No, Half of All Children Won't Be Autistic By 2025, Despite What Your Facebook Friends May Tell You

Why did an academic at MIT recently make the absurd claim that half of all children will be autistic by 2025?

A story that made the rounds on Facebook claimed "Half of All Children Will Be Autistic by 2025, Warns Senior Research Scientist at MIT". The research scientist in question was Stephanie Seneff, a computer scientist with no background in epidemiology, who gave a talk recently where she presented the following graph:


First things first. It doesn't take a genius to spot that this is clearly a textbook case of correlation not implying causation. As David Gorski notes in his comprehensive debunking, the similar illusory correlation between autism and organic food sales, shown below, somewhat blows Seneff's observation out of the water:

As for the headline claim that half of all children will be autistic by 2025, this claim blithely ignores the broad consensus that the increasing prevalence of autism is largely due to increasing rates of diagnosis and - as a new study has recently demonstrated changes in how autism is diagnosed. The baseless assumption that rates of autism diagnosis will continue into the stratosphere is dumbfounding. Gorski sums up the case well:

"Yes, she just extrapolates from current trends, assuming they’ll continue indefinitely! It’s almost as stupid as Julian Whitaker’s mind-blowingly idiotic extrapolation that predicted that 100% of boys will be autistic by 2031, with 100% of all girls autistic by 2041. Almost. It’s pretty close, though.

The bottom line is that the crank magnetism is strong in Dr. Seneff. She’s antivaccine and anti-GMO. She is full of Dunning-Kruger, thinking that she can transfer her computer science and artificial intelligence knowledge to knowledge of epidemiology, biochemistry, and medicine. She can’t."

The two articles linked at the beginning of this post already have over one hundred thousand Facebook shares each. I'll be interested to see how this post and Gorski's debunking compare. I'm not filled with confidence - as we've previously seen - posts debunking misinformation typically crash and burn when compared to the runaway-train speed with which misinformation can travel.

Follow Neurobonkers on TwitterFacebookGoogle+RSS or join the mailing list. Image Credit: Shutterstock.

Image Credit: Shutterstock, Stephanie Seneff, Imgur

LinkedIn meets Tinder in this mindful networking app

Swipe right to make the connections that could change your career.

Getty Images
Sponsored
Swipe right. Match. Meet over coffee or set up a call.

No, we aren't talking about Tinder. Introducing Shapr, a free app that helps people with synergistic professional goals and skill sets easily meet and collaborate.

Keep reading Show less

10 books to check out from Jordan Peterson's 'Great Books' list

The Canadian professor has an extensive collection posted on his site.

Jordan Peterson with Carl Jung and the cover art of Jaak Panksepp's 'Affective Neuroscience' (Image: Chris Williamson/Getty Images/Big Think)
Personal Growth
  • Peterson's Great Books list features classics by Orwell, Jung, Huxley, and Dostoevsky.
  • Categories include literature, neuroscience, religion, and systems analysis.
  • Having recently left Patreon for "freedom of speech" reasons, Peterson is taking direct donations through Paypal (and Bitcoin).
Keep reading Show less

Kosovo land swap could end conflict – or restart war

Best case: Redrawing borders leads to peace, prosperity and EU membership. But there's also a worst case.

Image: SRF
Strange Maps
  • The Yugoslav Wars started in 1991, but never really ended.
  • Kosovo and Serbia are still enemies, and they're getting worse.
  • A proposed land swap could create peace – or reignite the conflict.
Keep reading Show less

Should you invest in China's stock market? Know this one thing first.

Despite incredible economic growth, it is not necessarily an investor's paradise.

Videos
  • China's stock market is just 27 years old. It's economy has grown 30x over that time.
  • Imagine if you had invested early and gotten in on the ground floor.
  • Actually, you would have lost money. Here's how that's possible.