zlacker

>>geox+(OP)
I for one see no possible issues with the experimental method of: "we asked people to guess how much aspartame they consumed while pregnant a dozen years ago"

>>Avshal+78
What consistent bias are you suggesting that would result in this?

>>klysm+x9
I've got a reply to talos that explicates it in part but basically the rate of autism in this study is ~2:1 where as the rate in the general population is more like 1:100. This obviously isn't a random population so it's sketchy start with. On top of that there's basically no way to get this sort of population without putting out fliers to the effect of "we're looking for people with autistic children for a study on causes of autism" which is gonna select for people that think autism is problem and are looking for something to blame.

>>Avshal+rb
I’m not sure I see how that would result in these statistics though. The prevalence in the population doesn’t have to match the ratio for the statistical test