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?

Retort? that shows you aren't at all interested. You want to score points, which really is yawn-inducing.

We can tell you know little about it from the style of your posts.

Go on then, show us yours. You've been shown an awful lot. Return the favour.

I think you're not real, I think you're a windup merchant.

Can I be bothered to search your name? hmm no not really.

Hmmm, interesting.

You do realise that when people point out inaccuracies on threads like these - such as the ethics stuff, or the conflict of interest, or the legal aid board payments/disclosures, that these are matters of fact

Facts easily established (which is why it is so mystifying that Deer couldn't be bothered too - unless of course he enjoys being deliberately misleading)

Facts which, once established, actually contradict the nonsense regularly writtenabout wakefield?

Oh I agree, Leonie. He clearly loves the fact that he can write all kinds of shit and get it printed...

And of course, he has most of the country repeating his "truths" about wakefield

It's very interesting. Have nearly finished it. Overall, it is just sad that someone who was.only doing his job has ended up so hounded.

There is a ing bit at the end about how Deer style reporting and articles have made their way into GCSE papers and school textbooks.

Now that really is depressing.

Here are the GMC's findings if you are interested :

www.scribd.com/doc/25983372/FACTS-WWSM-280110-Final-Complete-Corrected

Mr Wakefield was not a heroic underdog who uncovered a vast medical conspiracy, he was a dishonest, misleading and irresponsible man.

Earthworm, o am well aware of the GMC findings.

What I asked was what your position was. And you have been unable to answer that.

The GMC findings are little short of ludicrous and risible. They ate based on misinformation, omissions, blatant lies and obfuscation.

Each one of the charges was refuted, and several times the main witnesses contradicted themselves, or were shown to be misleading in theory evidence.

If that is all you base your opinion on, rather than actually reading through he transcripts available, then I have to agree with BTTAT, you seem ill informed on the subject, and are surely just here to stir things up.

Sorry for typos. Main one should be *their evidence

It would really be better all round if you just admitted that you backed the wrong horse.

There's no shame in it, a lot of people were taken in at the time - I blame the media.

The blind faith is slightly scary.

Well, you see, I haven't backed any horse.

Dd1 had all her jabs. They were contradicted for dd2, so she hasn't. Not really sure how this translates as backing either the governments vaccination schedule, or wakefields alleged anti-vaccine stance.

I note you still haven't actually said what you thinks wrong with any.of the "pro-wakefield" views on this thread.

You don't seem to want to enter into discussion on this, just keep re-stating we were all taken in. Which bit of wakefield's reasoning g do you thinly we were taken in by?

BTW, continually asserting that wakefield was wrong (on what? The price of fish in Norway? The price of tea in China?) does not make it so.

Gau. Bloody phone. Jabs were *contraindicated for dd2

Ok boring though it is let's have a go at injecting a little common sense into this rival vaccine story of Deer's.

I think we have established that the patent was for a TF which had the potential to be developed for use as a vaccine (among other uses).

Now there would be two major things that would rather get in the way of Dr Wakefield making his fortune from this patented treatment.

1. At the time Wakefield spoke about MMR at the now infamous press conference (which was called by the Dean not by Wakefield, and at which Wakefield did not know beforehand if the Dean was going to direct questions to him), the TF was not a finished product in terms of a vaccine. It takes years to get a new vaccine on the market. It takes big budgets, lots of safety studies, pre and post marketing surveillance and a contract with a government. Wakefield had none of those things and it is deluded naive to think that he was suddenly going to launch a new product.

1. The government buys vaccines from big established manufacturers.

If Wakefield had wanted to sell a new vaccine he needed to go to the pharmaceutical companies and sell his idea to them.

Pissing them off by writing 250 page reports on the crapness of MMR safety testing, publishing papers suggesting potential safety issues with MMR and acting as an expert witness in MMR litigation against the manufacturers was definitely not the way to go about making friends and influencing people.

It is just silly to think that Wakefield was trying to damn MMR on the basis of nothing in order to sell his own product. The product wasn't existent and nobody would have bought it from him. There is no way he could have brought this thing to the market.

Then there is the slight issue that at the time of the press conference the patent was in the name of the Royal Free not Dr Wakefield.

Oh and all those who are taking potshots at me in rather rude and gratuitous fashions.

What is your opinion on Dr Singh's work?

What is your opinion on the FDA fast tracking a drug designed to treat digestive enzyme deficiencies (that Wakefield has been talking about and using for years) and hailing it as a discovery of huge importance in treating some types of autism?

What do you make of the recent study which was all proud to note that urinary peptide profile could be used to diagnose autism (something else Wakefield has been saying and doing for years)?

What do you make of the Hornig study which despite trying to prove Wakefield wrong found measles virus in the gut of a child with autism and gut problems (just as Wakefield did - and they used the same lab as Wakefield, amongst others)?

As for the 'backing the wrong horse' comments - well, how offensive.

PMSL at the irony of the 'blind faith' stuff. Except this just is not a funny subject at all.

I'll try to drum up some energy for the GMC ruling later on.

Well this is embarrassing. Whoops vaccine manufacturer funds lead author of autism/genetics study and everybody forgets to declare the CoI.

Bloody hell Beach. One knows it's going to be there somewhere but the shamelessness still shocks.

God it's all such bollocks.

Also;

"The study boasts a remarkable 176 authors, including Prof Sir Michael Rutter and Prof Eric Fombonne who have given evidence for the vaccine manufacturers, and the US Department of Justice in vaccine litigation,"

Fombonne and Rutter are always in there somewhere. Mind you I suppose they have to find some way of clinging to their careers and reputations which are staked on their long and loud insistence that autism is genetic and psychiatric.

Both of them have authored curiously flawed epidemiological studies on vaccines and autism - I wonder if this study will be any better?

I'm sorry Beachcomber, but the patent application speaks for itself :

briandeer.com/wakefield/vaccine-patent.htm

I know there's already a link on here, but it bears repeating.

I suppose at least Rutter declared his CoI on this one - not something he does most of the time...

Do you mean this Hornig study, that found strong evidence against the association of autism with persistent MV RNA in the GI tract or MMR exposure?

www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0003140

Do you mean this research by Dr Singh, that has been heavily criticised?

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2182690.stm

Fail to see how the FDA fast tracking a drug designed to treat digestive enzyme deficiencies has any bearing on the argument; there are dozens of such drugs on the market.

However, will try to drill down into the detail if you could provide a link?