for adults with one of four mental illnesses.  The only autistic condition was Asperger syndrome but Brugha et al now claim to be able to give a global figure for all autistic conditions which is of course impossible.  Whilst having research ethics approval the study was not carried out according to accepted ethical standards.  Informed consent was not obtained.  Participants were misled as to the purpose of the survey.  They were not told they were being assessed to ascertain if they were mentally ill.  A financial inducement to take part of a shopping voucher was offered - aside from ethical issues that would tend to encourage those of lower incomes to participate and invalidate the study.  Mentally ill people are more likely to be of lower income if their ability to earn a living is impaired.]

_________________________

And of course one must not forget the information found in this CHS post Vaccination Causes Autism – Say US Government & Merck’s Director of Vaccines Posted on June 30, 2010. 

And especially not this information in this PDF Download – Text of May 5th 2008 email from US HRSA to Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News].  In it the US Health Resources Services Administration [HRSA] state to CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson

We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.

Nor should the information in this CHS post be overlooked: Autism Increase Environmental Not Genetic – Says New Director of USA’s $30.5 Billion Health Research Budget

People who use the argument that there is no real increase in autism start out usually by using incorrect terminology.  They speak of “higher functioning autism” like Asperger syndrome.  It is a common mistake [or done deliberately].

“Autism” refers to what is known variously as “typical”, “Kanner”, “childhood” “classic” or “infantile” autism and that is the benchmark. Not the “higher functioning” kind others try to lump in with it like Asperger’s Syndrome. Autism makes up around 30% of UK autistic spectrum cases and Aspergers around 70%.

So if you stick to autism the paper Reichenberg et al “Advancing Paternal Age and Autism” Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006;63:1026-1032 helpfully demonstrates this.  It shows real increases in autism by establishing a benchmark for comparing mid 1980’s autism prevalence with mid 1990’s. This was done using contemporary diagnostic criteria under DSM IV. So that helpfully eliminates the argument that modern criteria are wider and so the increase is not simply a matter of definition but real.

The Paternal Age study’s PDD prevalence is 8.4:10,000 in 132,000 Israeli citizens born during six years ending no later than 1988. The authors say most of the diagnoses are autism.  “PDD”or “Pervasive Developmental Disorder” under DSM IV is another term for Autistic Spectrum Disorder under the International Classification of Disease [ICD].

And we can compare that prevalence to papers like Baird 2006 [Baird G, Simonoff E, Pickles A, Chandler S, Loucas T, Meldrum D, Charman T. Prevalence of disorders of the autism spectrum in a population cohort of children in South Thames: the Special Needs and Autism Project (SNAP). Lancet. 2006:15;368:210-215.]

Baird 2006’s range of figures concern 56,946 UK children aged 9-10 years born in a two year period ending no later than 1996 and for autism provides two estimates:-

  • - 24.8:10,000 (17.6-32.0) for narrow definition autism
  • - 38.9:10,000 (95% CI 29.9-47.8) for autism

Baird 2006 provides estimates of a 116.1:10,000 (90.4-141.8) for the total PDD figure [autism, Aspergers etc] and 77.2:10,000 (52.1-102.3) excluding autism.

Baird 2006’s narrow definition figure is the most conservative. It meets autism criteria under DSM IV/ICD10, but also on both ADI and ADOS plus clinical judgement.

These two papers in combination assist to establish a conservative minimum 300% increase in 8 years 1988 to 1996 on Baird 2006’s narrow definition and 450% for autism. For all PDDs, these papers suggest a 1200% increase. Baird 2006 provides estimates of a 116.1:10,000 (90.4-141.8) total PDD figure and 77.2:10,000 (52.1-102.3) excluding autism against the Paternal Age paper’s figures.

