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?

Edam, I absolutely agree with your post.

I used to think I was the ONLY person who thought like this but now, from reading fora I'm realising that there is a larger than I thought number of people who can see through this 'presentation' that MMR is safe and Dr AW is a bad man.

I don't buy the idea that genes are the only cause.

You can't have a genetic epidemic, and an epidemic is what we have.

I've posted elsewhere a link on how mercury compounds can damage genes: so for those (like me) who believe mercury has a role to play, this research is a bit off the point.

Quite interesting how science is being discussed here. The publication of AW's research has been withdrawn - this means the research cannot be relied upon, and he has been struck off the medical register. This is nothing to do with the government, it is how science works to ensure the data we use is reliable and that research has been carried out properly. (yes I am a scientist).

Leoniedelt et al - why do you think sessypoos post is "bullshit"? Not nice to call people idiotic but it is important that children are immunised.

Its true that people respond to vaccination in slightly different ways. That is why there is a second shot as a safety net. Yet even then there are some people who do not respond to the vaccine, and some who cant be vaccinated, so these people are personally not protected. But they do gain protection if people around them are all immunised, as the diseases cannot spread through to them. This needs at least 95 % of people to be vaccinated. When this is achieved, it is possible to get rid of a disease completely (as we did with smallpox ).

But when the number of people vaccinated falls (as happened in the MMR scare), more people get infected, some people do die, and some people are left dissabled by the disease. That is what has happened, as the sad result of the AW scare.

I am not alone in venturing that there is a political motive in the attacks on the work of Andrew Wakefield. His areas of research are now being looked at with interest by others. I think there is some naivete, or possibly wilfulness, in being persuaded that it has nothing to do with the government.

It is not political, it is an issue of science (and of ethics too perhaps). Research papers are also withdrawn because e.g. a student has analysed the data incorrectly, etc.

Leonie - the withdrawal of the research and AW being struck off are not to do with the government, its an issue of science. But the government are involved in that they have to deal with the result of the scare - the lower immunisation, the higher infection rate, the higher death/dissability rate are problems, and they have to make sure there is better communication to people.
I dont know who/what brian deer is, but I can understand it if he is annoyed with AW, as AW has caused a problem and undone a lot of peoples good work in reducing disease.

Backtotalk - yes this work has been looked at by other people, and they have found no link between autism and MMR. This is also important in science - results must be observable and reproducible, otherwise it might just be a fluke/coincidence.

Am looking forward to reading Callous Disregard, even though I do not doubt that it will be thoroughly depressing.

Just as depressing is how people really do not try to inform themselves about this issue.

Strange how folks tend to be suspicious of government and big business in just about every area other than that of vaccination. I will never understand how they have managed such a level of thought control and critical thinking obedience in so many people. Very very strange. The science is a plain as the nose on your face for those who bother to read it - except hardly anybody does. Indeed many people deny that the science even exists, which to me is akin to denying that the children concerned exist.

Oh and as for the idea that this is not political well I would PMSL if it weren't for the devastating nature of the subject.

Of course its fucking political - it is political because due to the Urabe MMR debacle the government granted immunity to the manufacturers and therefore must pick up the tab.

No wonder the litigation was scuppered.

Of course Wakefield must be vilified. And that people buy this shit and try to defend it in the name of good science. I despair.

Thank you for that link Leonie, I see that AW had patented a new vaccine himself, and needed to discredit the use of MMR vacine to sell it. That perhaps explains some of his motivations. There clearly were things wrong with his research, as his publication was withdrawn and he has been struck off.

Beach - I think people like being immunised against disease. Who likes catching dangerous diseases? Its nice not to be ill.
And if we eradicate the disease (like we did with smallpox) there wont be anymore profit in it.

Oh please NOT the rival vaccine nonsense again.

This is real life not a crappy B movie. Use a little common sense. Even if there was a rival vaccine (which there wasn't - Wakefield developed and patented in the name of the Royal Free a transfer factor for treating persistent measles infection - not a vaccine) it is just very very silly to think Wakefield was about to take over the market all on his own-some. (After having mightily pissed off the people in charge for crying out loud)

How can people fail to see that even if there had been a 'rival vaccine' (which there wasn't as is plain to anyone who reads the bloody patent) it is just ridiculous to think that any lone doctor could compete with established manufacturers and vaccines.

Also, big clue, a perfectly good single measles vaccine already existed - just quite how Wakefield was supposed to launch a crafty plan to make millions from selling a product that already existed and was made by huge established companies with long term government contacts, I don't quite know.

The Patent

Clearly states "this present invention relates to the new vaccine for the elimination of MMR and Measles virus"

It's pretty clear that it is for a supposedly safer vaccine as well as treatment for existing IBD

How odd, to be able in all of this, to completely and utterly ignore the catastrophically huge financial vested interests in defending MMR -- while at the same time trying to invent a financial conflict of interest for Andrew Wakefield.

It's such a joke. It's wilful. You might as well be sitting in a corner with your hands over your eyes and earplugs in your ears singing la la la can't hear you.

"yes this work has been looked at by other people, and they have found no link between autism and MMR. This is also important in science - results must be observable and reproducible, otherwise it might just be a fluke/coincidence."

Don't be silly. Perhaps you don't follow research in this field. Have a look back on the vaccination threads for very recent info and links about digestive enzyme treatments. Work on autism and its relationship with the gut continues, progresses and is finding treatments, it would seem now.

"this present invention relates to the new vaccine for the elimination of MMR and Measles virus"

Transfer factors are usually referred to as vaccines. However they are a different sort of vaccine to those which are designed to prevent disease. A TF is designed to treat or clear an infection - hence the word eliminate. The TF eliminates the virus in someone who has a persistent infection that they are not able to clear on their own. The product in this patent would have to be substantially adapted before it would work as a prophylactic.

This product was intended to treat patients with Crohn's and autistic enterocolitis who presented persistent measles infection. (which is exactly what all of the descriptive section refers to)It is normal practice in patents to mention potential adaptations of a product in order to protect future potential uses. The product in the patent linked to has a potential to be integrated into a vaccine but it is clearly not at that stage.

Small detail but the patent is in the name of the Royal Free so if people want to tell the truth about this TF they should be saying 'the Royal Free patented a TF' not 'Wakefield patented a TF' and most certainly not 'Wakefield patented a rival vaccine'.

I guess you could say 'Wakefield developed a TF for the treatment of infection with the potential to be adapted substantially to perhaps work in a preventative fashion as a vaccine but it hasn't been made yet and the patent is held by the Royal Free hospital.' (I'm not sure you could sell many newspapers with this rather mundane truth however.)

Potential profit that could have been made on the invention was to go to the Royal Free to build a centre for research and treatment of virally induced gut problems.

LeonieDelt - you admit that Mercola is a quack but go on on to say that a lot of what he says is right. How do you decide what is right and what is quackery nonsence? I would suggest that you cherry pick those views that align with your own and take them as truth.

Hard to believe that you give consideration to Mercola whilst disparaging the respected and award-winning Deer.

Beachcomber you can argue semantics as much as you like, wakefield filed a patent for a new safer vaccine, they are words he used in the patent. Whether he benefits from it we do not know.

you can dress it up however you like but it is very clear what the patent is for.