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?

hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahaha

yet another one who thinks BRian Deer is credible.

Honestly, where do you all come from?

Please try to find credible sources for any info you think you have, before spreading yet more misinformation.

SanctiMoanyArse My post wasn`t directed to you personally.

Ok

www.gmc-uk.org/static/documents/content/Wakefield__Smith_Murch.pdf

Leonie,out of interest - what was in your posts that got deleted?

Can't remember anything that bad on this thread!

well, yes, I know the gmc says he lied.

But really, have you actually read the transcripts?

PLease could you lay out specifically, rather than generically linking ot the stuff the headlines are drawn form, where oyu think Wakefield lied, and how he apparently made his research fit his suspicions?

Only the Lancet paper was described as "good science, that still stands" at the gmc trial, by a witness for the prosecution.

Surely you can see that if he did actually lie and manipulate the facts, that Horton et al would not have said that?

OHK so have just rad that document. Fun, eh?

RIght so my thinikng that he was pretty crap on ethics stands, although even the GMC notes 'The Panel accepts that at the time of Child 2?s admission in
September 1996, you could not have known about the conditions
of ethical approval, which had been set out in a letter dated 7
January 1997 from the Ethics Committee to Professor Walker-
Smith, acknowledged by him on 9 January 1997, and copied to
you on the same date'

There's quite a bit seeming to refer to CDD not being ASD; in fact there is speculation that CDD may be included in the DSM-V under the ehading of ASD (not set in stone yet and I am certain there are parties who woudl be prepared tom pressurise against this inclusion). oNce case is encephalitic episode it seems, however it's not the first time a mis diagnosis of that has been suggested that I am aware of.

There seems to be a lot of 'well this child did have symptoms but not enough'- whcih is a mtter of judgement eporhaps rather than clear cut wrong?

So.... given that I have heard a few debates lately about ethics committess, their pointlessness and the like....

What I get from that is that Wakefield probably isn;t soemonoe I;d want tow work with, being a person who likes to conform. however, he is hauled through the mud as if he is amalevolent being who delibnerately nistreated children and falsified dx's to achieve a result- it's far mroe subtle than that. We're not tlaking clear cut boundaries: these are hazy things, these dx overlaps.

There's ntohing really in tehre to say he deliberately lied. Certainly nothing to say he amrketed the research as a reason not to vaccinate: in fact, IIRC he said people should vaccinate. Surely much of the difference between what happened and what was said to be the result is to be laid at the feet of the press?

And whilst the research doesn't meet ethics standards that doesn't mean it ahs no scientifc basis, only that it doesn't conform.

And tehre is absolutely nothing in there to explain why we can't simply have a rerun of his study with proper ethics affiliations and the oike, so we can know one way or another. Yes, the issues make his study look shoddy; no, it doesn't disprove anything.

Sancti, the ehtics thing ismore complex than the charge sheet makes out.

Since the children were not investigated as part of research - the paper was a case series - but due to clinical need, then technically there is no need ofr EC.

ALso, the wrong EC approval was noted. Wakefield et al say they had EC approval under a ruling form the previous year, for the work they needed ot do.

The EC that the charge sheet refers to is for a separate study - one started after the investigations inot the LAncet 12 were complete. the two do not overlap on any way.

the above (and more, like the CDD/ASD stuff - pointed out at the trial like there are clear cut boundaries - and the conflict of interest stuff (there wasn't any under the rules at the time)) is what makes the gmc trial such a farce.

OK SF

well that makes it evn less clear cut that people shoudla ccuse the scince of being compeltely woirthless then

Seems to me there's much in there that would be valuable in repeating under very close ethical scrutiny

well, yes.

and thatis all people are asking for, really.

but no one will touch it, and lots of people are so very eager to scream out that he is a liar (wihtout proof), a charlatan (without proof), he manipulated data (withoout proof) and so it oges on.

and, as we all know, you say something often enough, and it gets believed.

wakefield, of course, has done further work on this, and his theories hold.

but the majority of peopel cannot see past the baseless smears, and so it goes on.

and meanwhile your boys, and my dd, and countlessothers who could wel lbenefit form accepted research into gut issues, soldier on with hteir disconfort. and we, as parents, are dismissed as "gullible" if we go GF/CF etc etc.

