Peter Attia· MD
um but people in the field uh believe that um those changes don't explain the drastic changes in the numbers um and there has to be something else involved
Loading…
The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
um but people in the field uh believe that um those changes don't explain the drastic changes in the numbers um and there has to be something else involved
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
the expanded criteria account for 40 to 60% of the increase. And furthermore, increased awareness accounts for 20 to 30% of the increase in diagnosis.
If so much of autism risk is genetics, what can we say about genetics explaining the increase in autism rates over the past few decades? They definitely don't because genetics do not shift enough over those kinds of time scales to explain this five, six, or potentially even sevenfold increase
the majority of this increase seems to be explained by the increased awareness and expanded diagnostic definitions.