At a glance, given ~10 minutes scratching at the surface, I don’t see anything awry about the citation, the primary author, or the methodology. It’s usually enough for me to go “oh, they’re being foolish.” All I could say is that I wouldn’t base policy on research that came out a month ago until the author’s peers get a chance to sink their teeth into it.
The biggest problem is that the study is based on a small scale meta data analysis, which has a really hard time establishing causation vs correlation. The second biggest problem is the person who did the study is an expert witness in a lawsuit against Johnson and johnson over the very same topic and has already had previous testimony excluded from the trial.
Definitely needs a peer review and further research to establish anything close to causation. At this point it could just be that women in the third trimester who experience prolonged or bad fevers have a greater chance at giving birth to someone with autism. Or it could be that women who have better access to neonatal and gynecological care good enough to collect umbilical samples, also have enough resources to have their children diagnosed for autism later in life.
The biggest problem is that the study is based on a small scale meta data analysis, which has a really hard time establishing causation vs correlation. The second biggest problem is the person who did the study is an expert witness in a lawsuit against Johnson and johnson over the very same topic and has already had previous testimony excluded from the trial.
Definitely needs a peer review and further research to establish anything close to causation. At this point it could just be that women in the third trimester who experience prolonged or bad fevers have a greater chance at giving birth to someone with autism. Or it could be that women who have better access to neonatal and gynecological care good enough to collect umbilical samples, also have enough resources to have their children diagnosed for autism later in life.