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?

Not at all silverfrog, I have been reading everything I can find on this for the past 10 years.

However, I prefer to link to source materials that help people to make up their own minds and - whether you like it or not - Deer's site is great for that sort of thing.

Could you be specific about what Deer has lied about? Possibly linking to some source materials?

You see, simply stating your (unsubstantiated) opinion over and over again doesn't convince anyone and that's why I tend to avoid it.

So what would you like to discuss?

Be specific.

Your last comment was about how the Hornig research supports Wakefield, which is laughable.

I provided a handy link so that you could listen to the authors talking about their research and how it doesn't support Wakefield at all.

I didn't just give you my opinion, I provided a link too - my opinion is implied, no?

as I have already pointed out, I am unable to follow most links, as am posting form my phone (home internet services unlikely to be sorted in the near future). thisis also why I am unable ot link. inconvenient, and irksome, but there oyu go.

It does not mean that I do not have the links to back any of this up.

The Hornig study did in fact corroborate what wakefield posited - that measles virus canbe found in the gut of a subset of autistic children. they tried very hard ot not study the right subgroup (cue more cries of "the subgroup doesn't exist! no one else can identify it! it is a secret subgroup known only to wakefield!), including only 5 children with GI issues onset after mmr. regardless, they did indeed find what they trying hardot prove wasnot there - MV in the gut of one of those 5. but they don't like ot talkabout that.

as for a link which shows up the flaws in Deer's work - I think BEachcober linke dot the PCC earlier - have a read of that.

GMC determination on Wakefields misconduct for anyone who hasn't already seen it :

www.gmc-uk.org/Wakefield_SPM_and_SANCTION.pdf_32595267.pdf

Apologies silverfrog, I didn't realise that you were on your phone.

However, you are barking up the wrong tree with the Hornig study.

It is true that one of the autistic children in the study had detectable measles virus present, but one of the 13 children without autism also had detectable measles virus present.

Basically, this study was negative.

I suppose it's the only way he can make a few bob now that he's been thoroughly discredited in the scientific community.

Is it the self-serving attempt at damage control that the reviews appear to be suggesting?

Actually, if I can get hold of a free copy I might try to read it with an open mind in the interests of research.

Second hand copies on Amazon Earthworm - keep an eye open down the local car boot ?

Just popped back to see how this one was going along - needn't have bothered really, the same old arguments going round and round again and no one changing their mind about anything (myself included).

Earthworm you are doing sterling work here btw, but beach, Leonie, silverfrog and BTTAT are fixed in their opinions and woe betide anyone (and any research) that disagrees.

I hoped my OP might lure in some folk other than the usual suspects. I'm genuinely interested in those parents who didn't give their DC the MMR as a result of the Wakefield paper and media scare, but have subsequently changed their minds in the light of the GMC ruling and the research (in the OP) on genetic causes. Unfortunately I think these people are usually too embarrassed at being taken in to post here and say 'I was gullible'.

no problem, earthworm . Just wanted it noted I am not not providing links, just unable to fornow.

The book is interesting, as Leonie points out, justabout everything he saysin it is fully referenced.

as for the whole "caused children to undergo lumbar puncture" well, that is dealt with too.

and, as has been said so many times, the gmc case hinged on whether you are prepared to accept that the children involved were investigated due to clinical need or not.

the gmc says not. they are saying, thereofre, that indescribable pain, blood in faeces, undigested food in stools, etc are all "normal" for autism. that it is ok to not investigate (as previous doctors also said).

quite apart from the fact that, when clinical investigations were carried out (please note NOT research) bowel disorders were found - ulcerated sections, raised lymph nodes, in fact, a new form of bowel disease that owuld seem to suggest that clinical need was present

but they ignored that, claimed it was all doe in the name of research, which then had no ethics approval (due to them ignoring the correct ethics approval, and instead using the convenient approval for a different study - convenient because it was, in fact, dated after the children had been investigated). that's ok then.

oh, and novicemama - I am not fixed in my opinions (curious, I see it time and again - not just on wakefield threads - that people who bandy about terms like that really do need ot take a long hard look at themselves)

But I donot take at face value the studies presented. Because they are not, for the most part, relevantto the subject.

and I admit I take Deer's work with a pinchof salt. perhaps that is because I am familiar with the family circs of one of the children involved in the lancet paper, and know how he has manipulated and lied about that child's medical records in an attempt to smear wakefield.

or perhaps because I have read enough documents that contradict what he says (including the lancet paper, amongst others)

it does not take a genius ot spot the lies in his work.

silverfrog, oh yes I am fixed in my opinions on this subject, hence writing: '...and no one changing their mind about anything (myself included)'

Until some research appears to seriously contradict the vast vast majority of scientific opinion, I will remain fixed in my opinions on this one. Please, before anyone thinks this is an invitation to do so, don't post any more links to cry shame or mercola. I have seen all this before and my mind has not been changed.

I also respect the fact that myself (on other threads) and earthworm and others have posted links to Hornig and other research and have failed to change your minds as well.

I'm tempted to buy Callous Disregard though, just out of interest. I expect my scientist DH will have a field day with it, but you know, I'll try to go into it with an open mind...

Novicemama, if it's any consolation I couldn't be less fixed in my opinions on this issue.

To an observer it certainly looks as though those posters on here who have questions about the safety of the vaccine (for some children) have looked into the science rather more deeply than those who are happy with the status quo, but I suppose that is to be expected as they have more incentive to do so. It would be great though if more of those on the other side of the debate could do the same rather than resorting to denouncing all those who disagree with the GMC's ruling as "crazies", "gullible" etc

since oyu are so fixed in your opinions, there is probably little point in reading it, novicemama.

that's exactly what i meant.

I am not fixed in my opinions. I am happy ot read (when possible!) any and all links, and take on board the information.

I have done so, and ended up with the opposite opinion from you.

Leonie, in my area of London, where take-up is criminally low, it's exactly the opposite to what you describe. From 1998 onwards the press have had a field day linking MMR to autism and scaring the crap out of parents, and as a result the general consensus of the yummy mummies round the nursery gate where I live is that right thinking people should NOT vaccinate with MMR and that to do so marks you out as having a careless disregard for your DC. You'd be surprised how prevalent that view is round here among the chattering classes who think they know best about everything.

I have even heard the opinion that 'I don't need to vaccinate my child, everyone else will do it and he / she will be protected by the herd immunity'. These people have no valid medical reason for not vaccinating, they just don't fancy their DC having a needle stuck in them. With the greatest respect for pagwatch in particular, I would say that these people are not brave crusaders for the truth, they are ignorant and smug, and are acting in an entirely antisocial way.

silverfrog, that's my point. I think we have both taken the time to read the links and research ostensibly 'proving' both sides of the argument, but we have reached different conclusions.

novicemama, maybe the parents around your nursery gates (aside form the ones who claim to rely on herd immunity - surely there aren't a lot of those anyway) have done a lot of reading, and are worried about a few things?

you have no evidence that they are being careless, neither do you have evidence of what the singles uptake is in your area.

Funnily enough, there are probably only a couple of people I know in RL who know that dd2 has had no jabs. I have enough to deal with on a daily basis with dd1 and the reactions she gets, without having tutting from people who think I am being reckless ith her health.

it just isn't a discussion I enter into, or if I have to, I tend ot leaveit at a bland "well, each to their own" without stating my position. I really don't need the hassle from(imo) uninformed onlookers.