Autism and the search for simple, direct answers

[HuckleB]

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/autism_and_the_search_for_simp.php

"Coming up with simple, one-size-fits-all answers to serious problems is so tempting and so satisfying. Look at autism, for instance: a mysterious disease with a wide range of expression, so wide that it is more properly called Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), and the popular press and various celebrities all want it to be pegged to a simple cause: it's vaccines, or it's mercury, or it's the dose of the vaccines, and all we have to do to fix it is not vaccinate, or reduce the number of vaccinations, or use chelation therapy to extract poisons, and presto, a cure! This is magical thinking, pure and simple, and it doesn't work.

ASD isn't simple, it's not one disease, it doesn't have one cause, and vaccines are definitely not the cause: if there's one thing the research has done, it's to thoroughly rule out the idea that giving kids shots at an early age causes autism. What we're actually discovering more and more is that ASD can be traced to genetic variation.

...what if we could screen populations of ASD individuals not for a specific gene variant, but for the more general occurrence of frequent variations in copy number of any genes…and then we could ask which genes are often affected? It's being done. A new paper in Nature describes a screen of control and ASD individuals to identify rare copy number variants associated with autism. It worked! In fact, it worked maybe a little too well, since we now have an embarrassment of riches, a great many genes that may be related to ASD.

...

One fact is so obvious that it's unfortunate I have to mention it: no external agent, such as a vaccine, can generate a consistent pattern of duplication and deletions in an affected individual's cells. These data say it's an error to chase down transient environmental agents given relatively late in life to people."


-----------------------


This is review of this study:

Functional impact of global rare copy number variation in autism spectrum disorders
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature09146.html


-----------------------


This is profound information that should help put autism research on a more sure-footed track. Not that it will be sure footed, but ...

:hi:

[pnwmom]

1. I agree that there are many many different variations and causes for autism. BUT

that does NOT lead to the conclusion that in NO children a vaccine or vaccines could be the trigger for their autism. There are certainly other Hannah Pauling's out there. (Autism is the name for a syndrome, that is, a collection of symptoms. She has that collection of symptoms, therefore she has autism. And the vaccine court agreed that in her case, with her preexisting mitochondrial disorder, the vaccine likely triggered her autism.)

We know that autism must be a combination of genetic and environmental factors because of identical twin studies, where one twin has autism and the other does not. In other words, whatever gene combinations may be involved, there is "incomplete penetration."

There are likely many different ways in which various gene combinations and triggers interact to produce autism. And, for Hannah Pauling, vaccines were her trigger.

[HuckleB]

2. Hmm. I'm noticing that the AoA seems to be reduced to chanting "Hannah Poling" these days.

Well, that's not much to hang it's hat upon. I'm not interested in discussing something that's been done to death, so I'll just offer up some of the science in regard to Poling's case. (I won't respond on this subject again.)

The Hannah Poling case and the rebranding of autism by antivaccinationists as a mitochondrial disorder
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=66

Has the Government Conceded Vaccines Cause Autism?
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=203

Autism and Vaccines: Responding to Poling and Kirby
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=174

A court with no judge, no jury and a controversial treatment of science takes center stage in the autism-vaccine debate.
http://www.scienceline.org/2008/07/25/policy-grant-autismvaccinecourt/

Vaccines and Autism Revisited — The Hannah Poling Case
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/20/2089?ijkey=b102af96a1e57d82a0c0b7384a415dae63a2742d&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

The incredible shrinking vaccine-autism hypothesis shrinks some more
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=393

The anti-vaccine "biomed" movement: Hijacking legitimate scientific research
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/11/the_anti-vaccine_biomed_movement_hijacking.php

A battle won for free speech and science, but the war remains
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/04/a_battle_won_for_free_speech_and_science.php

[pnwmom]

3. If you are familiar with her case, then why say that no cases of autism

have been triggered by a vaccine?

I agree with you that there are a multitude of causes -- why are you so insistent on excluding that one?

I'll admit my bias. My sister died of a rare reaction to the old DPT vaccine (encephalitis). Statistically, she isn't important, but to our family she certainly was. I think the goal should be to make all vaccines as safe as possible. And that would mean to do the research to find out which children might be susceptible to vaccines (or particular vaccines).

[HuckleB]

4. I wasn't going to respond, however...

The information I provided shows that the science doesn't seem to back up the claim you make, however. If you cared about any of the science of this matter, you would have taken the time to read into it, rather than simply repeat AoA cliches. (I actually now doubt that you read the original piece, which would have given some more clues to the stance of the author.)

The question for you is why avoid anything that threatens your preconceived notions.

I am done now. I will not waste my time on this issue. REALLY!

[pnwmom]

5. I have never even been to the AoA site. I have read articles

in the NYTimes and the Washington Post about the court case, and the decision of the vaccine court based on the information submitted.


