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 have no issue with the Wakefield paper, silverfrog.

It is merely a piece of sloppy research that wouldn't have seen the light of day if he had declared the conflict of interest.

As it was, it was misrepresented and misreported in the media and the rest is history.

My issue is with Wakefield himself, for reasons I have repeated many times throughout this thread.

And with his supporters, who chose to stand by this man when they could have turned their considerable attentions to more worthwhile causes.

It is rather disingenuous to suggest that my position is unclear.

Silver it's ages since I've seen Madsen quoted as proof of anything. That was one of the "big four" studies I looked at ages ago which convinced me that all wasn't right. There are so many flaws and I just thought, this can't be all they've got. It seems simplistic but these studies, the first Danish, this one, the Japanese one and the one that used the ages of people with autism, these were the four that were supposed to reassure us. But they were too easily deconstructed. I just kept waiting for something more but it never came.

Aghh!

I WILL NOT POST
I WILL NOT PO...

Oh feck it.......

Personally not having gone through all the thread yet I think there are a combination of environmental and genetic triggers - the two factors interacting if you like. This would make it much more likely that there are a subset of children for whom certain triggers (be that MMR or anything else) are a disaster.

The human body is complex and we all react differently to things.

My son is autistic. I suspect I may be on the spectrum as well given the problems I had as a child the difficulties I still have in some areas.

I am glad there is all this research going on out there but to say we have found a difinitive reason for autism is too simplistic.

His supporters did include the Royal College of Pathologists which made him a fellow in 2001. Three years after the press conference and at the height of the furore.

If what you say is true, your dislike of Wakefield is awfully circular. You have no reason to dislike him unless you take serious issue with his research. But you have no issue with the Wakefield paper. So why the dislike?

There are many, many more instances of conflict of interest. The conflict which Beachcomber pointed out, of one of the main authors of the recent paper on rogue genes. Do you dislike him as much too? There is so much conflict of interest in this field (and on your side of the argument) it's astonishing that you would pick out this minor and conflicted allegation, if that's the real reason.

You can't say you dislike the research because of the man, and at the same time you dislike the man because of the research.

You are all up a gum tree.

riiiighgghhhhttt. so, you have no issue with the paper. (btw, it wasn't research - it was a case series)

but you have issues with wakefield himself. odd. it is not mandatory to like the author of a study, you know.

oh, and there wasn't a conflict of interest. I know it has been reported that there was, but there wasn't. under the rules at the time, wakefield had nothing to disclose. but he did tell everyone, regardless. and no-one - not his co-authors, not the Dean of the Royal Free, not Horton, no-one had any issue with his Legal Aid stuff, or anyhting else.

so, sorry, but I really cannot be bothered ot trawl back through all your offensive insults - what are oyur issues with wakefield, the man, then?

because your bile is looking more and more irrational, tbh

Quite a major conflict of interest though hey?

Like being paid over £400k by lawyers trying to prove that the vaccine was unsafe and then - quelle surprise - finding out that the vaccine is unsafe.

I think you cross-posted with Silverfrog without checking your facts.

It all comes back to the 'there might be something in it' line. But if neither science nor a law court can resolve the 'something in it' question as when science and law give given answers that do not fit the 'something in it' approach, they are dismissed as 'nonsense', who can give the answer ?

quite apart form the fact that he wasn't paid £400k to do anyhitng of the sort (please try not to gather all your "facts" form Brian Deer), wakefield actually wrote a 250 page paper on mmr and vaccine safety before he published the 1998 study.

the £400k, was, iirc, tied up in knots by the Dean of the Royal Free for quite a few years, and did not concide witht he study at all (sorry if hazy memory - have small children jabbering in my ear towatch Mr Tumble with them!)

The parents only decided to go to court after they had been accepted for treatment by Wakefield?s team at the Royal Free. The twelve were referred through normal NHS procedures, either from doctors? recommendations or after desperate parents contacted him personally (because they'd heard of his sympathy and interest in the issues).

They only became part of the legal case later.

Why would you doubt the legitimacy of Brian Deer's work? It was somewhat legitimised when the GMC struck Wakefield off, no?

err, no.

Deer's work is full of errors. errors that are easily checked (by thode who can be bothered to do so)

the gmc case was also full of errors, and misinformation.

the one does not corroborate the other.

Actually when we're talking about conflict of interest, should we talk about Deer's? Like being a witness and complainant with the GMC hearing but making his own profit from the issue?

