https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/public-health/study-uncovers-no-evidence-autism-epidemic-despite-claims

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/public-health/study-uncovers-no-evidence-autism-epidemic-despite-claims

---

Crappy methodology in this study, which contradicts a number of American studies. The study began with 62,081 children across 12 South Korean birth cohorts. But only 2,077 screened positive and were invited for diagnostic evaluation, and only 881 completed the comprehensive evaluation. That means only about 42.4% of the screen-positive invitees were actually diagnostically assessed. Ultimately, 447 children received ASD diagnoses.

So, really not much to take away from this.

Mothra said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/public-health/study-uncovers-no-evidence-autism-epidemic-despite-claims

---

Crappy methodology in this study, which contradicts a number of American studies. The study began with 62,081 children across 12 South Korean birth cohorts. But only 2,077 screened positive and were invited for diagnostic evaluation, and only 881 completed the comprehensive evaluation. That means only about 42.4% of the screen-positive invitees were actually diagnostically assessed. Ultimately, 447 children received ASD diagnoses.

So, really not much to take away from this.

---

What I find hilarious is you used AI for this!!!!!!! But you tried to hide it as your own thinking!

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/public-health/study-uncovers-no-evidence-autism-epidemic-despite-claims

---

Crappy methodology in this study, which contradicts a number of American studies. The study began with 62,081 children across 12 South Korean birth cohorts. But only 2,077 screened positive and were invited for diagnostic evaluation, and only 881 completed the comprehensive evaluation. That means only about 42.4% of the screen-positive invitees were actually diagnostically assessed. Ultimately, 447 children received ASD diagnoses.

So, really not much to take away from this.

---

What I find hilarious is you used AI for this!!!!!!! But you tried to hide it as your own thinking!

---

Of course. It's great at analyzing studies. You should know. You use it for everything because you have no original thoughts

Mothra said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/public-health/study-uncovers-no-evidence-autism-epidemic-despite-claims

---

Crappy methodology in this study, which contradicts a number of American studies. The study began with 62,081 children across 12 South Korean birth cohorts. But only 2,077 screened positive and were invited for diagnostic evaluation, and only 881 completed the comprehensive evaluation. That means only about 42.4% of the screen-positive invitees were actually diagnostically assessed. Ultimately, 447 children received ASD diagnoses.

So, really not much to take away from this.

---

What I find hilarious is you used AI for this!!!!!!! But you tried to hide it as your own thinking!

---

Of course. It's great at analyzing studies. You should know. You use it for everything because you have no original thoughts

---

Hilarious! I guess you don't either, hypocrite. AI is great when it supports you but it's wrong when it doesn't !

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/public-health/study-uncovers-no-evidence-autism-epidemic-despite-claims

---

Crappy methodology in this study, which contradicts a number of American studies. The study began with 62,081 children across 12 South Korean birth cohorts. But only 2,077 screened positive and were invited for diagnostic evaluation, and only 881 completed the comprehensive evaluation. That means only about 42.4% of the screen-positive invitees were actually diagnostically assessed. Ultimately, 447 children received ASD diagnoses.

So, really not much to take away from this.

---

What I find hilarious is you used AI for this!!!!!!! But you tried to hide it as your own thinking!

---

Of course. It's great at analyzing studies. You should know. You use it for everything because you have no original thoughts

---

Hilarious! I guess you don't either, hypocrite. AI is great when it supports you but it's wrong when it doesn't !

---

It's no surprise you don't understand the difference between letting AI analyze a study, and letting it author your every post.

But you always were a dunce.

Mothra said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/public-health/study-uncovers-no-evidence-autism-epidemic-despite-claims

---

Crappy methodology in this study, which contradicts a number of American studies. The study began with 62,081 children across 12 South Korean birth cohorts. But only 2,077 screened positive and were invited for diagnostic evaluation, and only 881 completed the comprehensive evaluation. That means only about 42.4% of the screen-positive invitees were actually diagnostically assessed. Ultimately, 447 children received ASD diagnoses.

So, really not much to take away from this.

---

What I find hilarious is you used AI for this!!!!!!! But you tried to hide it as your own thinking!

---

Of course. It's great at analyzing studies. You should know. You use it for everything because you have no original thoughts

---

Hilarious! I guess you don't either, hypocrite. AI is great when it supports you but it's wrong when it doesn't !

---

It's no surprise you don't understand the difference between letting AI analyze a study, and letting it author your every post.

But you always were a dunce.

---

Not what you said. You said my responses were garbage since I used AI. But then you turned right around and used it yourself. You purport to be an expert on vaccines, I don't. Therefore I have no problems using AI to clarify truth from fiction. You, on the other hand are a hypocrite. And btw, you aren't an expert on vaccines, but the Doctors I cite are experts. It would do you good to learn the difference.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. This institution only gives grants to investigate how environmental factors affect human health.

Not sure how one extrapolates that vaccines do not cause autism or RFK, Jr. is a nut out of a study that shows that the pollution levels over the last 20 years in South Korea did not increase its children's risk of autism.

Nope, not what I said, but nice try.

I pointed out that all you use is AI. You don't have any original thoughts, and you are admittedly glib on vaccines. It doesn't matter if its a simple response to a post, or a response to points I raise therein. You use AI for everything. And you do so with a preconceived response. You ask AI to provide a retort.

That's far different from asking AI to analyze a study objectively. You have your own biases, and you let AI know about them. And therein lies the difference.

Using AI to perform an objective analysis of a study, and then asking AI to write a retort with your preconceived notions are two very different things.