Does being rich in Los Angeles cause autism ...

[DanTex]

14. "Corrected" = changed. The link before was working. It just pointed to a more transparent

corporate front group.

I'm sure it's possible the author of the study didn't take some factors into account. I'm not an expert in autism, but I am a scientist, so I know how these things work. In fact, I would bet that whatever factors that the Forbes author pointed out were also listed in a discussion section of the original paper as potential factors to look at in future studies. It's not very hard to make an intelligent-sounding blog post listing supposed factors that weren't controlled for. Determining whether the blogger actually has a point would require some domain specific expertise that I don't have and I don't feel like trying to research for myself. Instead, I look at the totality of the evidence, which to me indicates that this is a reasonable study, if not the be-all-end-all. What is most confusing to me is why these bloggers are all up in arms about it.

Regarding the corporate front thing, let's review the chronology:
1) You post a link to a corporate front blog
2) You change the link to some other blog I've never heard of, which links to the original corporate front blog
3) In order to back up your story, you post a link to a Forbes article
So the whole thing has the feel of corporate/libertarian science denial. Forbes has a number of science columnists that deny climate change in one form or another (whether it exists or whether it is caused mainly by humans). One of the several reasons why I don't generally look to Forbes for "fair and balanced" assessments of scientific studies.