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?

I think it's early days yet for the Imperial College research, and I am not sure that it has been peer reviewed yet.

However, the suggestion that they may have found a chemical fingerprint in the urine of children with autism is compelling and would appear to be based on the assumption that people with autism have GI issues which change their digestive chemistry.

No mention of the autism/MMR link though.

If you are saying, and you seem to be, that Wakefield was already on to this - well then it is a great shame that he didn't conduct ethical research that would have contributed to the body of knowledge in a worthwhile way.

Instead - sloppy research that was eventually discredited and ethical violations.

The danger in standing by a man who has been so thoroughly discredited, beachcomber, is that it makes any perfectly legitimate concerns you may have about big pharma less likely to be taken seriously.

Your world view appears to be 'big companies sometimes act badly' so 'wakefield must be right'.

Honestly, if the MMR still scares you then I don't know how you get through daily life because there are vast quantities of things that have been less well researched.

Beach: will email you soon.

am on phone, so can't follow links, sorry.

But I suspect you are linkin got the Hornig study which discovered exactly what it claimed it didn't - measles virus in the gut of a child with autism. Thatchild wasn't mentioned again in the study - and it is claimed that wakefield falsified data

I think beachcomber's point re: enzyme fast tracking, and the urinary peptides work etc, was that, over the years, as wakefiled has been "discredited", his work, built on and includign work on the aforementioned, has been sneered at, ignored, labelled as quackery, etc.

now that is has been "discovered" by other people, and therefore not associated (by the ignorant) with Wakefiled, it is "good science" and a great breakthorugh. Pathetic, really.

And please, stopwith the discredited nonsense, aong with the implication that wakefield carried out unethical work.

He hasn't been discredited, and he didn't. (set aside the GMC trial, for a moment - find me, other than mentions by Goldacre and Deer, where Wakefiled ahs been discredited by people who actually know what they are talking about (not that I owuld say that Goldacre and Deer know what they are talking about, come to think of it). You won't be able to)

Likewise, find me a study which, having tested Wakefiled's hypothesis (and that is important, not any study, but one which actualy tests his hypothesis) which then disproves it.

Again, you won't be ableto, it doesn't exist.

HOwever, there is further research which backs up his claims, and replicates his work.

A hypothesis is meant to be tested as a 'null hypothesis' - the assumption is that it is not true - until evidence from the real world disproves the null hypothesis. If the hypothesis is that a special group of children exists who have a special susceptibilty to a special vaccine then this assumption remains null until evidence suggests otherwise. Testing a null hypothesis of this kind has so many logical and practical difficulties that it would be a significant challenge for anyone !

Yes, he has been discredited silverfrog.

Saying that he hasn't, repeatedly, doesn't make it less true.

Amazing that you expect me to simply 'set aside' the findings of the GMC, who found him to be dishonest, misleading and irresponsible.

He wasn't struck off for questioning the MMR, he was struck off for his actual behaviour, which included ethical violations. Whether you like it or not, he was.

Saying 'Hornig lied' isn't good enough - proof?

There is certainly no shortage of people 'who know what they are talking about' willing to question his findings.

Nick Chadwick, from Wakefield's own labs.

Smeeth et al conducted their own study, and a systematic review of similar studies, and found no link between MMR and autism.

Madesen et al studied every child born in Denmark 1991-98; no link.

Afzal et al; no link.

The Cochrane Review; no link.

You dismiss those people willing to put their head over the parapet and face the rabid attacks of the anti-vac brigade - Brian Deer and Ben Goldacre - out of hand. Why? One is a doctor, and one is an award-winning research journalist. Neither appears to have any reason to question Wakefield other than to expose the truth. If you know otherwise, let's hear it.

Oh and let's have links to all of this research that replicates his work and backs up his claims.

I am obviously not interested in anything that hasn't been published or peer-reviewed because, generally, that means its a crock of shit.

Earthworm why the aggression?

If you want to have a useful discussion then you would do well to alter your tone.

Using terms like 'rabid antivac' brigade just drags any sort of discussion down to a level of adversarial polarized bullshit.

But then I think that is what you want....

I'm guessing that the thousands of accounts by parents of what has happened to their children are just a 'crock of shit' to you.

Incredible how many people think they know better than a child's own parent just because they're able to hector 'peer review'. Amusing though some people might find it to have an internet tussle over this - we are actually talking about real people here. It seems a little respect is always too much to ask for when it comes to vaccine injury and the doctors who investigate it. So much for social responsibility, eh! Yeah, fuck the lesser truth and all hail the greater good.

And and saying as you are so keen on peer review - how about linking to something published and peer reviewed which replicates and challenges Singh's work and Wakefield's work?

I know Liz Miller (who was one the people responsible for the introduction of MMR) was thoroughly pissed off by Singh's work - I don't need a link to the BBC to tell me that.

earthworm more recent studies did not focuss on the same target groups.
I am not pro MMr, but open minded.

