Comments on: Why Aren’t You “Scared To Death”?

By: Joseph

Joseph — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:31:58 +0000

I think the good R-squared fit of a straight line is temporary, though. It has to be. Autism caseload obviously can’t grow for ever at a much faster pace than population growth. If it continues to grow like that 5 years from now, I’m seriously going to suspect some sort of virus causes autism. That or diagnosticians don’t know what the heck it is they are doing.

By: Kev

Kev — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:14:49 +0000

And, to be fair, me too. This is one area Dan O and I are in complete agreement ;o)

By: Ms. Clark

Ms. Clark — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 04:27:27 +0000

David, I think you’d need to use smaller words for Dan!O.

:-)

By: David N. Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction)

David N. Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction) — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 03:49:34 +0000

The R-squared statistic is known as the coefficient of determination: an indicator of how much of the variance in the dependent variable is accounted for by a straight-line fit – essentially what is seen on the graph being referred to. Variance is a measure of how much the data actually vary around the predicted/expected values.

An R-squared value of .9954 indicates a close match to expected/predicted values.

By: Kev

Kev — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:33:39 +0000

I agree Kristina. Its becoming a disturbing theme – all these middle class white males sitting around blaming dirty wombs and dirty Chinese.

By: kristina

kristina — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:27:47 +0000

I think Olmsted and Kirby need to be called out on their fixation with Chinese mercury—-the echoes of suspected “yellow peril” in their writing are lurking.

By: bullet

bullet — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:44:44 +0000

At my GP’s flu shots are only given to those over 65 or with reduced immunity (not sure of the exact groups targetted). I do know that pregnant women and young children aren’t given the flu shots as a matter of course.
I can look frazzled and dilapidated for the photos, will that do? :P.

By: Kev

Kev — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:57:46 +0000

“Like the look of the â€œKevington Postâ€ thus far.”

LOL!

I need to get some little ego-stroking photos of everyone and then I’ll be there!

By: Joseph

Joseph — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:55:44 +0000

BTW, the 40-fold increase of BD reported in the press apparently refers to treatment, not diagnoses. I’m not sure if Olmstead et al. bothered to check the abstract of the original paper.

Increased rates of bipolar disorder diagnoses among U.S. child, adolescent, and adult inpatients, 1996-2004.

“Population-adjusted rates of hospital discharges of children with a primary diagnosis of BD increased linearly over survey years. The rate in 1996 was 1.3 per 10,000 U.S. children and climbed to 7.3 per 10,000 U.S. children in 2004.”

That’s a 6-fold increase. I can see why they wouldn’t want to emphasize that one. What you want in these cases is something that gives the impression to your audience that the sky is falling.

Also note that 7.3 in 10,000 per year is low if you consider that lifetime prevalence of BD is 1%.

I think we’re looking at the usual flaw in reasoning related to increasing prevalence of psychiatric conditions: Confusion over having a condition vs. being diagnosed with a condition.

In fact, PD, like autism, seems to be missed often. See, for example, Faedda et al. (2004) where they find that 90% of a group of adolescents with PD had not been previously diagnosed with PD.

Those bits, of course, are only for the benefit of those of us interested in facts.

By: Club 166

Club 166 — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:50:56 +0000

Do’C,

The mismatch of you with Olmstead is so obvious, that one might possibly be inclined to be sympathetic to Olmstead (if only his screed wasn’t so harmful to so many). Keep up the good work!

Kev,

Like the look of the “Kevington Post” thus far.

Joe