Also the Reichenberg paper demonstrates how modern medical professionals go to peripheral issues thereby burying the bigger issue.  The authors focussed on just 3% of fathers in their study [diverting from the more interesting finding noted above] to claim on somewhat shaky data that fathers over 40 are more likely to father an autisitic child. The confidence interval was wide [95% confidence interval, 2.65-12.46]

The problem for them is that these numbers cannot account for the scale of the increase in children born after 1988 which is what papers like Baird 2006 deal with. And it also cannot account for the Cambridge University study that found a rate of 1:64 for all autistic spectrum cases [157 per 10 000] when yet to be undiagnosed cases were included.  This means 1 in 40 boys as 4 in 5 ASC cases are boys.  Baron-Cohen S et al Prevalence of autism-spectrum conditions: UK school-based population study. Br J Psychiatry. 2009 Jun;194(6):500-9.

About these ads

21 Responses

  1. All the so called experts, want to manipulate the numbers, cloud the contirbuting factors, and blast those researchers that call them out on it. The cause of autism is directly linked to one single factor and no funding can be secured to bring this discovery forward. Treatment and diagnosis are where the meg-bucks are, in this situation, and will dominate the research for many, many years to come.

  2. [...] See original here: Autism Figures – Existing Studies Show Shocking Real Increase … [...]

  3. I’m sorry but you’re markedly in error.

    You quote Reichenberg et al’s Israeli study from the Archives of General Psychiatry to “set a benchmark”, which you then compare to Baird’s UK figures.

    Yes both use DSM IV. But the genetic and environmental differences in two races/nations present challenges to your theory.

    No offence but you can’t just make up relationships between unrelated data sets without correcting for other variables. You need to show statistically why the individual sets relate to your argument. This is a common flaw. Genetics, environment, parental education and rearing techniques… etc.

    Still, let’s go with it. 8.4:10,000 or 0.84 per 1000.

    Then Baird’s UK figures of 116.1:10,000 or 11.6 per 1000.

    From this you argue a 1200% increase insinuating vaccination. Yet Baird had written.

    “Whether the increase is due to better ascertainment, broadening diagnostic criteria, or increased incidence is unclear.”

    Thus, you make conclusions from Baird’s work that even he did not. I shall argue you selected the lone Israeli paper for it’s dramatic impact.

    Now onto research that seeks to determine if any increase at all has occurred.

    We can stay in the UK eliminating the genetic and environmental confounding variables of Israel data. Let’s examine adults using the same diagnostic criteria.

    Epidemiology of Autism Spectrum Disorders in Adults in the Community in England – Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011;68(5):459-465. doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.38

    We find 9.8 per 1000 (95% confidence interval, 3.0-16.5).

    The author’s write:

    “The prevalence of ASD in this population is similar to that found in children. The lack of an association with age is consistent with there having been no increase in prevalence and with its causes being temporally constant.”

    It’s documented by Baird that younger children – indeed younger subjects often have a higher score in diagnosis. Using this reality we expect to see significant decreases in adults. But we have Baird’s 11.6 and Brugha’s 9.8 per 1000.

    Given the approximation of these figures using today’s diagnostic criteria and the huge age difference one may assume autism is falling as we’d expect to see a much lower rate in adults.

    More so, in 2003 Baird himself writes in Diagnosis of autism – BMJ;

    “… several factors account for the increase–for example, changing conceptualisation to a spectrum rather than a core categorical condition; changes in diagnostic methods; …”

    That’s probably enough. Although consider:

    1 in 150 (1988-1995; Bertrand et al., 2001)
    1 in 175 (1990-1991; Baird et al., 2000)
    1 in 85 (1990-1991; Baird et al., 2006)
    1 in 150 (1992; ADDMN, 2007)
    1 in 160 (1992-1995; Chakrabarti & Fombonne, 2001)
    1 in 150 (1994; ADDMN, 2007)
    1 in 58 (1993-1997; not published)
    1 in 170 (1996-1998; Chakrabarti & Fombonne, 2005)

    – which is markedly inconsistent with the myth of an epidemic. it is consistent with methodology. Selecting data to suit your argument will not change reality.

