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?

Earthworm - He has tried several times to sue his critics but withdrew from the cases when asked to produce evidence - notably medical records from the Royal Free Hospital. In the end, he was asked to stop using the courts to publicise himself if he had no real intention of pursuing any case.

Come on earthworm 'tis common knowledge that Wakefield had to drop his action against Deer when the GMC instigated a hearing.

A press complaint was filed but it has been consistently broken by the Sunday Times and Brian Deer.

But presumably given that the GMC proceedings are over, Wakefield could now sue ?

Look at it this way earthworm.

I have 2 kids with ASD and probably more up to date knowle4dge than most 9although MN good for informed posters).

I have worked in the field.

I have a traceable family history of obvious if not DX'd people with ASD at many lvels, as well as related disorders including OCD, auto-immune, depressions, dyspraxia.

if people want me to give MMR they'd have to actively prove safety rather than a link.

We gave separate jabs: Mum lost a baby to rubella after several stillbirths, I am under no delusions about impact- on her, but equally on us as a family.

DS1 was pretty obviously born on the spectrum: no doubts about that, horrid pregnancy (hyperemesis, pre-eclampsia, early induction).

DS3 not- he regressed. He is the mroeserious. After his MMR although DH is mroe convinced of the link than I am.

I am in with kids with ASD every day one way or another and I don't see a cause. That emans I cannot write off individual causes either. I suspect any of a hundred things could have triggered dss3's ASD. Or ds1's proabbly, just it was his birth that did.

I don't know anyone in my situation who has given MMR. Most do as I have done, wlthough the lcoal measles clinic closed so mroe will be unimunised. That's the fault of the infrastructure, not them. You cannot take away the chances and then criticise people for not following them.

Every day my children's lives will be affected with ASD and regardless of what other think it is my duty to protect them in every way I can. If I can protect otehrs also so be it but that's a bonus not a primary drive.

DS4 has the same diertary isue that accompanies ASD in our family ( a casein intolerance that has caused FTT in 3 / 4 of my boys including ds4) and yet he is thriving now, no real ASD traits, good langauge. If you think I would even consider doing anything anyone has suggested might blow that you are truly having a laugh!

I ahve no idea of your background or if you knwo what it's like to have two kdis dx'd in a twelvemonth; to have your dry, chatty almost three year old go from that to non verbal and incontinent in a few weeks (he now talks and is dry again at almost 7).

I am not willing to go through that agin if there's a millionth of a per cent chance I can avoid it.

That, to me, is logical.

The GP's we see etc deny the dietary link as well; yet surely 6 people with and 5 with an asd in the wider family is not something I would ignore!

Sadly she is no longer a member of this site but anything by JimJams is worth looking up as she is one of the most intelligent women I know and scientific to an nth degree (well mroe like her nth degree I think- if you include related PhD's etc).

But for me I simply have to do my best for my boys.

Ah yes, I see now that the High Court asked him to put up or shut up..so he shut up :

briandeer.com/wakefield/eady-judgment.htm

It must have really hurt him to write a cheque to Deer for costs.

Sassybeast I think Dr Wakefield has bigger fish to fry than Brian Deer - he is going after the string pullers, not the puppet.

Of course due/thanks to the GMC hearing, Wakefield has gained access to a whole can of worms.

For example he has found out that the UK government granted indemnity to the manufacturers as a result of the Urabe shenanigans. As it turns out the UK litigants were not taking on the manufacturers but the government itself.

Kinda answers the question I have been asking myself for a long time as to why it was so important to bury Wakefield and deny the existence of the children concerned. (And why so many are willing to have their strings pulled.)

Oh god of course I know about Callous Disregard. I must have Alzheimer's. I'm just out of the loop somewhat being thousands of miles away and had a moment of madness. Haven't read it though.

Jimjams left? I thought she was still around.

Earthworm: I went to bed: I am six hours ahead of you: I can assure you I don't think you're on to something and don't use "getting personal" as an excuse to run away.

am so embarrassed forgetting about callous disregard

Of course what most of this hangs on is the testimony Bustin gave at the Ominbus Proceedings in the US. That was yet another dodgy set up.

