{"id":4588,"date":"2017-04-26T13:01:36","date_gmt":"2017-04-26T13:01:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ankewebersmit.com\/?p=4588"},"modified":"2026-03-09T15:17:44","modified_gmt":"2026-03-09T15:17:44","slug":"is-autism-related-to-glyphosate-or-to-organic-food","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ankewebersmit.com\/en\/is-autism-related-to-glyphosate-or-to-organic-food\/","title":{"rendered":"Is autism related to Glyphosate or to organic food?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Last month I read a story that claimed that “Half of All Children Will Be Autistic by 2025, Warns Senior Research Scientist at MIT<\/a>“. Since I\u2019ve been studying the similarities and differences between High sensitivity and the autistic spectrum<\/a> a bit, of course I was curious.<\/strong>
\nEspecially because I always feel, that proving something \u2018beyond reasonable doubt\u2019 is an enormous challenge for scientists.<\/strong>
\nThe research scientist who declared that \u2018At today\u2019s rate, by 2025, one in two children will be autistic\u2019<\/em>\u00a0was Stephanie Seneff, PhD. For over three decades, Dr Seneff has researched biology and technology, over the years publishing\u00a0over 170 scholarly peer-reviewed articles<\/a>. However, Dr Seneff is a computer scientist with no background in epidemiology, who gave a talk recently where she presented the following graph:
\nAnd yes, this graph shows an increase in children with autism parallel to an increase in amount of glyphosate applied to corn and soy.
\nThis graph also is what statistics call a correlation. A correlation, in contrast to a so-called regression does not imply causation. A correlation does not say, nor is it based on a cause-consequence relationship. Quite similar to this correlation between number of children with autism and glyphosate applied to corn can be found between individuals diagnosed with autism and organic food sales:
\nThis might somewhat blow Seneff’s observation.<\/strong>
\nBut does it?
\nJust so you know it: during my time in the scientific environment we always were warned about mistaking a correlation for a regression and thus arriving at wrong conclusions. Yet a correlation can be valuable in itself. It can help to broaden your thinking, to adjust your theory and your hypothesis in a way that you previously had not considered.
\n\"BloggAutism22\"The author who cited the graph on organic food sales claims that the increase in autism cases is largely due to increasing rates of diagnosis and\u00a0 changes in how autism is diagnosed. He also states that Dr. Seneff is \u2018antivaccine and anti-GMO (genetically modified food)\u2019 and \u2018thinking that she can transfer her computer science and artificial intelligence knowledge to knowledge of epidemiology, biochemistry, and medicine.\u2019<\/p>\n

Does this look a little bit like Dr Seneff\u2019s credibility is being questioned?<\/strong><\/p>\n

It does to me.<\/p>\n

And I would love to see more bold people who dare to seek ways to apply their knowledge to pressing issues. And thus help us to re-think our old beliefs and explore new ways of thinking. Like all famous inventors have done.
\nAnd in the meantime, I trust my gut feeling that consumption of organic food will have less adverse effects on me, my loved ones and the environment than opting for a diet including a broad-spectrum herbicide.
\nBut that\u2019s just me.<\/p>\n