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?

That's not the point. Most people don't post pathetic unfunny childish comments like yours. They take it seriously. Only a couple of people have said : think of the children.

It's thinking of the children that makes one take it seriously: not accept one side of the other: just take it seriously. Without that kind of ridiculous, pathetic, noxious rubbish.

Be fair Beachcomber, nobody takes Krigsman seriously and here's why :

actionforautism.co.uk/2010/02/14/krigsman-wakefield-and-research-ethics/

The only place that would publish his paper was Autism Insights, a journal that boasts Andrew Wakefield and Carol Stott on the editorial board (and Carol Stott is a co-author in the research). Both Krigsman and Stott worked with Wakefield at Thoughtful House.

In all seriousness, this cannot be called reputable research and it is quite obvious that the peer review could not have been less rigorous.

In fact, it is tempting to agree with Action for Autism when they say that the magazine was probably set up purely to publish papers that nobody else would touch with a barge pole (it's only published two articles since it was set up in 2009, one of which is the research to which you are referring).

And I really want to explain why I think publishing in proper peer reviewed academic journals is so important, because I am really not being flippant about this.

In short, it is the only way that the work can be taken seriously because it is only when it has been pulled apart by experts that it can be seen to be robust.

I do think that the recent research by Imperial College sounds very positive though, and if children could potentially be tested for autism from six months (as seems to be suggested) then it would remove a lot of the angst because of course it would take place before the mmr was even administered.

I don't disagree with you Earthworm that science must be robust, replicable, etc and that peer review is important.

I just also think that it is naive to think that the sort of work Wakefield, Krigsman, Walker etc. do doesn't get published because it must be bad science and not because it is unpopular science.

So many journals have financial links with pharmaceutical companies (all those in the Elesiver group for example). They won't touch this stuff with a bargepole because it is too political. Just look at what has happened to the Wakefield primate study that was (peer reviewed) and published online by Neurotoxicology - they have now removed the paper and declared they will not be going to print. The editor of the journal has clearly stated that the decision came from up top.

As a citizen of a so called democracy I'm pretty by such blatant scientific censorship.

No worries backtotalkaboutthis. I find the joking about such serious matters utterly weird and very offensive on more levels than I can muster any energy to go onto right now.

Leonie, I think there may be a misunderstanding - my comments about the importance of peer review were in relation to the Krigsman research.

Are you still enjoying the book?

Has he said anything about the patent yet?

backtotalk - very well said, and not lowering the tone at all

Leonie - cyber has a son with ASD, but without gut issues.

cyber - you have truly lost the plot this time.please stopand consider just how offensive you are being. there really is no need for it.

Beachcomber -

I would urge you to follow my link above to the Action for Autism site.

I genuinely do not think that respected journals refuse to publish Krigsman because they are afraid of the political fallout.

Here is a quote from their site :

I can understand why other journals might be wary of Krigsman. He lists his main academic affiliation as Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, New York University School of Medicine. However, under cross examination as an expert witness in the Autism Omnibus proceedings it emerged that although he was on the staff at NYU he had never taught a class there and had never been paid a salary.

Thanks Leonie, and good luck preparing for the tribunal.

Thanks for the link earthworm but I'm not really interested in random bloggers quoting things out of context and putting their spin on things that no-one here can really verify.

If random bloggers would actually address the science rather than go after the man it would be a little less yawn making and a bit more fruitful. They all seem to be frightfully politically naive and sheep like which gives me the willies after a while. I can only take so much of them (plus Deer, Orac, Leitch and all the rest) at one sitting.

Cyeber we oft disagree but I always find you engaaing on here. However I feel you have let yourself down on this thread. A shame.

I have considered it and I have no desire to get into Satanic Verses territory I see you do not like certain ideas to be exposed for what they are. Humour can be the best way to get at the truth however how much anger this causes. But good luck with all your other ventures. I am not offended by strong language btw

Was that to anyone specific |Cyber?

I don't know what the truth is and try not to take Wakefield's side or the other. I;d like to see research done becuase I have a geneuine curosity to the outcome, not a vested interest in any outcome.

Humour can be good, but not if it comes over as patronising and dismissive. you don't usually, IMO this time you did. Feel confident in your own decisions but at elast respect other people's right to hold different oens without being ridiculed.

And then I will elave this thread and hope that opinions voived ehre stay ehre. What happens at band camp...

Link above, Leonie (16.36.21)

Thing is though earthworm only a small excerpt of the testimony is presented.

Who knows what the next question/answer was?

Perhaps Krigsman went onto to say something that clarified his affiliation with the establishment in question. Equally perhaps he didn't but I'm certainly not going to trust random partial blogger's word for it. I never trust a source that quotes something but does not link to the original source so that any readers are unable to check out the context/references/before and after for themselves.

It strikes me as very that Krigsman's alleged failings seem to be almost identical to those of Dr Wakefield - accused of examining the guts of children who did not present clinical need, dodgy ethics, etc.

We seem to keep coming back to this notion that the children are not really ill.