Bustin was originally an expert witness for the UK litigation. He investigated the lab used by Wakefield when measles RNA was detected in the inflamed guts of the children. Bustin was paid by the manufacturers to produce a report on the O'Leary lab - and lo and behold he found that this established, respected and expert lab suffered from contamination and had trouble telling the difference between DNA and RNA!

But then the litigation funding was pulled by one of the Davis brothers (as found out by the support group Jabs); (from page 2)

"JABS believes that Dr Wakefield has been falsely accused ever since by the Department of Health, the medical establishment and the Sunday Times of deliberate concealment, something that he has always denied. Dr Wakefield has always openly confirmed his involvement with the MMR legal action, and the new evidence now fully supports him all the way back to early 1997.
?A further deeply unsatisfactory feature is that Dr Horton has never disclosed that his boss, Sir Crispin Davis, chief executive of Reed Elsevier, was appointed a non-executive director of MMR defendants GlaxoSmithKline in summer 2003 only a few months before the Sunday Times article in February 2004 that accused Dr Wakefield.
?This is in addition to the embarrassment that the high court judge who dismissed the MMR autism cases just seven days after Dr Horton's accusation was none other than Sir Crispin's younger brother Sir Nigel Davis.?

So anyway back to Bustin, he never got his day in court in the UK and trundled off back to being a PCR expert.

However Bustin was wheeled out again for the US litigation. Unbelievably his testimony was allowed to be added to the proceedings at the last minute with little warning for the legal team representing the children. They did not get to see the report Bustin had written and had no time to prepare for a cross examination of him.

Bustin sat in court and told his story of the flaws in the O'Leary lab. Everybody was just asked to take his word for it without seeing the extensive report he had written because that report, having been prepared for the UK litigation was tied up in the confidential papers of that litigation. (You couldn't make it up).

So there we have it - this 'Wakefield has been discredited' thing come from the word of one man, paid by vaccine manufacturers, who wrote a report that we are not allowed to see in its entirety. We're just expected to believe this guy's 'professional opinion' and impartiality.

And then along came the Hornig study which used three labs to make sure that its results were reliable. All three labs found the same things - one of these labs was the O'Leary lab that we had been expected to believe was unreliable on the basis of a secret report paid for by a pharmaceutical company. The Hornig study confirmed the reliability of the O'Leary lab (and found MV in one autistic child) and should have been reported as an extremely concerning development which suggested that Wakefield had been right all along.

But lawyers representing UK families resisted the publication of Steve Bustin's work and it was only the day before the US hearings opened that the High Court in England ruled that the information should be released to the public domain. So despite best efforts , there was no shortage of embarrassing material from Prof Bustin about the scandal of the supposed research at the Royal Free Hospital. But the relentless flexibility of anti vaccine arguments is such that any and every fact can be tossed about like pieces in a kaledoscope - forming a new pattern every time they fall. Not easy for those trying to keep up!

cyber, there aren't (I believe) any anti-vaccination peopleon this thread.

I do hate it when I get called that. dd1 had all her jabs. thye are contra-indicated for dd2.

I am not anti vaccine. I just want proper safety studies to be done. I want chice, not a "well, it's safe for most,so go ahead" policy that overlooks (at best) or denies (at worst) the children who end up ill and damaged.

as for making the facts fit the situation I think you'll find the opposite to be true, tbh. the pro-mmr lot twist everyhting to suit, claim all sorts of nonsense, and then just ot make sure somthing sticks, make up facts to fit as well.

ds4 had most of his jabs under the NHS, otehrs privately; otehrs had all theirs under NHS.

I spent a significant time as a student nurse (wasn't for me); I have more than some idea of the wonderful benefits of vaccines.

But I don't take risks with my child whome we were told when he was born was up to 80% at risk of ASD due to two sibs; since then we've been told ds2 also has a related disorder (albeit not as life changing) and can only assume the risk is even higher.

I've never suggested anyone not be vaccinated though when asked I have poiinted peopel the way of singles. It's not my fault mumps was withdrawn.

I lothe being called anti vaccination. Or having cfomments amde to me and people in similar sits about silver foil hats.

