scientists identify genetic causes of autism

[elportodelgato]

story here from the Guardian

lots of people on here already know my views so just opening this up for comment. Does this research change anyone's opinion re: MMR?

with respect, novicemama, I would say that you have not read links form both sides of the argument.

I really don't know how anyonecanread (or watch - a lot of it is video form) most of the links BEachcomber provides, and not start to doubt that Deer is telling the truth, or that wakefield is always a liar etc.

how can you read some of the stuff that deals with the gmc findings (the real stuff, not the sensationalist headlines), and still think there was no clinical need for the investigations into those children?

how many times does it have ot be pointed out that the studies do not disprove wakefield's hypothesis, because they don't even test it?

it is extraordinary.

Look, is there any way that I can extract myself honourably from this thread?

It is taking up too much time and I am tired of repeating the same things, hearing the same things and not really getting anywhere.

As novicemama says, we are all reading the same stuff but coming down on different sides of the argument and this thread hasn't changed anyone's mind one bit.

Obviously, if this leads to cries of 'earthworm knows we're onto something but doesn't want to admit it' I'll stick around.

I think, for me, this research is not relevant to the MMR debate but does show that the scientists are not communicating very well with the public (and some of the public are going to great lengths to only hear what they want to hear). Headlines are all very well and good but there is no base understanding of genetics for this to fit into. Trying to warp this around to say that the MMR might have changed the childrens' DNA is ludicrous.

Mutations like these (copy number variants) come about when the parental gametes were formed, when the parents themselves were in the womb. For environmental risk factors to blame for such mutations you have to look back two generations. MMR couldn't even be a suspect, whatever your opinions on it (sorry if someone has already pointed this out, didn't read whole thread).

So on top of everything else I am a 'bad mother' for giving my DD the MMR. OK then. Bad bad me. Must go home and give myself a telling off for being so deliberately careless about her health

silverfrog, I have looked at the links thank you, I think over the last month Leonie must have posted up the youtube one of Brian Deer outside the courtroom about 7 times, so yes, I have seen it. And everything else. I have just reached a different conclusion from you. (As an aside, the thing with a lot of the video stuff is that it comes down to personal opinion about how a person comes across, and that's not a scientific basis on which to base an opinion)

hi earthworm, how's your hardhat fitting?

err, no.

I am talking about the science videos - presentations on the science involved,etc.

or the vidoe interviewswith wakefield, where he actually gets ot answer the questions raised at the gmc.

and you neglected ot mention - do you think there was clinical need ofr the investigations?

Now realise I was extremely naive to get involved in the first place novicemama - first and last time.

i dont get why wakefield was struck off ?
if he was wrong, then why does it now say genetic predisposition/gut problems/ urine test to determine autism.... it seams a bit similar as to what wakefield was looking , from what i gather (vaguely) it was the media who focused on the mmr as the "cause of autism," and that he was more intrested in the link between autism and bowl conditions (but i could be wrong)

Hi Hippygalore, your post is really interesting. I completely agree about scientists not communicating well with the public, and, on the other side, the public not really understanding the scientific process. My DH works in this area and it's a real struggle to translate difficult complex scientific findings into language and terms which the general public can relate to without turning everything into black and white stories which grab headlines. So many times you see stories in the paper (mainly the DM admittedly) along the lines of 'XXX causes XXX say scientists' only to read down further and find that the science says nothing of the sort, it simply says that it might be a possibility. But saying that something might be a possibility does not sell newspapers.

I think the media owes us all a huge apology for their handling of the Wakefield stuff. Really his work should not have seen the light of day, and it was the pursuit of a 'story' which led to the ensuing scare.

sorry, novicemama - why should wakefield's work not have seen the light of day? (media scares aside - that,at least, we agree on)

are oyu saying what he found was not in any way interesting?

earthworm, I sympathise with the 'naive' comment, these threads should be approached with caution. You should have seen the monstering I got when I posted (admittedly in anger) about my 10mo DD catching measles as a result of low MMR uptake in my area. That one just ran and ran and apparently I was the bad guy in the end.

silverfrog, I think we will just have to agree to disagree. I respect that you have looked into it and reached your conclusions. Can you also respect that I have looked into it and reached mine? even though they are different to yours?

wakefield is perfectly within his rights to publish his work (providing done ethically and correctly peer reviewed of course, on which subject we will have to agree to differ). What I am taking issue with is the way the media picked up on the 'story' and ran with it, way way beyond the actual results of the paper. And they continued to run with it. For years and years. Because it was a good 'story'. Research is published every day and doesn't receive this kind of attention because it's not considered to be 'news'. The reporting of Wakefield's paper was out of all proportion

novicemama, I am happy for you to come to your conclusions. the fact that they are diferent to mine, well, that's just life.

but honestly, please just answer - do you think there was no clinical need for investigations into the gut issues those childrenhad?

and do you really think that wakefield should have kept quiet about what he found?

(nothing to do with press conferences here, more the suggestion he should not have published the case series)

thats the thing novicemama .journalists are not scientists, so how could they possibly understand what they are writing/reporting about?.
the media often scaremonger imo.
theres nothing more scary than an idiot with a little knowledge ! (disclaimer am not calling journo`s idiots, am quoting me old granny)

silverfrog, I have no issue with Wakefield publishing his work.

drloves, there is an organisation called the Science Media Centre which aims to address some of these concerns ie: layperson journos reporting on science which they don't understand fully. I have to say that a lot of the quality newspapers, and certainly magazines like New Scientist, employ science journalists with scientific research backgrounds and / or PhDs. These people do at least understand the scientific process and have an intermediate level of understanding in most scientific fields, with perhaps an expert level of understanding in one particular area. I can't speak for the Daily Mail...

However, the need to generate 'news' is a problem, and I know one journo on a respected broadsheet who left the profession after persistently being asked to 'sex up' science stories to get better headlines

i think had wakefields report not have been banded about by the media, but instead looked at and evaluated by his peers....then perhaps his work would have been researched in more detail, worked on by others and would have resulted in a more rounded and fuller study with larger numbers of subjects.(probably what he`d hoped for - more funding better research ect)
instead it sold trashy tabloids.

Still not answering whether you think there was Clinical need for investigations...

Why won't anyone ever say what they think on this subject?

Ive read the new scientist ... its quite good and does read very different to the tabloids. Very informative imo. The problem is the average person is more likely to read the DM/sun/record than the new scientist..... and its the average joe who is in the majority.

possibly you're right drloves, but it's got too sensational now. I would definitely welcome more research, if only to bring these endless threads to a conclusion

silverfrog, people do say what they think on this subject, and then we get told we're just WRONG and BAD. FWIW I think you're asking the wrong question wrt 'clinical need'. His whole methodology was cock-eyed so it's very hard to separate out the possible 'clinical need' for investigations because the way he went about it was so wrong.

i think there was a clinical need for investiations silverfrog. of course i do.

clinical need for infestations? wtf? pmsl .
sorry , you know what i mean.