Most recent research study vaguely related I have read (and I read a lot) suggest that hte link is between ASD and medications such as parracetamol used to break high fevers in a child, causing an immune disruptioN: if that is the case, then it would be huighly understandable why the MMR link was drawn by some wouldn't it? I know for sure that ds3's only fever has been post-vaccination after all.

We don't know what caused ASD and we won;t ever have an aswer becuase there are too many differernt variants and we will just simpy do as we do with cancer and pick off the different ones bit by bit.

This research is over hyped, it works only with a smallish % of cases. ASD is simply a name assigned to a particular group of symptoms. Some chidlren will sahre causes but many will not. The former Prof specialising in ASD at Uni suggests that the next decade will be spent differentiating between the different types: perhaps. What I am seeing in professionals however is a simple frustration with looking at aetiology when we haven't got the most important things right- what we do with the chidlren to actually help them after a dx!.

I ahve 2 children with ASD (as well as being part way through an MA in ASD so a hand in a few pies as it were) and I couldn't even swearr they sahred the same aetiology, certainly tehir presentations are very different indeed. if you randomly tkae a group of people with ASD what you disocver is a huge range: heck the way the DSM works right now you can share a DX and yet no symptomatic presentations. DS3 is in a class with several chidlren with ASD and there is very little in common between them; some oare totally withdrawn and have huge barriers just to interact, others such as DS3 are completely the opposite- no social barriers at all, a different presentation of social symptomology that rpesents a diferent range of issues if the same ultimate end: dependency and huge safety issues.

Research into ASD is great, it gives us clues. But what we need isn't this is a cause so much as in children displaying X and Y characteristics, this may be a signifcant avenue of investigation: we don't really get much of that., it;s as if we are fidning pieces to the puzzle but nobody ahs actually showed us the picture or explained what a puzzle is in the first place.

And as for tests for asd- let's just say that theya re not the popular route! Baron_choen is not my fave on this issue but his extreme of pointing out that we might lose maths talent if we terminate for asd indicates a more pettinent (IMO) point: that a test cannot reveal severity, at least ntohing even suggested so far, so we would ahve people terminating for incredibly mild variants thinking their child had the most disabling forms of ASD. Now, I have refused testing and research participation because I have no truck with anything from my family being sued to develop a test that would end up with people being able to terminate chidlren just like them. It seems so very wrong to me, a sort of internal genocide. I woudln't force aprents to keep a pregnancy when a child is disabled but I don't see why I would be a willing participant either.

Oha nd as for the age old MMR 'but what about measles'- FGS. Many of us have ahd our children immunised against measles and rubella separately. Our kids are not in any way a supposed 'risk'. We'd ahev mumps too if he were able to get it here and if he hassn't had mumps by puberty would looka orund to see what's available elsewhre in the world. My Mum lost my sibling to rubella, I amnot wanitng to cause that to anyone else but equally I don't hAve to have the MMR to prevent that. reality is, if our kids get measles then it's likely enough to be from someone whose MMR immunity ahsn't taken or faded anyway, assumption of who passed the virus on is sadly misplaced.

I am not going to expose ds4 to anything that I fell rpesents a risk, or indeed even if I think it porbably doesn't but who knows. he was gluten free until almost 2, still is (and will be as in fact he has the intolerance anyway dairy free for life); he has much 1-1 interaction; he is still BF at 2.2 years; doesn't have paracetamol; has ahd sepaarte jabs; did abbay signing.... if you already ahve two on the spectrum it's not about oooooh silly scares but what can I actively do to p[rotect my child.

And fwiw of all the people who post ehre about this, the one who never ever gets angry (I am sure there are toehrs, sorry) is PAgwatch whose family has been far more affected by ASD than the average MMR avoider. Even if you don't agree with her decisions, it beggars beleif IMO to not have empathy woith her situation. Understanding does not depend upon agreement.

Sorry much pointless waffle. Hey ho!

www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi/10.1371/journal.pone.0003140

From the Hornig study which confirmed the relaibility of the lab used by Dr Wakefield and which detected MV in the gut of two children - one who had both autism and gut issues and one child who had gut issues only.

"Analyses in all three laboratories found two ileal biopsy samples with MV F gene and H gene RNA: one from a boy in the AUT/GI group, the other from a boy in the control group. Real-time RT-PCR indicated a range of 2?7 molecules per PCR reaction, corresponding to approximately 50?500 MV RNA molecules per 100 ng of total RNA extract (Table 3). Sequence analysis confirmed that products of these samples were authentic.
Both subjects with positive samples had reactive lymphoid follicles (RLF). In the AUT/GI subject, RLF were present in both small and large intestine; the control had RLF restricted to colon. Endoscopy revealed inflammation in both subjects: the case had nonspecific gastritis; the control had acute distal esophagitis."