WRT to jimjams she did post here under a different anme which I knwo many know but can't say, haven't seen her in ages though.

cyber - what do you say in response to the facts about the HOrnig staudy, for example?

That it vindicated both Wakefild's methods, and the lab he used?

That they actually found what they were (not) looking for - measlesin the gut ofan autistic child (yes, "only" 1 out of 5, but it was still there) and subsequently ignored that finding, concentrating on trumpeting that it wasn't found in the other children.

If oyu want ot talk about amking facts fit the situation, try talking abput those facts.

I am not a scientist and it is often suggested that it is moronic to believe accepted and proven science instead of wakefield's inventions. If that's so I am happy to be in with the morons. But someone did post something about the us litigation that did nit fit the facts.

okaaaay, so you are happy to quote science methods when it "disproves"anyhting wakefiled has said, but hide behind "not being a scientist" when it comes ot discussing how the very sutdies which are held up as "disproving" wakefield's theories might not be as watertight as they seem. odd that.

you are beginning to sound like earthworm, with her (his?) "the scienceis ok, but I don't like the man, and so his science must be dodgy" argument

and

I have never commented on the science - particularly as it drills down and down into detail. Focussing on the molecules on the leaves on the trees does not change the facts as they are at eye level. I don't know anything about Wakefield as a person other than that he's not a clown I'd want at my children's parties.

Just because earthworm was rational and logical does not mean she was must be a man !

I wasn't meaning to imply she (he?) was a man - just ddn't wan to automatically assume she (he) is a woman! there are absolutely no other connotations there, only in the wya you wish to interpret it.

Some posters I have come across before, and so take at facevalue what they have said, so might have an idea of whether they are male or female. I have not come across earthworm before - it is entirley possible he is a man - nothing to do with logic and rationality(although I would say that his/her posts are neither)

Odd that oyu assumeonly men can be logiacal and rational!

and asking oy uto comment on the fact that the O Leary lab is clearly not substandard, as previously reported, due to findings in the Hornig study are hardly talking about htings on a molecular level!

NEither is commentingon the fact that, despite trying very hard not to, Hornig actually managed to find results that back up what Wakefield said.

NO discussion of the science needed at all, you hardly even need ot read the actual studies.

Was just interested in what you thoguht about that.

But, it would appear, as I said, tha tthings are only worht commenting on if they "disprove" or "discredit" Wakefield.

But if we already know , (and another anti vaccine campaigner said she was angry this fact did not get into court quickly enough) , that Wakefield knew his results were wrong, but for reasons unknown, he proceeded anyway, why would we assume we are dealing with science ? Science can only answer real questions that are drawn from evidence from the real world. Wakefield has asked that his speculation be accepted as fact until proven otherwise - but that only he and his supporters can decide what the proof is and what the evidence means. It's not science as we know it, Jim.

I feel a bit misrepresented silverfrog - his science was not okay. He was the first to spot something interesting, but made a huge and irresponsible leap based on unethical research.

In addition, the assertion that the Hornig research in some way vindicates Wakefield is utterly bizarre.

Here is a press conference with the authors, should you care to avail yourself of some facts :

www.mediafire.com/?ti2ojnymwsh

I suspect that O'Leary , distancing himself from Wakefield as fast as possible, got his act together and did it properly.

But you are right that I don't like the man.

Do you think that he will be suing Deer now that he has been struck off?

Or not, because it's all true?

so you didn't ever say "I have no issue with the [1998]paper", then earthworm?

because i specifically asked you what your issues with it (and the science contained within it) were, and that was your reply. you thenwent on to say your issue was with wakefield, the man.

but carry on changing your story - after all, if the facts don't fit, you've got to make them do so.

And I think it is a bit rich for you to keep talking about the facts of all this, since you appear ot base all your opinionson Deer's work, which contains some stupendous and breathtaking feats of misdirection.

you too seem to be incapable of actually discussing any of the facts of the case - you like to toss in the odd quote, in an attemptot look like you might have done soem reading on this, but beyond linking ot studies and Der's website, you don't actually want ot discuss what is contained i the links...