Does Prenatal Ultrasound Cause Autism?

Caroline Rodgers, a science writer, has noticed some very interesting correlations:

The new autism figures published in the CDC’s 12-18-09 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) https://bit.ly/57XRca reveal an apparent anomaly: While there was an overall average autism increase of 57 percent in children born between 2002 and 2006, Hispanics in Alabama showed a 67 percent decrease in autism.

The mothers of the first batch of children who were eight years old in 2002 would have been pregnant in 1993. Therefore, I looked at what changes might have occurred in Alabama’s public health policy in 1993 that would explain a 67 percent drop in the autism rate of Hispanic children born between 2002 and 2006.

According to the 2002 PRAMS Surveillance Report: Multistate Exhibits Medicaid Coverage for Prenatal Care https://bit.ly/8godkv .

During 1993-2002, the prevalence of Medicaid coverage for prenatal care . . . decreased in 3 states (Alabama, Florida and West Virginia).

This particular correlation is in addition to a broad correlation between wealth and autism (more wealth, more autism):

Also significant in last week’s MMWR report were the ethnic differences in autism prevalence found among non-Hispanic whites, blacks and Hispanics. The autism rate in the monitored areas throughout the United States of children of non-Hispanic white women was 102 per 10,000; among black children, 76 per 10,000; and among Hispanic children, 61 per 10,000 — roughly half of the non-Hispanic white rate. These results seem counter-intuitive, since the non-Hispanic white population could be expected to have more access to prenatal care than the black or Hispanic populations. Yet if autism risk is increased by exposure to prenatal ultrasound, these figures make perfect sense.

This isn’t cherry-picking. Rodgers believed that we should take seriously the idea of a prenatal-ultrasound/autism link based on entirely different data.

IvanView Contains Malware

A few days ago I needed to convert image files from one format to another. Searching for the software, I found IvanView, an apparently reputable company whose program once got 4 stars from CNET. I download and installed the converter. Right after that I started having trouble with my Firefox browser. After I did a Google Search, and tried to go to one of the results, I’d be directed elsewhere. Trying to use Avis.com in America put me on Avis’s Australian website — and many relocations were much worse. Internet Explorer still worked okay.

I searched “Firefox virus.” I found a post about a problem that was the same as mine, with the reassuring words that it will just mess with your web surfing. The outlined solution steps, however, were either very complicated or didn’t solve the problem.

Later I started to have trouble with Internet Explorer. I used Norton Antivirus to scan my hard drive. It found nothing of importance. But it did tell me I had some sort of incoming malware. Then it told me to restart my computer. I did so — and was unable to log on! No one had reported this problem in what I’d read.

At this point I did a full system recovery (from a few weeks earlier). It took a few hours but then everything was fine. It’s unfortunate, though, that Mozilla and Norton, not to mention Microsoft, haven’t managed to protect against a virus that has been around for almost a year, as far as I could tell. You should be able to fix this by downloading a free antivirus program.

Morning Light Self-Experimentation

A 25-year-old Toronto accountant blogs:

A few weeks ago my parents came downtown to take me out for dinner. Apart from leftovers, my dinosaur garbage can and a few pieces of mail, they also brought my Ikea lamp. Now my apartment is very small. It’s a bachelor with about 600 square feet. It faces south and gets a fair amount of light during the day, which is fine during the weekends. But during the week when I’m at home — in the morning and at night — it can get pretty dark.

Now enter my Ikea lamp. The first morning after receiving it I turned it on along with all my other lights, while getting ready for work. I noticed a few things that day. One, I wasn’t angry during my commute via the subway. If you’re not from Toronto you won’t get this. But if you are and you ride the rocket each morning, then you’ll understand the general expression of, “angry defeatism” on most commuters’ faces. My lack of hate was personally noticeable. I also noticed that I didn’t need my usual green tea when I got into work. Even crazier I was alert when I got in, the type of mental alertness that often doesn’t show up until roughly 11 am.

I really thought about this for a while. I couldn’t figure it out until I remembered this post by Seth Roberts. It’s very short. I thought about it for a few days and made a little experiment. I went from turning on all my lights every morning to a few, to none. My “awakeness” varied positively with the quantity and duration of morning light. Along with morning light, I’ve also found that having the TV on and taking Vitamin D amplifies this effect.

It’s not a small impact. It’s had a huge effect on my day-to-day.

I left a comment asking what the Ikea lamp was. One interesting thing about this was the exposure time. Judging from a comment (see below), it was about an hour. That’s the minimum I try to get early every morning (from sitting outside).
After I bought the absolute necessities for my Beijing apartment (bed, water heater, washing machine, etc.), my first optional purchase was a chair for the balcony. So I can sit on the enclosed balcony in the morning.

Lindemans Lambic Framboise

At a Beijing “food and wine exhibition” (which was 95% wine) my favorite drinks were the Lindemans fruity beers — a type of beer called lambic. The label of the raspberry (framboise) one says:

Lindemans Framboise is a lambic made from local barley, unmalted wheat, and wild [= air-borne] yeast. After spontaneous fermentation, raspberries are added, creating a secondary fermentation and yielding a beer of exceptional flavor and complexity.

Maybe the presence of two quite different fermentations (grain and fruit) is why it tastes so good, just as this says. To me, the more important point is the linkage of fermentation and complexity — the idea that fermentation creates complexity.

How Bad is Animal Fat?

