I was planning a nice short entry in my "In the Blink of a Sceptical I" series to start me back after being MIA in Essayland - this one about the preposterous claim that vaccines cause autism. They don't. The "rise" in autism is a statistical anomaly caused by broadening definitions, greater vigilance and improving detection methods.
However, while reading through my week's worth of RSS updates, I found that I had been beaten to it on this score. Rebbecca Watson of Skepchick.org - a woman with whom, it seems, I am more deeply enamoured every time she blogs - explains it all on her parody Crap-Based Medicine blog:
Do Vaccines Cause Autism?
She has such a way with words.
Substantial post to follow sometime in the next few days.
Wednesday, 28 May 2008
Blink 6: Beaten to it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
"The "rise" in autism is a statistical anomaly caused by broadening definitions, greater vigilance and improving detection methods."
Yikes, I never thought about it like that before. Thanks for that. Haha
I remember the Skeptics' Guide where she mentioned she was single. I think half the male audience started calculating travel times to Boston.
Online fantasies aside. Another factor in the 'rise in autism' is simple growth of population. Very rarely do I see statistics that account for this. Usually its just 'there were x cases of autism in the UK in 2000 there are now x*y'. The statistics are unrealistic. if you vaccinate 1000 more babies this year and a random number of them develop autism how does that relate to the MMR vaccine? surly there must be other common factors between these babies. hell basic genetics would explain it.
@Asclepius: I was unaware that the stats hadn't taken population growth into account - if this is the case it's a shocking example of bad data interpretation. You'd think it would be a fundamental consideration built into their formulae.
@Andrew: The thought crossed my mind. Then I remembered my girlfriend is at least as awesome as Ms Watson, and laughed a cheerful and hearty laugh.
@sm_rusconi: I'm finding it hard to interpret your comment in regards to sarcasm. The lack of tone in text-only communication is a constant niggle. Also, your profile's claim that you have a broad mean streak suggests to me that sarcasm may have been present. I do hope not - it would be nice to have another commenter on here who's not just going to shout "boo!" from the cheap seats.
Post a Comment