“”On July 8, 2007, researchers from Cambridge University’s Autism Research Center in London released a report estimating that one in every 58 children (not just boys) in the U.K suffers from “some form of autism disorder” compared to previous estimates of one in 100.[1] The reality of that statistic should make one gasp: Nearly two percent of the citizens of the U.K. will become mentally handicapped adults.””

So perhaps it is the CDC phone survey results that are flawed? Their surveys cover only non-institutionalised cases, could this make a difference?

Some of us, do take the time anyway. This is because we can show that even if one does accept the data collection method to be well controlled, the stats still do not show what they are advertised to show.

I do these sorts of analyses more for the pople who may not agree with us that the analysis is junk. In this case, I can have my cake and eat it too.

re: the 90% CI. I do not know about other forms of demographics, but I almost always see a 95% CIs in autism epidemiology, with maybe a very occasional 99%.

I’ll give you one more clue as you still seem to require some education: Have a look at the aggregated 11 – 17 age bracket. Aside from Aspergers Syndrome (which a lot of GR members including Brad don’t think is ‘real’ autism), could you tell me the statistical differences between non vaccinated and fully vaccinated kids?

“what should we conclude in this case, based on your statement?” You should conclude that spending any time on analyzing the results is a waste of time. The data collection method is so seriously flawed that it is a waste of time to do any analysis of the results.

Kev, I fail to see how lying helps your cause any. You seem to be arguing that because the anti-vaxers lie it is OK for you to lie too. It’s not. There are no circumstances where is is acceptable. If you are willing to lie about the numbers here, what else are you willing to lie about? You are ignoring the evidence in front of you and insisting that you are right. That’s not how science is done and that’s not how rational people behave.

Once more, for the hard of comprehension I guess.

This survey is shit. The results of it are shit. My analysis of the results are shit. Do you see a pattern here?

Or, lets put it another way. Do you think all those antivaxxers are at all bothered about ‘confidence’ or ‘ratio’ or even ‘statistics’? No. They read into this what they want to. Well, so have I.

“Significance is a statistical test. All it means that there is a 95% chance that the result is not zero.”

If alpha is at .05, then that’s true, but 99% and alpha at .01, is also very common.

“Bias does not mean that someone has a preconceived notion of the result.”

I think most of us already know this.

“Real statisticians go to a lot of trouble to make sure that the people answering a survey match the characteristics of the underlying population. If a survey is biased, there generally isn’t anything that you can do to fix the bias so the results are garbage.”

Given that these data do not match in terms of prevalence, or in Autistic Disorder to PDD-NOS, what should we conclude in this case, based on your statement?

“I think that a lot of the lifestyle results that appear in the popular press are statistically significant, but the effect on extending lifetimes is minimal.”

That’s a well known one; and research in treatments for severe injury, is another example of this problem.

“The poster who thinks that 1% is not significant is confused about what the 1% represents.”

I am not too sure that 1% is statistically significant in this case. Am I also confused?

Decreased functioning of the complement system would probably not result in increased complement assembly and deposition as reported in some studies.

If you have anything other than your own chain of logic to indicate an increased susceptibility to infections, I’d be interested.

I’m not really sure if you are arguing for immune suppression or neuro-inflammation but most autistic children are not immune deficient.

The vast majority of exposure to bacteria is non-harmful. The reason (and the only reason) it is non-harmful is because the immune system can respond to those bacteria before the bacteria can kill the host or cause disease. It is only for a relativly few bacteria and viruses which can kill the host before a sufficient immune response develops that immunization is useful.