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?

LeonieDelt -

When I said that you admitted to him being a quack, it was in response to your comment 'in many ways he is a quack'. Your refutation seems rather tenuous.

However, it seems that we are in agreement on one thing. He IS a quack. I base this assertion on the fact that he markets nutritional products inappropriately (and has been reprimanded by the FDA for such I believe), promotes the health benefits of prayer and offers extremely questionable dietary advice.

To my mind, he uses clever promotion and scare tactics to attract customers and deflect criticism.

beachcomber the title of the patent was transferred to Wakefield in 2001 when he left the Royal Free

It's for a completely different thing Bruffin ..that's what science is about. You can't just say oh it's vaguely in the same field and it says measles. Semantics, honestly. It wasn't clear for you what the patent was for at all.

"people seriously you have to get over this wakefield stuff"

It's not,BTTAT read the patent, it is very very clear. It says there is need for a safe vaccince and I have invented it, how more clear can you get.
you can't jsut pretend that paragraph is not in the patent

It's not,BTTAT read the patent, it is very very clear. It says there is need for a safe vaccince and I have invented it, how more clear can you get.
you can't jsut pretend that paragraph is not in the patent

Bruffin. Beachcomber explains the very very important differences and there's no point me repeating what she has said. Have a look back.

As an adjunct to that however, can we now ignore the scientific findings of anyone deemed to have a financial interest in the results?

So as soon as we find any profit motive or any financial links we can say: sorry, can't accept that, it's compromised?

Gosh we'll have very short debates (and not many drugs on the market) if that's the case.

(and can we finally say goodbye to that pissy Danish survey partly funded by the MMR manufacturer Merck which was supposed to prove there was no link, how many years ago? ten years ago now, eleven?)

If we are now on the track of dismissing anyone who had a conflict of interest (which, under the rules at the time wakefield didn't), then most of his detractors would have to be silenced.

Rutter, who has beenvociferous on the subject, and indeed was the person who "confirmed" wakefields alleged conflict of interest at the GMC trial, is totally and utterly guilty of this himself - he has published several studies "disproving" the mmr/autism link, without disclosing that he is a paid expert on behalf of mmr manufacturers in litigation cases.... conflict anyone?
Bruffin, your posturing on the TF patent OS ridiculous.

Please inform yourself re: the actual facts, not the facts according.g to Deer, and thenmaybe you won't spout such nonsense.

quite frankly this genetic link causes me far more concern over whether people will now be able to get feotus testing so that they can abort a chiild that is autistic.

the MMR doesn;t even factor into my thinking tbh. but then i have a child with autism, i knew he had autism before he was due the MMR. it was never really a factor

It's my understanding that there are plenty of genotoxic compounds around that can damage DNA.

Finding rogue or faulty genes does not rule out an environmental trigger.

the article was front page of the Independant the other day. i scanned it quikly but ouldn't read on as it made me feel sick.

to know that some people would consider my child's life not worth having.

To anyone else who is not in denial about wakefield will be able to read the patent and see that it is clearly includes a new measles vaccine.

It's a very simple document what is not to understand. He says the current measles vaccine is unsafe and I have found a replacement.
This, along with quoting whale and mercola, is why very few people actually take the likes of beachcomber et all seriously.

Bruffin: you're doing the thing, the lalala if I don't look you're not there thing.

I would bet my mortgage on the fact that Beachcomber "et al" are better informed on this issue with credible and peer reviewed sources than you are.

Bruffin -

You probably need to give up now, for your sanity.

It's been bloody years since Wakefield and there's still no proof but the crazies just won't let it lie.

It's a crying shame that a single misguided and incompetent man could cause a scare on such a massive scale (fueled by the media, that the crazies liked back then remember) but to his supporters he will always be a hero. Better that than admit you were suckered I suppose.

It is rare to come across such breathtaking, relentless denial but the MMR naysayers take the biscuit.

Don't worry Leonie: earthworm is clue-free on this issue. She's just metaphorically "shouting" so she doesn't have to think about it.

Oh, how disappointing that the best retort you could come up with was to tell me that I don't know anything about it.

The assumption that anyone with a different point of view is not privvy to the special, secret, only-for-clever-people knowledge that you yourself have seen would be funny if it wasn't quite so sad.

Not to worry -- I wouldn't just say it for the sake of it I do really believe it. It's not a random piece of abuse, unlike your own post.

It's an accurate assessment of your understanding.

EArthworm,

Could you set out exactly what you thinly the truth is re: wakefield, mmr, the lancet paper, any conflict of interest etc.

You don't seem to have stated your position, or issues, just wandered through and posted nonsense about other posters who appear to have read more on the subject than you.

I would be interested to hear your thoughts on what the actual position is re vaccine safety, GI issues in ASD children, the fact that the vaccine board knowingly introduced vaccine that had an appalling safety record - against specific advice not to do so, etc

Hmmm, I would like to retort but it's hard to know what to say to people who just keep resolutely telling you that you can't possibly know as much as them, otherwise you'd agree with them.

You do get that people are allowed to disagree don't you? That they might have read a lot of stuff and reached different conclusions?

The pointing out of typos, alongside the ubiquitous 'yawn' really does mark a low point in the debate. Next you'll be saying something like 'I don't have to justify my bonkers viewpoint to you, you are beneath my contempt' and then we will know that you really are on a sticky wicket.