The basic idea is that this was (pooled) observational research, which means it's impossible to know if C-sections were causing autism or if there was something else behind it all
-
-
Show this thread
-
Even worse, the absolute risk increase was TINY, with C-sections only making it 0.17% more likely that a child would be autistic
Show this thread -
There was also significant statistical heterogeneity and other issues, which are fascinating to nerds (and very important), but I only briefly touch on in the blog
Show this thread -
Also, something that no media anywhere mentioned is that the study found no association between C-sections and a host of other mental health issues, which should be REASSURING
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thank you! Really wanted to write about this too but been too busy chasing after my 3 neurotypical, CS born kids!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks for this. The constant peddling of the idea that autism is ‘caused’ is outrageous and to then lay it on women as a reason not to have a c section is even worse.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Interestingly Swaab in “We Are our brains” argued interesting “reverse” hypothesis. Paraphrased: autism causes c sections because it’s fetus that drives labour and abn neurobiol causes abn labour. https://www.amazon.ca/Are-Our-Brains-Neurobiography-Alzheimers/dp/0812992962 …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.