<i>(And here rates are provided in X per 100,000)</i><p>I&#x27;m not playing this game with you.  Obviously, the information wouldn&#x27;t expressed that way in the WP article.  You may recall that they&#x27;re a newspaper, not a scholarly journal.  So you know perfectly well that it wouldn&#x27;t have expressed the information in those terms.<p>The article does mention exactly what the increase is.  As to the base rate, the WP article doesn&#x27;t use that exact term -- but they do give hard numbers for the sample sizes involved, and took care to point out that the smallness of the proportion of infants who developed autism (with or without taking SSRIs) was one of the factors that led the researchers to point out that their findings should be taken with caution.<p>If you want more data and specifics, read the JAMA article.  If you think the researchers themselves made some basic flaw in their statistical reasoning -- and, correspondingly, you&#x27;d like to bring their reputations and their future funding channels into question -- then the burden of proof lies on you to show it.  And I&#x27;m sure JAMA Pediatrics would be very interested in getting an email from you.<p>But if you&#x27;re going to fault the WP article for not conveying every facet of detail from the research article, in as many digits of precision -- even though its overall presentation was basically fair, and on point to the level of detail that would be meaningful to its readers -- then you&#x27;re basically playing head games.