Epilim & autism?

The possibility that the epilem caused the autism in this case is extremely low or negligible. MO4B had at least one other child between the epliem exposure and the birth of her latest child so the risk from that source must be extremely small. It isn't absolutely impossible since we know that we don't know what caused it. The risk is so small that it is not worth worrying about in my opinion.

Ruling one possibility out without suggesting an alternative reason leaves someone in an unfortunate position. If the epilem is ruled out then isn't Mo4b likely to be worrying that something else that she did is responsible? Just saying that the autism wasn't caused by epilem and it wasn't caused by the MMR vaccine leaves people with a quandary. Suggesting a possible alternative cause isn't, in my mind too outrageous a step to take. This is how conversations evolve and new knowledge is exchanged. Her question was, at first reading, related to epilim but the deeper question that is troubling her is what caused the autism in her son. Having drawn a blank with epilem then it is reasonable, having exhausted that as a possibility, to widen the search.

MO4B hasn't commented on anything we've said and I would welcome something from her to say whether what we are saying is helping or hindering.

The research that caused this alarm in the first place was a prospective observational study that compared outcomes following administration of various anti-epilepsy drugs. It is not a randomised controlled trial where subjects were allocated different drugs at the start. The confidence intervals of the analysis are wide enough to allow that epilem made no difference - they have not disproven the null hypothesis.

The possibility that the epilem caused the autism in this case is extremely low or negligible. MO4B had at least one other child between the epliem exposure and the birth of her latest child so the risk from that source must be extremely small. It isn't absolutely impossible since we know that we don't know what caused it. The risk is so small that it is not worth worrying about in my opinion.

Ruling one possibility out without suggesting an alternative reason leaves someone in an unfortunate position. If the epilem is ruled out then isn't Mo4b likely to be worrying that something else that she did is responsible? Just saying that the autism wasn't caused by epilem and it wasn't caused by the MMR vaccine leaves people with a quandary. Suggesting a possible alternative cause isn't, in my mind too outrageous a step to take. This is how conversations evolve and new knowledge is exchanged. Her question was, at first reading, related to epilim but the deeper question that is troubling her is what caused the autism in her son. Having drawn a blank with epilem then it is reasonable, having exhausted that as a possibility, to widen the search.

MO4B hasn't commented on anything we've said and I would welcome something from her to say whether what we are saying is helping or hindering.

The research that caused this alarm in the first place was a prospective observational study that compared outcomes following administration of various anti-epilepsy drugs. It is not a randomised controlled trial where subjects were allocated different drugs at the start. The confidence intervals of the analysis are wide enough to allow that epilem made no difference - they have not disproven the null hypothesis.