Mookamoo Report post Posted June 10, 2010 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/...00609131637.htm If nothing else it seems to continue to disprove the vaccines theory Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sesley Report post Posted June 10, 2010 this was in the paper today,it rides on the other research of looking into particular gut microbes,the other day. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jun...-genetic-causes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
baddad Report post Posted June 10, 2010 (edited) Like most of this kind of research what you tend to end up with is just a new set of questions rather than any answers... They saying there's a 'sort of' ( sort of because it's not the same in each case) variation in the DNA of some autistic children that appears 20% more frequently than it does in non-autistic children, which is interesting but actually says very little. What percentage of non-autistic children does it 'sort of' appear in, and if the 'sort of' variation is actually a cause of autism why aren't they autistic? I'm not very good at maths, but say the 'sort of' variation (can we call that SO from now on) appears in 20% of the non-autistic population, then that would mean that it appears in 20 out of a 100 non-autistic people and 24 out of a 100 autistic people (I think?). So what makes the other twenty out of that 24 autistic if it is not the 'SO' variation? Obviously the math will vary depending on the starting statistic, but the basic principle applies - there's still a huge number of autistic people who don't have the genetic variation, and, comparatively, a huge number of non-autistc people who do. I'm not promoting the 'vaccine theory' in any way, but where is the logic to imply that this research disproves it? We can assume from the figures that at very best the 'SO variation' implies a predisposition for developing autism (rather than it being an actual cause). The whole theory of vaccine related autism is that it 'exploits' that predisposition - that it pulls the tirgger on what is an already loaded gun. In that sense, rather than disproving vaccine damage (or any other sort of environmental trigger), the new research dovetails perfectly with it, as did in many ways the other research mentioned about anomolies in gut flora and digestion etc. Pure speculation, and ill-informed speculation at that, but if they are saying this SO variant doesn't appear in the parents, but only as mutations in the genetic material passed on from them in sperm and eggs then what has triggered that mutation. Is that down to environmental factors, and if so how does that reflect on statistics for the MMR inocculation programme, because mumps has certainly got historical connections with autism and fertility/reproduction, and i think rubella has too(?). Were the mums and dads whose sperm/eggs provided the 'OS variant' innoculated with MMR in the 70's, 80's and 90's etc? As I say, more questions than answers again - and it really does annoy me that the people writing these articles who are in a position to ask these very simple questions don't seem to have the savvy to do so. I mean, if a chicken farmer had a chicken that laid cracked eggs, wouldn't his first question to the vet be 'what's cracking 'em'? L&P BD Edited June 10, 2010 by baddad Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
coolblue Report post Posted June 10, 2010 There's a basic assumption running through a lot of autism research. It is that all people diagnosed with 'autism' (ie presenting with certain characteristics which, in the minds of the practitioner doing the diagnosing resembles the very vaguely defined diagnostic criteria for autism) have the same cause for their autistic characteristics. In other words there is an assumption that there is one thing called 'autism' and you either have it or you don't have it. The diagnostic criteria are so broad and fuzzy that almost anything could cause autistic characteristics (different things in different people). So it's hardly surprising that some autistic people have abnormal gut microbes (so do non-autistic people) or subtle genetic variations from their parents (so do non-autistic people). I would question the first sentence of the last paragraph. "Autism is a complex brain disorder that strikes in early childhood" and would like to replace it with "Autism is a set of symptoms that tends to appear in early childhood". cb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KezT Report post Posted June 11, 2010 There's a basic assumption running through a lot of autism research. It is that all people diagnosed with 'autism' (ie presenting with certain characteristics which, in the minds of the practitioner doing the diagnosing resembles the very vaguely defined diagnostic criteria for autism) have the same cause for their autistic characteristics. In other words there is an assumption that there is one thing called 'autism' and you either have it or you don't have it. The diagnostic criteria are so broad and fuzzy that almost anything could cause autistic characteristics (different things in different people). So it's hardly surprising that some autistic people have abnormal gut microbes (so do non-autistic people) or subtle genetic variations from their parents (so do non-autistic people). I would question the first sentence of the last paragraph. "Autism is a complex brain disorder that strikes in early childhood" and would like to replace it with "Autism is a set of symptoms that tends to appear in early childhood". cb totally agree - autistic traits can be caused by multiple things. common sense dictates that! My son was quite definitely born that way, and there is a strong family trend towards autistic traits on my fathers side. but he is perfectly healthy in every way. the research that might find the gentic issues in my family would probably not help the ASD children who have multiple physical & neurological or mental conditions, of which the ASD may be because of specific issues rather than genetics. I don't understand the medical professions problem with this - it is known about in other conditions such as diabetes. type 1 = genetic (plus a trigger). type 2 = lifestyle plus a genetic proclivity. type 3 = caused by other physical condition. the same symptoms, and often the same treatment, but different causes (and possible cures)! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
coolblue Report post Posted June 11, 2010 I don't understand why it's so difficult either. This is one of the best descriptions of the possible causes of autism I've come across http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06...ch_for_simp.php although I wouldn't completely agree with him about environmental factors. cb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