After learning that animal fat improved my sleep, I happily ate much more of it. I wasn’t worried that it made something else worse (e.g., heart disease). I believe that all parts of our bodies have been shaped by evolution to work well on the same diet, just as all electric appliances are designed to work well on the same house current.

A to-be-published meta-analysis in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition supports my view that animal fat is nowhere as bad as we’ve been told a thousand times. It says:

During 5—23 y of follow-up of 347,747 subjects, . . . intake of [more] saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of CHD [coronary heart disease], stroke, or CVD [cardiovascular disease]. The pooled relative risk estimates that compared extreme quantiles of saturated fat intake were 1.07 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.19; P = 0.22) for CHD, 0.81 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.05; P = 0.11) for stroke, and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.89, 1.11; P = 0.95) for CVD.

Emphasis added. One aspect of the results suggested that studies that found an positive association (more fat, more disease) were more likely to be published than those that didn’t find an association or found a negative association. Which means these numbers may underestimate the good effects.

Thanks to Steve Hansen and Michael Pope.

My Theory of Human Evolution (Beijing furniture shopping)

I am moving to an unfurnished apartment in Beijing so I went furniture shopping at a huge “furnishings plaza” with hundreds of furniture showrooms. (Not to mention showrooms for mattresses, doors, stairs, security systems, curtains, light fixtures, and interior decorators.) It was more like a trade show than anything I’ve seen in America or Europe. I think it had more furniture choices than the whole Bay Area. I loved wandering around it, partly because it kept reminding me of my theory of human evolution:

1. The huge choice included a big range of styles, including European, Chinese Traditional, modern, and “flat-plate” (meaning flat pieces of wood). At least 90% of the stuff struck me as ugly. Garish, too ornate, too simple, clunky, chunky, bad colors, bad patterns, and so on. Of course there were buyers for all of it. That there is such diversity of taste (“no accounting for taste”) supports a diversity of technological development. Exactly what a healthy economy needs.

2. Almost all the furniture was decorated. (If you don’t want decoration, you shop at Ikea.) Decoration is unnecessary from a functional point of view — you can sleep on a bed whether it is decorated or not — but is obviously pleasant. (Which is why I wasn’t at Ikea.) Decoration is difficult, so the demand for it supports technological innovation.

3. I write a lot sitting up in bed. After I saw a bed with a cushioned headboard, I realized I wanted a bed with a built-in cushion for sitting up. I found something better than I knew existed — the headboard cushion is detachable and cleanable. Having chosen the bed, there was pressure to buy matching furniture — the side table, the wardrobe, and so on. The furniture that matched my chosen bed was not especially attractive by itself but would become more attractive when near my bed. Because we like seeing things match. Our preference for matching stuff at first glance is paradoxical since it seems to push for less diversity rather than more. Why do we like seeing things match? The evolutionary reason, I believe, is so we will put similar things side by side to get that effect. Notice how clothing stores and many other stores are decorated. Why is that good? Because when we put things side by side it is much easier to see little differences and thus little ways one of them can be improved. When you start to notice these little differences, you become a connoisseur. Connoisseurs pay more for hard-to-make stuff than the rest of us and thus support technology that produces hard-to-see improvements.

4. Few Chinese bedrooms have closets. Clothes are hung in wardrobes. The wardrobe that matched my chosen bed wasn’t the loveliest wardrobe I saw. But the loveliest wardrobe I saw didn’t match the bed I wanted. The loveliest wardrobe I saw had something unusual: decoration of several sizes. We like a combination of large-, medium-, and small-scale decorative detail more than one size alone. This creates further challenges for artisans: There is pressure to be skilled at a wide range of sizes. So you don’t just develop technology for making small decorative details, you also develop technology for making larger details. Again, human nature promoting diversity of technological development.

5. The more expensive stuff looked better than the cheaper stuff, yes. But a lot of the expensive stuff wasn’t so much beautiful as expensive-looking. You might or might not like it — but no one would disagree it was expensive. Presumably people buy such stuff to show off, the way we do so many things to show our status. That we use difficult-to-make possessions to display status (thus creating demand for such things) is yet another way that human nature promotes technological innovation.

Insurance Group VP Questions Climate Science

Science journalists, like other journalists, have a built-in problem: What they write affects the careers of the scientists they talk to. So those scientists are unlikely to be honest. No doubt most science journalists realize this but cannot say it, for fear of damaging their own careers. Dirty little secret is the phrase.

This is why, when Climategate happened, the many claims of climate scientists that the emails meant nothing themselves meant nothing. “The reason for the denial was the need for it,” Thorstein Veblen was fond of saying. What the climate scientists really thought they were unlikely to make public. The faux-horrified reactions of the few who made a living on the other side of the debate also meant nothing.

And this is why this reaction to Climategate, from Robert Detlefsen, an insurance industry group vice president, is meaningful: what he says will have no effect on his career. He is disinterested. And he makes some good points:

  • “The CRU e-mails show that a close-knit group of the world’s most influential climate scientists actively colluded to subvert the peer-review process [to prevent publication of disagreement]; manufactured pre-determined conclusions through the use of contrived analytic techniques; and discussed destroying data to avoid [FOIA] requests.”
  • He quotes from the Wegman report, which I hadn’t heard of. The Wegman report is by a group of statisticians. It says: “‘ independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface”. It also says that when climate scientists were asked to explain their work, “the sharing of research material, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done.”

He concludes that the science is less certain than has been claimed.