    I apologise for having such fun with your bag of errors. It was an appalling reply and a ridiculous blog post however.

    The above post is very plain in showing that you’re inventing a phenomena not supported by research nor even by Baird himself.

    Autism rates have not changed. Diagnosis has. A decrease is most likely.

    Thank you.

  4. Your comment in blue above:

    We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.

    … is meaningless. I stressed this in another comment but you couldn’t answer. Let me be quite plain.

    Compensation for encephalopathy or general brain disease is due to vaccination. It may be accompanied by…. autism. It may also be accompanied by blue eyes, blonde hair or bad breath. None of these are due to vaccination.

    This comment is one of many that stress compensation for vaccine induced autism has never occurred. Even Poling had a predetermining mitochondrial disorder.

    As I stressed elsewhere. Only reading something like; “This child was compensated due to autism developing directly as a result of vaccination”, will sustain the allusion above.

    As I said elsewhere, defeating your ability to reply – Even the recent Pace Law school student foray into 21 VCIP cases and over 60 biased phone call interviews offered “it strongly suggests” a link. (Quoting Danielle Orsino media rep).

    That paper is “Unanswered Questions from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A review of compensated cases of vaccine induced brain injury”. But as Orsino says, there’s a “suggestion”. period.

    You contention is demonstrably flawed on many levels.

    Thank you.

  5. Paul Gallagher @ 2011/08/20 at 2:01 am

    I’m sorry but you’re markedly in error.

    Really? In an earlier comment elsewhere you drew our attention to the letter in the peer reviewed Journal of the Israeli Medical Association which draws attention to the figures from the Paternal Age paper. Thanks for that. We did not know and have added a reference to this article so it now can draw on authority of a peer reviewed journal.

    You seem not to be able to agree with any medical experts. That’s fine. We are letting you let off steam here.

  6. Paul Gallagher @ 2011/08/20 at 3:02 am

    “Your comment in blue above:

    We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.

    … is meaningless.”

    Oh dear. You just cannot trust governments can you? The US Health Resources Services Administration give a quote to a journalist of a national TV news broadcast network confirming the US government has compensated cases of children who developed autistic conditions from vaccines and paid out lots and lots of dollars to them and it turns out to be meaningless.

    LOL. Back to the drawing board for everyone.

  7. I think you have seen the flaw. That comment is all over the place here. Yep – meaningless.

    “Autistic conditions” are not vaccine induced autism. You’re at least changing language – the first step in accepting facts.

    Sadly, there’s no LOL. I’m glad you think it’s funny. One in 1 million children suffer encephalitis from vaccine reactions. They are compensated as is just. Many have autism. The comment is debunking the very untruth you seek to make.

    “…. may be accompanied by an array of symptoms”.

    Until you can produce “compensated because of their autism”, you have no case.

    The facts and government positions are against you. Global research is against you. From ethyl mercury to vaccines to numbers of vaccines no link can be shown.

    Accept it.

    Thanks again.

  8. Paul Gallagher @2011/08/20 at 10:28 am

    LOL, Rant on Paul.

    We are content to rely on a peer reviewed journal. Thanks for drawing our attention to it – so we could add the link to the article.

    You might as well let everyone know you are a friend of Peter Bowditch and the “skeptics” crowd who are happy to victimise and attack people personally on the web, spread misinformation lose legal actions and then claim they have not. Similarly Terry Polevoy – Terry Polevoy vs Ilena Rosenthal.

    Birds of a feather flock together. What a lot of flockers.

  9. I thought this was about debating and/or defending the premise of your post?

    I think given the tone and lack of substance of your replies, it’s clear I’ve upset your apple cart here.

    Again I ask that you refute my sources. Eg; Baird 11.6/1000 in 2006 followed by Brugha 10/1000 in 2007 shows a 13.7% decrease in just one year.

    Why can’t you address this simple reality? The above reply is most unbecomming.

