Environmental Toxins Identified as New Cause of Austism

[Umbran]

Now, taking off the moderator hat...

The article isn't the greatest, but the basic claim of that initial paragraph isn't that horrible. The paragraph doesn't say, "Study finds toxins causes autism". It says, "study suggests that exposure to environmental toxins increases the risk of developing autism" (emphasis mine).

That's "suggests" (not states) an "increased risk" (not an outright causation, but rising statistical probability of occurrence).

It is possible, by that statement, that the toxins may not be the direct cause. There is room for a confounding bias. But, it may still hold that if you hang out where you come across toxins, you're also exposing yourself to things (or are living a lifestyle, or what have you) that tends to lead to autism in children.

Correlation does not imply causation. Correlation often does imply increased risk. Correlation does indicate stuff we should look into more closely.

And, whatever the article says, a quick skim of the research behind the article (which is linked in the article) suggests the researchers at least have a clue. I am not a biologist, however, so I may miss some things in my reading.

 

[Arduin's]

Now, taking off the moderator hat...

The article isn't the greatest, but the basic claim of that initial paragraph isn't that horrible. The paragraph doesn't say, "Study finds toxins causes autism". It says, "study suggests that exposure to environmental toxins increases the risk of developing autism" (emphasis mine).

It's total crap. They dropped from consideration most of the planets population and, most of the autism cases with that. Being that they are geographically disparate as well as environmentally, it is so poorly thought out I am surprised that the authors are employed.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

I understand EXACTLY how research works as I have done it for years. The authors of this "research" don't understand how to do it, WHEN it is time (in the research process) to draw conclusions and, what causality is.

If that paragraph didn't cause you to IMMEDIATELY rip into the article and see that it was garbage, you don't have the necessary EDU to eval such work.

Umbran already addressed this, so I'll skip it. So, about your friend, are you going to give her name?

 

[Raunalyn]

The study only discusses a correlation. Correlation is not causation.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

It's total crap. They dropped from consideration most of the planets population and, most of the autism cases with that. Being that they are geographically disparate as well as environmentally, it is so poorly thought out I am surprised that the authors are employed.

I'm curious, as a researcher who has been doing research for years, how would you have set up this study to take into consideration most of the planet's population, and most of the cases of autism?

Also, would yo mind telling us what you do for a living?

 

[Umbran]

Folks,

People should not need to give real world names or occupations - those comprise an "appeal to authority", which is weak sauce, rhetorically speaking. If your position is solid logically, and you don't laden it with trash-talk, it should hold up to scrutiny on its own, without the need to wave credentials around. We are not hiring for research positions, or something, that we need to check resumes.

 

[Kramodlog]

Problem the first: The article and the research are not the same thing. The article and the research have different authors.

Problem the second: You yourself are drawing conclusions based on a pittance of data, and then asserting how educated others are. This is rude. Please stop.

I'm not sure I understand why Arduin's post warranted a warning from a moderator. I'm asking for future reference cause I'm not sure which part of the CoC was breached.

Thank you.

 

[Umbran]

I'm not sure I understand why Arduin's post warranted a warning from a moderator. I'm asking for future reference cause I'm not sure which part of the CoC was breached.

As a general policy, we don't discuss specific moderation actions in-thread. If you have questions, take them to e-mail or PM with one of the moderators. Thanks.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Folks,

People should not need to give real world names or occupations - those comprise an "appeal to authority", which is weak sauce, rhetorically speaking. If your position is solid logically, and you don't laden it with trash-talk, it should hold up to scrutiny on its own, without the need to wave credentials around. We are not hiring for research positions, or something, that we need to check resumes.

No one is "appealing to authority." I was just curious who his friend was since he brought her up and claimed she was a leading researcher i the field.Seeing as this is one of my fields of focus, I was curious to know who she was and if I had read any of her research. I'm curious like that. Additionally, I was curious to know what what he did for a living since he claimed to have done research for years. Maybe I have read some of his research if it's in the field of autism, ADHD, or related fields. And As I mentioned, he doesn't need to give it out publicly.
In any case... meh, he doesn't need to give it. No one is going to be offended if he doesn't.

 

[Raunalyn]

I think we need to accept this study as what it is; it's a correlation, that's all. What concerns me is that the news outlets are making more of this than it actually is. Does it add to the body of science? Absolutely. But taking it as this is a cause of autism is not science.