No, I explicitly accounted for that, which is why I mentioned that measuring the rate of autism (which is measured as the number of people diagnosed with autism in a region) might not line up with exposure during pregnancy (which could have occurred in a different region entirely, especially if the autism diagnosis lags behind the birth)

What are you talking about? Region and location has nothing to do with this study.

They took the serum of the pregnant mother, measured that for the pesticide, and found it was a statistically significant predictor of autism.

The whole thread is responding to my suggestion that you ought to also find a geographical relationship between DDT application and autism.

Oh, shit, you're right. I didn't read your part not-in-italics.

Well, I suck. I was rude and incorrect. Thank you for taking the time to keep me humble.