    Yes I know of Peter and enjoy the skeptic community. So, you clicked a link to my site. Welcome. I’m ignorant as to the case you refer to or Polevoy. I do know Peter posts everything on his site so is unlikely to spread misinformation.

    Either way I could be head of GSK yet I still have a valid argument you avoid. No laughing matter. Autism is decreasing if we involve your figure from Baird.

    Also, go back to my original comment. You have much work to do. Don’t feel embarrassed – science is all about being proven wrong. No need to turn aggressively defensive. I’m not judgmental.

    I await your reply with eagerness.

    All the best now.

  10. Paul Gallagher @ August 21, 2011 at 2:04 am

    Again I ask that you refute my sources. Eg; Baird 11.6/1000 in 2006 followed by Brugha 10/1000 in 2007 shows a 13.7% decrease in just one year.

    Shame you have not read either paper or maybe you have and you know you are talking rubbish. Comparing chalk and cheese just like your mates Bowditch and Polevoy to lie about the facts.

    Baird was dealing with children. Brugha was dealing with adults. So you are saying the same children Baird covered became adults in one year and 13.7% of them simultaneously were cured.

    LOL. Nice one.

    Pretty good refutation we think. But then that is just the style of Bowditch, Polevoy and friends.

  11. I may have been generous with my stats. It’s a 13.79% decrease.

    My bad… apologies.

    Pretty much a 14% decrease in autism in the same nation in one year.

    Geographic location is a plus. Age is a plus. Criteria is a plus. The 3 variables effecting frequency of autism.

    You still need to address your “theory” using Israeli data to compare to a different location & age group.

    All the best.

  12. Brougha was dealing with adults vs children and cites a 10/1000 rate for children.

    Sorry for your confusion.

  13. To Paul Gallagher @ 2011/08/21 at 2:22 am

    We already replied to your post on a different article. Trolling around a bit Paul.

    childhealthsafety, on August 20, 2011 at 9:00 am said:

    Paul Gallagher @ 2011/08/20 at 1:57 am

    Paul – it is difficult engaging in debate with an opponent who is unencumbered by facts. This is all just arguments with no substance behind it. Amateur skeptic hour – no science no fact.

    But the genetic and environmental differences in two races/nations present challenges to your theory.

    There is no theory. There is data and information. That’s fine. And really, what are these genetic differences that you theorise make a difference? That is just desktop hypothesis. Argument with no substance.

    As long as we are clear that the experts are happy to generalise from Israel to the rest of the world and do not see these fantastic genetic differences you do. You are out on your own on that one – busily sawing off the branch of argument you are sitting on.

    The US CDC carries out studies all the time like on Danish children [Madsen] or Italian children [Tozzi] and others all the time and uses them to generalise to populations around the world. Sorry but invented differences for the purposes of argument do not wash.

    The authors of the Paternal Age paper Reichenberg et al [New York, NY USA] also thought they could look at an Israeli population and generalise that to the rest of the world. So all of these experts do not seem to have the problem you have.

    This is like the tosh argument about the Amish in the USA – where the same fantastic argument is used to claim there is no point comparing them to the rest of the USA. And that argument is bunk too:-

    “The University of Maryland has been conducting clinical trials on the Amish population for nearly 15 years. The research has netted information on diabetes, osteoporosis, heart disease and more.” …… “Ultimately, the Amish people are interesting not because they’re different from us. They are us, ” said Dr. D. Holmes Morton.”The genetic problems that are studied here are just genetic problems that came from Europe 300 years ago,” Morton said, whose Clinic for Special Children in nearby Strasburg has treated Amish children with rare genetic disorders for two decades.”

    Of trust and science By Stephanie Desmon Baltimore Sun April 5, 2009

    Funny thing but Israeli children are so different genetically that they don’t get the same diseases as children elsewhere in the world. They don’t get measles or mumps or rubella. They have three eyes and nine legs with green seaweed instead of hair – yes, a completely different species. Oh, perhaps you mean they are genetically different like Orang Utans – extremely close genetically to humans but not the same? Not only are Israeli children human, most Israeli children are of European descent – don’t you know the history of Israel? It is a new country since 1945 from European emigration.

