|
|
|
|
|
|
by larve
1308 days ago
|
|
|
That's literally what the linked article is about. From its references: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medici... > After accounting for methodological variations, there was no clear evidence of a change in prevalence for autistic disorder or other ASDs between 1990 and 2010. Worldwide, there was little regional variation in the prevalence of ASDs. |
|
|
1) That's a "Meta study" which is a good thing usually, meaning it summarizes results from numerous other studies.
2) Just because one meta-study says something doesn't mean the topic is defacto decided and over. Many controversial topics have many meta-studies.
3) Notice I said since I graduated college in 2010 autism incidence went up 50%. The study you referenced ENDS in 2010. Have the diagnostic criteria changed AGAIN for 13 more years?
4) This article didn't say "We disproved there was an increase in prevalence of autism." They said they couldn't find evidence of that. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
4) We already know for a fact that various stressors including pesticides in utero (or pollutants such as PFOAs which are now in everybody's blood in utero) can contribute to autism. Any research that finds no increase/change in absolute rates of autism at all is highly suspect. Also this article seemed to suggest that all countries had the same prevalence of autism, which would be at odds with very different pollution profiles of different countries.
Maybe in 10 years the rate of autism will still be 1/44, but if it's 1/29 I'm gonna be even sicker of this "diagnostic criteria" stuff. It doesn't seem that hard to get around diagnostic criteria if we really want to -- just make a standardized test and give it to a large sample of children of age 10 (and never change the battery) for 5 consecutive years. The test could be facial expression recognition, theory-of-mind questions, etc.