Why doubt the legitimacy of his work? Why not? A great deal of evidence serves to undermine it. It's certainly not legitimised by the striking of off Andrew Wakefield. God no.

The others are right. You've just read Brian Deer and now you think every one else is crazy.

oh sorry, meant to say, mostpeople cannot be bothered ot check the facts, becasue the screaming headlines make beter reading.

but the errors are there, nonetheless, along with wilful misinterpretations on Deer's part.

For the sake of good order, here are the details of the money paid to Wakefield to try to prove that the vaccine was unsafe:

briandeer.com/wakefield/legal-aid.htm

Goodnight Silver. Solid posting under teenies pressure

I cross-posted with you earthworm and would urge you to read more outside Brian Deer, read some of the many interesting links on these threads and try to look more closely at the epidemiological studies you have quoted with the aim of coming up with a few of your own thoughts.

goodnight BTTAT - teenies have won for now, must get them to bed.

The Hornig study confirmed the reliability of the O'Leary lab - the lab used by Wakefield et al when they first detected MV in the guts of autistic children.

The Hornig study also undeniably detected MV in the gut of one autistic child. (Despite studying only 5 children who developed symptoms following MMR).

Epidemiology cannot shed much light on this issue - a fact that is admitted by the majority of the epidemiological studies which address MMR and autism. It is unwise to extrapolate findings from Denmark which has a very different vaccine schedule to that of both the UK and the US. (And much lower rates of autism - seems like a funny way of doing things to study autism rates by going to a country with much lower rates of autism and a much lighter vaccine schedule). Just quite how an epidemiological study on children in a different country can shed light on the clinical issues of children studied in the UK I don't quite know.

Claiming that the Danish study some how 'trumps' Wakefield's study because they looked at a bigger group is ridiculous. One study was epidemiological the other was clinical - they are as different as blue chalk and yellow cheese.

And then there are the conflicts of interest....

Oh sod it I must just respond to cyberseraphim.

I used to agree with that: "there must be something in it" because that's what set me off in the first place. It was vague and unsettling but all I could see was a smoking gun.

There is some specific research that's been linked to by saintlydamemrsturnip, beach and others that has moved the issue on for me.

Little confirmations come all the time: the latest digestive enzyme treatment, for example.

I think things have definitely moved on from "there must be something in it" but it all goes under the radar of the media so unless people have a specific interest and are sceptical, the hard detail isn't got at.

Beach -- they discontinued vaccine mercury in the middle of that study as well. And there's a tranche of children vaccinated and autistic but diagnosed after the study finished, so counting as vaccinated and not autistic. Much more of the same. You probably know all this.

I must go to bed. There is harrumphing.

As for the fees paid to Wakefield for acting as an expert witness.

Nowt wrong with that - experts who conduct work over a number of years are generally paid to do so and to pay technicians and the like.

Wakefield was not paid to 'find something wrong with a vaccine'. He was paid to conduct a study examining whether MV was present in guts of the children involved in the UK litigation. He was bound to present the results as he found them.

But then the litigation's funding was pulled by someone with a CoI that makes even the Madsen study look relatively impartial.

God but this shit stinks and yet people are lining up to swallow it whole....

Earthworm, Brian Deer was helped in his 'investigation' of Wakefield by a legal organisation entirely funded by pharmaceutical lobbies. He was commissioned to the Sunday Times by Nuki who has a major conflict of interest in that his father was on the committee which decided to introduce the (known to be unsafe) Urabe strain MMR to the UK. The vaccine had to be withdrawn - many of the UK litigants received this unsafe withdrawn vaccine.

Just saying like as you seem to take conflict of interest ever so seriously.

Earthworm 'fraid your going to have to specify what you mean by 'lies' and 'sloppy research' if you want to be taken seriously.

Many thanks for an ironic LOL moment at this though;

"Why would you doubt the legitimacy of Brian Deer's work? It was somewhat legitimised when the GMC struck Wakefield off, no? "

Best unintentional black humour I have come across in a long time.

We can look at the details of the ethical approval later if you like - Deer fails to mention them on his !!!sensationalistic!!! website. Slightly too complicated for him and his audience I suspect.

Congratulations bttat and silverfrog, you make a formidable double-act.

I realise that you have both retired to RL, that sort of thing always happens on these threads - usually translates as 'you might have something there, but I don't want to admit it'.

Only joking - I would never suggest such a thing, just repeating an accusation levied at me earlier.

I only have one more point to make before I head off myself - if Brian Deer is publishing defamatory comments, why doesn't Wakefield sue him? Is it because it is all true?