    Yes, Israeli children are so different that they develop classic autism but not Aspergers Syndrome. That is an interesting one. Strange that Reichenberg et al did not pick up on it.

    You quote Baird but give her a sex change showing you have not even properly looked at her paper. And the quote you give is out of context. “Whether the increase is due to better ascertainment, broadening diagnostic criteria, or increased incidence is unclear.” She is referring to the overall results – covering classic autism, Aspergers et al.

    To eliminate the argument that there has been a broadening of criteria all that is necessary is to focus on classic autism. But the fact the same diagnostic criteria are used, this is a draft board looking at conscripts well after “better ascertainment” has been established eliminates that along with broadening of criteria. The same criteria are being used. So in fact the almost total absence of Asperger cases pre 1989 from Israel is fascinating.

    But that does not prevent you posting on and on and on and droning on and on and on.

  14. Paul Gallagher @2011/08/21 at 2:25 am.

    Brougha was dealing with adults vs children and cites a 10/1000 rate for children.

    Brugha did not cover children – only adults. Read the “Autism Spectrum Disorders in adults living in households throughout England – Report from the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey 2007” The NHS Information Centre. That is where the data came from. It is all adults.

    And Brugha did not refer to Baird’s figures. Nor did he refer to the Cambridge University Autism Research Centre study which found a rate of 1 in 64. Bit of a oversight that by Brugha. A measure of how little rigour was applied in his study. He picked people using a telephone survey – so missing out all the alleged adults with childhood autism. Another bit of an oversight that.

    So Paul, you are still doing the misinformation job that Bowditch, Polevoy et al engage in.

  15. Todays frequency is 1 in 100 to 160. So Paul has thrown down a challenge. Why not answer it….? Google: “Autism epidemic? More likely we’re just better at diagnosis”. Don’t hide behind name calling. Answer the question.

    [ED: You can't even get the numbers right.

    It's Tuesday so it must be 1 in 142. You Bowditch fans make it up as you go along to spread disinformation.

    It cannot be 1 in 100 to 1 in 160. Its one or the other.

    Baird - 1 in 86 - CHILDREN
    Baron Cohen - 1 in 64 CHILDREN when yet to be diagnosed are accounted for

    Reichenberg - 1 in 1190 CHILDREN in 1988 with childhood autism and next to no Asperger cases.

    Brugha - 1 in 100 ADULTS

    And he did not find a single adult with childhood autism.

    LOL.

    You are doing just what Peter Bowditch and his playmates do - go round trolling the internet making stuff up to spread disinformation and attacking people personally. If you don't like it don't do it yourself and don't mix with people who do. And don't come here making ridiculous demands chucking all your toys out of the pram when you don't get your own way. We have no time for all that kind of nonsense]

  16. Oh Paul, thanks again for all your help 1) telling us about the letter in the Journal of the Israeli Medical Association and 2) for Brugha.

    All now neatly plugged into the article. Well done. Are you sure you are an asset to Bowditch et al?

  17. In response to the above debate I was interested to see one presumed skeptik undermining the arguments and evidence of other skeptiks.

    The gist of Paul Gallagher’s argument was

    “Yes both use DSM IV. But the genetic and environmental differences in two races/nations present challenges to your theory.

    No offence but you can’t just make up relationships between unrelated data sets without correcting for other variables. You need to show statistically why the individual sets relate to your argument. This is a common flaw. Genetics, environment, parental education and rearing techniques… etc. ”

    In the recent review of MMR and Autism conducted by the Institute of Medicines (IOM) they stated -

    1. “The committee reviewed 22 studies to evaluate the risk of autism after the administration
    of MMR vaccine. Twelve studies (Chen et al., 2004; Dales et al., 2001; Fombonne and
    Chakrabarti, 2001; Fombonne et al., 2006; Geier and Geier, 2004; Honda et al., 2005; Kaye et
    al., 2001; Makela et al., 2002; Mrozek-Budzyn and Kieltyka, 2008; Steffenburg et al., 2003;
    Takahashi et al., 2001; Takahashi et al., 2003) were not considered in the weight of epidemiologic evidence because they provided data from a passive surveillance system lacking an unvaccinated comparison population or an ecological comparison study lacking individual level
    data.

