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?

Apologies, you wanted a link to some research that challenges Wakefield's findings :

content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/347/19/1477

Well said, earthworm!!!!

YOu won't get any links to research that replicated Wakefield's fidings becuase AFAIK it doesn't exist

That doesn't prove a link doesn't exist, just that no link is proven.

There is also no serious research disproving Wakefield's subgroup findsings either. There are agreat many thories as to why and I am far from the conspiracy theorist. however if I was deciding on a research study in the field (oh look, I am! For my MA Diss!) I wouldn't touch anything vaccination / bio-med / bowel related with the proverbial bargepole.

My colleague is planning on doing that though (bio-med). Will see how that goes. People can't see a bio-med suggestion without going 'Bio-md = nutritional stuff = gluten free = Wakefield' in their heads.

Thing is, I can't see how the reseacrh will ever progress if people don't make leaps and use those to form, scientifically correctly, a null hypothesis. Whilst famillies like mine with a few diagnosed members are very popular for researrch studies, most spectrum people don;t exist in small tribes but as individuals sotted about: most links suggested will be irrelevant but if they test 5000 and find one significant thing then think of the lives that could be changed!. Remembering that here with our 1% dx rate @ we are fighting the light end compared to California etc.

Of course, all we really need to do research suggests (and my Uni database is set to only pick up peer reviewed) is move to a non damp climate. Hey ho!

And back to the bowel thing: If ds1's problems are not related to his ASD then he has a right to know what it is and have that addressed. Anything that makes GPs and others nervous of wading in is wrong and the best way to deal with misconceptions, alledgedly poor research and questions is to research the actual issue in depth. If people are as concerned about low MMR uptake as they claim then it will be financially worthwhile. Or they coudl just let people access single vaccines more easily, or even the mumps at all. Hiding behind a mound of misinformation and bent studies (bent as in bent to look like they address the specifics, rather than bent as in corrupt) feeeds paranoia.

The Denmark study is well known and addresses rates of ASD in wider vaccinated populations, not specific bowel subgroups.

Now you might think that is an irrlevancy, however until the bowel one is produced there will always be a ? in people's minds.

I am avidly not anti vaccination; 3 of my 4 children have had the MMR, ds4 the availabble singles. What I don't like is what seems to be a complete breakdown of science in this area. Produce the bloody research and let's just have those answers, one way or the other. What's the absolute worst that can happen?

No there are no papers disproving Wakefield theory. Why would there be ? I don't understand what you mean other than that the while meaning and purpose of science should be turned upside down. His hypothesis is posed the wrong way round.

You are asking questions that science cannot answer.

Thank you catrinm, much appreciated.

SMA -

The Hornig research does actually disprove Wakefield's findings.

Whilst many studies have disproved the MMR/autism link, only Hornig replicated the original methods, even using the same lab that Wakefield used to analyse the samples.

Wakefield took bowel samples from children who had autism and GI disturbances.

He did not compare these with children who did not have autism.

In this respect, the Hornig study is much stronger because 25 children with autism/GI problems were compared with 13 children who had GI problems only.

Whilst the study was still small, and the findings may indeed be down to chance, it is still double the size of Wakefield's.

And the Danish study was very big, SMA - over 440,000 children who were vaccinated and over 96,000 who were not.

No difference was found in the rate of autistic spectrum disorders between those who were vaccinated and those who were not.

It compares quite splendidly with Wakefield's study of 12.

That's meaningless. It's accepted in US courts that epidemiology is insufficient to prove no causal link between an adverse event and a pharmaceutical product?

"Epidemiology is concerned with the incidence of disease in populations and does not address the question of the cause of an individual?s disease. This question, sometimes referred to as specific causation, is beyond the domain of the science of epidemiology."

Reading all your other stuff.

And if you can ignore the outright lies in Wakefield's research, the hypothesis really is very badly expressed (as is the conclusion) :

briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-paper.pdf

Sub group denier has a certain ring to it !

specifically, earthworm, what are the lies in wakefield's research?

and why are you seemingly unable ot grasp what the paper actually did say?

The US court though only a vaccine court dismissed absolutely any link between vaccines and autism

It's not meaningless, backtotalkaboutthis.

It's a a cohort study, comparing groups who have been exposed and groups who have not in order to identify variation (or not) in the outcome.

Have you got Callous Disregard open next to you?

Bless you, silverfrog. I've read the research. I've grasped what it says. I've even posted a link for anyone else who is interested. Obviously, I am only reading what is there in black and white, perhaps I am missing the subliminal messages being beamed to your tin hat?

so, unable ot answer as to what oyu think are the lies in his research then?

what's the matter, Deer's website notproviding the answers for you thistime?

honestly, please do set out exactly what you think is wrong with wakefield's 1998 (and actually, any other) paper

Hmmm, i find it hard to understand. Both my dd's are on the spectrum, dd1 was obviously Aspergers from a early age (before having the MMR), dd2 was fine until after the MMR (but i can't really say she changed as soon as she had the MMR).

I think its hard to find a cause for ASD, i believe there are many causes and ASD is not as straight forward as people think, i think there are many (maybe 100's) of different types of Autism, my dd2 does not really fit anywhere on the spectrum (she's unique as are all ASD children). Maybe in the future 'Autism' as a dx will not exist and there will be more complex diagnosis.

Some days i am curious as to weather my dd's Autistic traits come from me or Dh (i can see traits from both sides). We also think 'if we had another child, would he/she have autism?'. As far as i can see it does run our family but i have met other families where it doesn't.

No, never heard of Callous Disregard until this thread.

Of course it's meaningless: you are a denialist. The thrust of the argument is that there is a sub-group of children affected by MMR. Epidemiological studies do not prove this is not the case and yet you insist on quoting them and insist that they do prove this is not the case.

You have an absolute blind faith which is undented by evidence contrary to your view.

You also have a stomach-turning posting style btw.

Not unable to answer, silverfrog, but caught up by events in real life.

In addition, I am debating the merits of continuing now that we are no longer exhanging caustic comments centred on our opinions and viewpoints but instead seem to be getting rather more personal (fuck off, stop crying, stomach-churning etc).

PMSL re: the personal comments. So you can dish it out, but you can't take it?

I do believe you started it all (not that that matters in the scheme of things).

NOt bothered by the RL interruptions - haveenough of my own at this end - only I asked you to set it out, and you came back with a retort along thelines of me wearing a tin hat, instead of actually answering, which is why I assumed you were out of answers.

THere seems to be a pattern here - whenever you are asked ot provide any of youer own thoughts, rather than links to papers you clearly haven't read (I say clearly, because you don't seem at all sure what those papers contain), or regurgitated nonsense form Deer's site.

So, again, what are your issues with the wakefiled paper, please?

Goodness: the poster who talked about crazies and suckers in her first post is now complaining about things getting personal.

Whatever next.

This happens over and over again, on threads like this and in real life.

Sooner or later it comes, but it always comes: "Anyway I've got better things to do than argue about this".

Trans: You might be on to something but I can't possibly admit it.

quite, BTTAT.

LIke the refusal to actually engage on the subject, becasue all we will do is discuss those points, and it might just be that wakefield was onto something.

it does get very wearing.