[klmr]

> Citation?

I’ll refer you to the discussion on Wikipedia [1], which is fairly exhaustive. The long and the short of it is that we don’t know for certain either way, and all estimates have large uncertainties attached. However, the (tentative) prevalent opinion amongst experts can be fairly summarised as “The reported increase is largely attributable to changes in diagnostic practices, referral patterns, availability of services, age at diagnosis, and public awareness”. However, it also needs to be said that “largely” here refers to the effect size: most of the increase is probably not due to actually increased incidence. But some of it probably is.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_autism#Changes...

[alexandercrohde]

>> But some of it probably is.

So basically you concede the original point then. That environmental factors may be increasing autism rates.

[klmr]

> So basically you concede the original point then.

I’m not “conceding” anything because I’m not arguing against it (I didn’t write the grandparent comment). My comment is intended to provide all the relevant information, not argue against the comment I replied to.