    22-12 = 10 (Please note the Honda / Rutter study does not make it)

    2. Five controlled studies (DeStefano et al., 2004; Richler et al., 2006; Schultz et al., 2008; Taylor et al., 2002; Uchiyama et al., 2007) had very serious methodological limitations that precluded their inclusion in this assessment.

    10 – 5 = 5 (Please note the Taylor study)

    3. The five remaining controlled studies (Farrington et al., 2001; Madsen et al., 2002; Mrozek-Budzyn et al., 2010; Smeeth et al., 2004; Taylor et al., 1999) contributed to the weight of epidemiologic evidence.

    Further -

    4. (Mrozek- Budzyn et al., 2010) also found no association between measles or MMR immunization using a hospital-based case-control design with appropriate methods for matching and analysis. This
    study was rated as having serious limitations because it did not provide information on medical conditions among the controls and relied on medical record abstraction for immunization dates
    and autism diagnosis dates.

    5 – 1 = 4

    5. Madsen et al. (2002)2 conducted a retrospective cohort study in children born in Denmark from January 1991 through December 1998.

    * Remember Paul said – “But the genetic and environmental differences in two races/nations present challenges to your theory.”

    I agree with him in part but it goes further differing vaccine , schedules. So scratch the major epidemiological evidnce.

    4 – 1 = 3

    That leaves Taylor , Farrington and Smeeth

    6a. Smeeth et al. (2004) conducted a case-control study in children (born between 1973 and 1999) enrolled in the General Practice Research Database (GPRD) from June 1987 through December 2001.

    I suppose one obvious reliability issue may be the inclusion of children born between 1973 and 1988 before MMR vaccine but perhaps Child Safety may enlighten us more as to the robustness of this study.

    6b “Farrington et al. (2001) conducted a reanalysis of the study by Taylor et al. (1999).”

    So pragmatically that’s just two studies using the same data.

    3 – 1 = 2 (I’ll leave Smeeth in at this time because I am of a generous nature).

    7. Taylor / Farrington

    “Taylor et al. (1999) conducted a self-controlled case series study in children with autistic disorders residing in the North East Thames region of the United Kingdom.”

    Is only 1 of 15 health regions in the UK and I doubt that a health region that includes Camden and Islington, Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster is truly representative of the socio-economic and demographic status of the broader UK.

    I think a multi regional self-controlled case series would be entirely more clear and transparent. We wouldn’t want anyone to mislead the general public ?

    2 – 1 = 1 ? (perhaps)

    —————————————————–

    So in the end what llked like robust epidemiological evidence turns out to be something rather less…

  18. Post script

    It does remind one of the following editorial statement

    Fiona Godlee – BMJ

    http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452.full

    “Over the following decade, epidemiological studies consistently found no evidence of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.5 6 7 8″

    Those references relating to MMR ( 5 was GI symptoms)

    Taylor 2002 – which the IOM had very serious methodological limitations that precluded their inclusion in this assessment.

    Madsen 2002 – “But the genetic and environmental differences in two races/nations present challenges to your theory.”

    Honda / Rutter 2005 – Didn’t make the first cut.

    Wow …. 3 out of 3 studies. That’s quite a strike rate.

  19. I hadn’t realised until I checked that IoM study referenced as Farrington was just one of those ones where they do the ‘medical research shuffleboard” co-authors happened to be …. Elizabeth Miller and Brent Taylor.

    So I suppose that weakens the evidence further to push it into the final ignominy of being called “junk science”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 950 other followers

%d bloggers like this: