>>544745650
>>544743843
Man, I fucked that up because I'm tired. Essentially the issue with the statistics presented in the Teratology Primer is that they're not reliable for mapping statistical odds as they are relevant to a client (an expecting couple, for instance), a 3-5% chance of major deformations (using the primer's framework defined as: structural, congenital, results from abnormal development, has significant health/cosmetic impact, and is confirmed by findings) is a terrifying figure that would result in the human population rapidly devolving into an abominated mass of flesh before we hit the bronze age, and this statistical bias is explicitly acknowledged and documented.

This isn't to say the primer is useless, in fact it's rather exhaustive and well-established, but rather that its figures are to be taken with a grain (or a sack) of salt.