And as they analyzed the 90th percentile, they found a significant difference; with a 1.7 odds ratio. That is really significant. This difference is even more significant in the 95th percentile. Its significant for the 11% of the participants not for the whole group. You are misinterpreting the res...

Aytundra wrote:

Ducky wrote:I'm happy that it helped you and thanks for the study you found.

Do you eat wheat ducky?

No I dont. Ithink the constipation part is true and constipation causing hemorroides makes sense. But it could take a long time.

I'm happy that it helped you and thanks for the study you found.

I eat mostly veggies and eggs. Fruits are too much hassle for me personally.

Aytundra wrote:Thank you Ducky!
Thank you RRM!
I learned a lot from both of you!
Smiles.

What have you learned from me?

OK I understand what you're saying but when you say "twice as many" you also have to take into consideration the twice as many of 'how many'? 1. Clearly 2% vs 4% is not the same as 40% vs 80%. 2. Also for that study to have any relevance it should have been repeated several times elsewhere. Apparent...

Aytundra wrote:What is the difference between correlation and causation?

You didnt even answer my first.
Are you that desperate that you have to pull this redherring nonsense on me?

Aytundra wrote:Ducky, I have a question for you:
Can you name the type of study that Karlsson, H. et al., performed?
And explain to me the scopes and limits of this type of study.

I cannot. And your point is?

How do you know they have the lowest rate of wheat consumption? Look at the map I posted. I did and it was very pretty in colours. http://chartsbin.com/view/5267 But nothing substantial, doesn't even tell me a legend. A poor cartographer, geologist and statistician. Well then why dont you find a be...

In the top 5% (95th percentile), the difference is even 11% vs 5%, which is more than twice as much.
That is significant.

You are very dishonest.
I guess if it was 1% vs 2% you would say: "Look at this, this is a 100% difference!".
11% out of 211 that's not that much at all.

How do you know they have the lowest rate of wheat consumption?

Look at the map I posted.

Me: So you are claiming that gluten causes unrepairable damage to the brain? RRM: That it may. That wheat intake is a risk factor. Japan has the highest number of autistic children and they also have the lowest rate of wheat consumption. http://www.targetmap.com/viewer.aspx?reportId=15821 http://ch...

The study shows that newborns who had high levels of anti-Gliadin in their blood, are more likely to develop a psychosis than those with lower levels of anti-Gliadin. No. This is what the table says: Case subjects total = 211 (N= total number) Control subjects total = 553 (N= total number) Antigen ...

I did never claim that by eliminating wheat from one's diet, one may undo the damage already done. So you are claiming that gluten causes unrepairable damage to the brain? That contradicts that latter study above where children of healthy mothers also had Anti-Gliadin in their blood and they were s...

The distribution for controls is like this:

5th: 526
50th: 276
75th: 136
90th: 54
95th: 27

So 136 persons out of 553 had more than 75% Anti-Gliadin in their blood? Is that it?

PS: your edit timing is very short, couldn't you extend it?

Please show me: Exactly which 2 quotes of mine are contradictive? I never claimed that the Wai diet may cure autism. Never. Not even suggested it. Or hinted. Not on the website, not on this forum. Nowhere. A diet without opioid peptides does not cure autism. But that does not validate that there is...