Mark Probert
July 16th 06, 03:15 PM
http://autismnaturalvariation.blogspot.com/2006/07/cdds-q2-2006-what-will-david-kirby-do.html
Back in November, 2005, David Kirby had a discussion with Citizen Cain
about the correct interpretation of the California DDS numbers. Citizen
Cain explained that 'entries' or 'new cases' and 'net gain' are not the
same thing. To avoid confusion, Citizen Cain proposed using the 3-5
cohort caseload as a gauge of incidence. Clearly, any incidence drops
should reflect quickly in that cohort. David Kirby apparently understood
Citizen Cain's analysis and finally agreed to the following:
If the total number of 3-5 year olds in the California DDS system has
not declined by 2007, that would deal a severe blow to the
autism-thimerosal hypothesis.
(Follow the links available on the page)
Note that what David Kirby is expecting to see is a drop in the total
number of 3-5 year olds. He might now claim that gradual drops in
caseload growth are significant (without explaining why) but clearly
that's not what he agreed to.
Let's see what the California DDS Quarterly Client Characteristics
Report says, with only two quarters to go before 2007.
Table 1: State-wide comparison of Q2 2006 with two prior quarters.
Quarter Caseload Growth
(False New Cases) Annual Growth (%) 3-5 Cohort
Q4 2005 29,424 700 10.72% 5,680
Q1 2006 30,181 757 10.50% 5,827
Q2 2006 31,012 831 10.56% 6,083
The key information in Table 1 is that the 3-5 caseload continues to
grow, and this growth is still rather fast (11.70% annually). Barring
any miracles, in two quarters David Kirby will either need to issue a
statement saying that he no longer believes in the autism-thimerosal
hypothesis, further goalpost-shift the target date for a caseload drop,
or claim that there hasn't really been a significant drop in the
thimerosal dose per child in California. What do readers predict he will do?
It's surprising that caseload growth has increased for the second or
third consecutive quarter. The prior tendency was for caseload growth to
drop gradually, which should be expected, as I've argued repeatedly. It
would seem that it will be a while before annual caseload growth goes
down to population growth in the state, about 1.3%. I can only speculate
about the implications of this turn of events, but for the time being
I'm having doubts that prevalence will level off in 10 years, as I had
previously estimated.
--------------
This shows that the earlier Geier study was as bogus as was claimed.
Back in November, 2005, David Kirby had a discussion with Citizen Cain
about the correct interpretation of the California DDS numbers. Citizen
Cain explained that 'entries' or 'new cases' and 'net gain' are not the
same thing. To avoid confusion, Citizen Cain proposed using the 3-5
cohort caseload as a gauge of incidence. Clearly, any incidence drops
should reflect quickly in that cohort. David Kirby apparently understood
Citizen Cain's analysis and finally agreed to the following:
If the total number of 3-5 year olds in the California DDS system has
not declined by 2007, that would deal a severe blow to the
autism-thimerosal hypothesis.
(Follow the links available on the page)
Note that what David Kirby is expecting to see is a drop in the total
number of 3-5 year olds. He might now claim that gradual drops in
caseload growth are significant (without explaining why) but clearly
that's not what he agreed to.
Let's see what the California DDS Quarterly Client Characteristics
Report says, with only two quarters to go before 2007.
Table 1: State-wide comparison of Q2 2006 with two prior quarters.
Quarter Caseload Growth
(False New Cases) Annual Growth (%) 3-5 Cohort
Q4 2005 29,424 700 10.72% 5,680
Q1 2006 30,181 757 10.50% 5,827
Q2 2006 31,012 831 10.56% 6,083
The key information in Table 1 is that the 3-5 caseload continues to
grow, and this growth is still rather fast (11.70% annually). Barring
any miracles, in two quarters David Kirby will either need to issue a
statement saying that he no longer believes in the autism-thimerosal
hypothesis, further goalpost-shift the target date for a caseload drop,
or claim that there hasn't really been a significant drop in the
thimerosal dose per child in California. What do readers predict he will do?
It's surprising that caseload growth has increased for the second or
third consecutive quarter. The prior tendency was for caseload growth to
drop gradually, which should be expected, as I've argued repeatedly. It
would seem that it will be a while before annual caseload growth goes
down to population growth in the state, about 1.3%. I can only speculate
about the implications of this turn of events, but for the time being
I'm having doubts that prevalence will level off in 10 years, as I had
previously estimated.
--------------
This shows that the earlier Geier study was as bogus as was claimed.