The Hornig study examined 25 children but only 5 of them had the onset of their symptoms after MMR. Many of the children did not meet the criteria for the sub group identified by Wakefield and Walker Smith. However measles virus was found in the inflamed gut of one of these 5 children.

Quite how they can reconcile the above with the title of the study "Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study", I'm not too sure.

This study should have sent the scientific world reeling and asking lots of questions.

But no most of them were happy to ignore the positive MV results and say oh well if you ignore one or two kids then maybe the rest will just go away.

But if the target group itself is just another false hypothesis ?

cyber, you keep on about the false hypothesis target group.

I am not really sure why you are so set on this.

these children exist.

they are in pain.

they have GI issues, onset post mmr.

or do you want to, as the gmc did, deny that these children are ill at all?

I don't understand why oyu insist on this.

I know your ds isn't affected by GI issues, and that, for some reason, it riles you that there may be an identified subgroup who DO have GI issues linked ot their autism, but I really can't understand why this would be the case.

I have never mentioned the sub group hypothesis as I don't think it is worth pursuing but it often comes up that Wakefield supporters say his theory has never actually been tested when what this boils down to is that the theory of his sub group has not been tested. That may be so but as such if remains a null hypothesis

The identification of the subgroup is not a hypothesis - it is a clinical observation (upon which a hypothesis could be constructed).

Dr Krigsman recently published a paper reporting clinical results in a group of 143 children which replicate Wakefield's clinical findings in 73% of them.

As SanctyMoanyArse says there are many many subgroups within the very wide autism diagnosis. It would seem difficult to deny that this subgroup is one of them.

(The urinary peptide stuff and the digestive enzyme deficiency fit into this pretty neatly too.)

Although as a sub group cannot be identified by any scientific or statistical means it is hard to see what the next step would be

Why are you denying the identification of this group of children?

They have been identified, the findings have been replicated. Inconvenient though it may be for some of you these children do actually exist.

By exercising this stubborn head in the sandism people are denying the very existence of these children and their suffering.

I don't deny that there are many children with autism who do not have gut issues and I do not deny that not all those who have gut issues do not have the issues identified by Wakefield. Neither Wakefield nor Walker Smith not Krigsman nor the parents of these children (that everyone just wishes would go away) deny that either.

I don't get what you don't understand.

Some children have autism.

Some children with autism haveGI issues.

Of these children, some can be identified, by observation, as being part of a subgroup, identified (because they were the only ones to take notice) by Wakefield et al.

THis is really not so hard ot understand.

There are pictures of the specific type of gut inflammation these children present in the Krigsman paper for crying out loud.

ooh, BEachcomber -have you seen the Goldenhawk videos of interviews with Wakefield?

WIll try ot post a linklater. I watched a bit last night before crappy internet link went down, very interesting.

as for the denial of the subgroup - I cannot believe how cruel and arrogant people can be sometimes.

Just because an issue does not affect you and yours personally, does not mean it doesn't exist. how people can say "oh no,that just doesn't happen", when there are thousands of people saying it does, is beyond me.

but as you say, it is inconvenient.

becauseif the group is acknowledged, if their illness is acknowledged, then it makes a mockeryof the "discrediting" of wakefield.

it is just easier to say they don't exist, and we can all carry on with life, accepting that severe pain, inflammation,and gut issues are "a part of autism" - nothing ot be done, not evenworth investigating.

Cyber we have had this debate before so I will respectfully bow out of a lengthy debate, except to mention that yet agin ds1 has been sent home from school after the onset of sudden diarrhoea and stomach apins that teh GP doesn't think is worth an investoigation.

Now, many people with ASD have anxiety issues which may well be related to ds1's bowel / digestion issues as his father has very severe IBS flare ups.

However, he has ASD, he has a bowel / gut disorder.

Whetehr that is relevant in aetiology who knows?

But it is the case.

Beachcomber -

Would you be linking to research by the Dr Krigsman?

You know, the clinical director of Thoughtful House, where Wakefield used to work?

The research that was published in the sympathetic Autism Insight, of which Wakefield is a director?

Gosh, peer review must have been very hard to achieve.

I'm waiting for some serious links to research that replicated Wakefield's findings.

He has claimed that his research has been replicated in five different studies, but he's lying again (or being v economical with the truth).

Krigsman - 'nuff said

Gonzales et al - admitted could not replicate

Balzola et al (1) - a case report of ONE adult

Balzola et al (2) - a meeting abstract that was never released for peer review

Galiatsatos et al - a case report for TWO adults

Anyone with a GCSE in Science can follow your link to the Hornig research (or mine, that I posted earlier) and quite clearly see that the results did not IN ANY WAY support Wakefield.

Also -

Please do not suggest that I am finding any of this amusing.

The fact that people are still supporting this callous, money-grabbing man instead of turning their attentions to legitimate research in the area makes me want to cry actually.

There are so many more constructive ways you could be applying your energy.