Let me say this clearly so there is no confusion. Rain does not cause autism, that my friends is stupid

So somehow the BBC picked up this 'science' story which is so, so, so dumb the man/woman who considered it news worthy should cut their own head off to prevent themselves publishing further drivel.

Here's the link - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7703072.stm

Now I understand that the article does indeed state that experts in the UK consider this study to be as much use as a solar powered torch. However, this is just the sort of garbage science reporting that can misinform and confuse a proportion of the country who are not scientifically literate.

Note the headline - Rainfall autism theory suggested

That is as far as some people will read.

Really the headline should read something like - Rainfall autism link completely dumb.

Autism is one condition that is poorly understood by the public. All the evidence points towards autism being a genetic condition. More and more children are being diagnosed with autism. It was highlighted as a condition commonly misdiagnosed and techniques were improved.

So 100's upon 1000's of quacks, playmates of the year (Jenny McCarthy - she's a proponent of the notion that child vaccinations cause autism. For the record that is pseudo-scientific bullshit and nothing but) and lazy doctors try to find a link between autism and absolutely anything. Recent 'links' have been made between autism and cell phone useage, electric pylons, heavy metals like mercury, older fathers and early television useage. That is a whole lot of weird unrelated stuff. Time to add something else to the list then.

The article claims that scientists (who have been published in Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine)have concluded that 'increased rainfall, or something linked to it, may be connected to the development of autism'. It then explains that it might be chemicals related to the rainfall and/or the rain itself that is striking down children with autism.........Then what? How? Why? Evidence? Got any? They haven't got any, they just looked at some statistics and the rain....................................

This is a not scientific investigation. It's confusing association with causation. So for instance I could state that because it is known Artic icesheets are retreating, and more celebrities are joining the anti-vaccine movement. That Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy could be responsible for retreating ice sheets. Then I don't have to print any evidence as to how, and my work gets published? I'll read the paper.

Please be sceptical when reading science stories. These are the sorts of stories that sell papers unfortunately. The sensationalist, dumb ones. The ones that gutter press print week after week about a particular sort of bread causing throat cancer one week then reducing bowel cancer the next. It's rubbish.