Oh I know SF

and GF is the only behavioural diet that worked for ds1 (who has gut issues- theya re all CF anyway as am I through necessity- my syumptoms when I have casein are more painful than labour and heck I ahve ahd 4 kids with no pain relief so I knwo LOL )

And that's why I focus on the call for further research: becuase nobody is ever going to accept either side's take on Wakefield; so we need answers. Real ones.

the fact they are not forthcming is pretty damned poor.

yep,
but it is easier to ignore the cries for more research (which,after all, is only what wakefield did!) if oyu can write the guy off as a maverick loon.

but that still leaves the issues unexplored.

Wakefield`s selection procedure for his "research" was biased. He was personally involved in the referals !!!

He failed to disclose funding from the Legal Aid Board, he was deceitful regarding his insentives into the "research" findings

He authorised investigations unethically such as lumbar punctures on children.

That is so dangerous !!

How anyone trust the judgement of a quack like this?

But why did Wakefield go ahead with his activities even after being told that his research was invalid ? Maybe he will appear on 'I'm not a Scientist, get me out of here'. That will keep everyone happy.

Right, now could I possibley have a link to some credible clinical research that links MMR vaccine to Autism?

firstly, onedge, it wasn't a research paper. it was a case series, written about some of his patients.

He did not hae to disclose funding form the LAB, under the rules at the time. He did, however, actually disclose this, to his co-authors, to Horton, and to the Dean of the Royal Free (amongst others). Everyone involved knew, and no-one had a problem with it, or thought that there was a conflict of interest.

The investigations were not unethical. he believed (as did the other consultants on the team) that lumabr punctures were clinically indicated. when it became apparent they were not (they were investigating for mitochondrial dysfunction/disorder) they stopped performing htem. A lumbar puncture is fairly standard proceedure if faced with a child who ohas regressed, has a potential brain inflammation/malfunction (sorry wrong word, have dds pesterign me!) and you are trying ot find out what might have gone wrong.

yes, it is a proceedure which carries a risk. the parents were fully informed of the risk, and consents gained.

what, exactly, about the above leads you to say he is a quack?

The fact that the GMC ruled that he acted dishonestly and irresponsibley leads me to think he is a quack.

so where is the link to the research linking MMR vaccines to Autism?

I wouldnt choose to not vaccinate my children on the basis of a "case series " involving 12 children anyway, I think THAT is irresponsible.

I wouldnt choose to not vaccinate my children on the basis of a "case series " involving 12 children anyway, I think THAT is irresponsible.

read the thread (and others) for explanations re: the gmc verdict. suffice ot sya, they ignored a LOT of evidence, and made rulings based on errors.

do you really think that rsponsible people based their decision not to vaccinate on just that (although, I have to say, if you suspect that your child may be in the sub group, or susceptible in any way, it does make compelling reading).

Wakefield never said not to vaccinate, btw.

he said caution should be exercised with regard to the mmr until further safety studies were done (soemthign which the Cochrane review then corroborated - that more, and better designed, safety studies were needed) and that if people thought their child might be susceptible, he recommended singles (which were available when he made that recommendation. the governement later withdrew this choice, int he fullknowledge that a proportion of peope were opting for the singles - now THAT is irresponsible)

So what did these responsible people base their decision on?

I must have missed something.

So it's irresponsible to believe anyone except Wakefield ? Remember no one had even asked him to comment on vaccines so why did he push himself into the limelight on the basis of research that he knew to be invalid ? What did he say when told his research was invalid ? 'Caution should be applied when listening to me' ?

To be fair, silverfrog, the links to the Brian Deer website are actually to original sources rather than to newspaper reports or anything that you might consider biased.

I know you keep saying that you are on your phone and can't read links, but it's worth having a look when you are next on your home pc even if it is only to refute them credibly rather than saying that everything on his website must be a lie.

OnEdge

what we have said is we want more research done on the same lines by different people

Pray tell me how that is trusting anyohne, whether or not we agree with anyhting he wrote?

Thwere is nothing wrong with what we ask for.

As long as tehre is doubt in one eprson's mind that the MMR may have been related to their subgroup child's asd then it is a valid request: we may not get cures, but answers sure might help.

He worked with someone who believes exorcism cures autism. Is that 'quacky' enough ? I accept he only worked with him and may not personally believe the stuff but still hardly science.