nostrum
Valued Woo-Fighter
Posts: 38
|
Post by nostrum on Jun 2, 2009 20:48:49 GMT -5
Oh, and I suspect it will not make it through mod, since three or four of mine haven't yet, so:
This comment is pending approval and won't be displayed until it is approved.
I missed the citations to peer-reviewed journal articles in the bibliography. He must have left that part off, but I did catch the carefully worded dance around one California study which concluded:
"Conclusions: Autism incidence in California shows no sign yet of plateauing. Younger ages at diagnosis, differential migration, changes in diagnostic criteria, and inclusion of milder cases do not fully explain the observed increases. Other artifacts have yet to be quantified, and as a result, the extent to which the continued rise represents a true increase in the occurrence of autism remains unclear."http://journals.lww.com/epidem/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2009&issue=01000&article=00016&type=abstract
Hmm, evidence of a true increase remains unclear, but all he included was the first bit about widening diagnostic criteria not accounting for all of it.
I also caught lots of references to personal opinion, an admission that he's just a layperson, and many amusing anecdotes. But full of evidence? Notsomuch.
|
|