I have a healthy respect for the "science of the matter." However, I am aware that there is a controversy about this issue even among highly respected university researchers. There is a researcher at Harvard, for example, who has written extensively about her research showing that there are a multitude of triggers, and her research does not exclude -- as you do -- the possibility of vaccines being involved in some cases.

[pnwmom]

6. The theory is NOT that environmental agents cause genetic changes leading to autism.

The theory is that certain individuals with genetic variations may react to vaccines or other environmental triggers differently than most people.

[HuckleB]

7. For someone who has never been to AoA...

... you're sure good at repeating their mantras, even the ones that show their need to consistently change their claims, as the science moves past each one they make.

:rofl:

[pnwmom]

9. Science has not move past my view. There are plenty of scientists in the field who

agree that autism is caused by the interaction of genes and environmental triggers, which vary from person to person.

[HuckleB]

10. Nice generalization.

Typical AoA backpedaling.

I have no more time to waste on your propaganda. You clearly do not want to look at the actual science.

BYE!

[pnwmom]

11. Funny. I thought you said "bye" a long time ago.

Typical of the vax-to-the-max crowd.

[morepuppies]

12. Tired of nonsensical vaccine injury denialism

"...vaccines are definitely not the cause: if there's one thing the research has done, it's to thoroughly rule out the idea that giving kids shots at an early age causes autism."

It truly makes me frustrated to hear this statement repeated over and over. It is scientifically unsupportable.

The only research into vaccine/autism causation has been on MMR and Thimerosal. The MMR research is poor (and has conflicting results) and the thimerosal research is mostly downright fraud and deception.

But let's say for the sake of the argument that the research is solid and has completely ruled our MMR and Thimerosal.

There are 16 vaccines on the child schedule, yet you study one and declare all 16 unrelated to autism? And all possible combinations when administered together to have no link to autism?

My son never got MMR and had no thimerosal at his 18 months shots. None of this research applies to his case. I had always suspected the Hep B (which he reacted to at birth) and DTaP.

There is no research into whether or not:

DTaP (or any pertussis containing vaccine) can cause or contribute to autism
Hep BDTaP can cause or contribute to autism
Polio BDTaP can cause or contribute to autism
HIB BDTaP can cause or contribute to autism
Pnumo BDTaP can cause or contribute to autism
DTaP, Heb B, Polio, HIB and Pnumo when given together can cause or contribute to autism

There is still no comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated children to look for differing autism rates.

None of the research that is touted to exonerate vaccines in autism causation can be applied to my child.

You cannot rule out vaccine causation in autism with the paucity of research that has been done.. not by a long shot.

And HuckleB... just mocking and repeating the phrase "AoA" isn't making an argument... it is just.. well.. mocking and dismissing.

In the study you refer to the CNV was in 4.3% of ASD cases and 2.3% of controls. Only 2% higher? What... at best this represents 2% of all autism cases? Bringing the percentage of cases believed to be related to genetics to like 5%? Doesn't exactly justify your cockiness about this issue, does it?

And let's say we found a gene or gene cluster that correlates with ASD... does it directly cause autism or does it merely impair the immune function or detox systems or mito function or glial cell activatio or ad nausium... so that ASD can develop as a result of environmental insult?

pnwmom... my condolences.

[HuckleB]

13. Try reading the science I offered above. (For starters.)

You are responding to a vacuum of your own creation, and your little spin on denialism does not make a legitimate argument. Your post makes it clear that you don't understand the science, or you didn't read it. Either way, you have no excuse. All you offer are claims and questions with no basis. That ought to give you a clue that you're offering nothing but knee-jerk denialism for your own preconceived notions that you just don't want to give up.

BTW, as for as the logical fallacies of your argument go, I might as well start claiming that autism is all the mother's fault, and tell you to prove a negative. (Funny how we could figure out that was a ludicrous line of thought.)

Here's some more reading for you.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008131852.htm

http://children.webmd.com/vaccines/news/20100524/no-ill-effects-when-kids-get-vaccines-on-time

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090130093407.htm

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jun/06-why-does-vaccine-autism-controversy-live-on

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22542677/ns/health-mental_health/

http://www.livescience.com/health/080905-bad-autism.html

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=14

http://biotech.about.com/b/2009/01/28/another-autism-vaccine-study-fails-to-support-link.htm

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=393

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/vaccines/

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1960277,00.html

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=1623

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=5025

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060705082305.htm

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2010/02/autism-vaccines-and-the-lancet.html

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0003140

Hypotheses are easy to come by, but you have to understand what came before if you're really going to make legitimate hypotheses. You have not done that. You are simply doing the usual anti-vax routine of throwing any question you can come up with on the page. It doesn't have to mean anything. You just want to avoid letting go of your preconceptions.

Of course, there is also the reality that what pnwmom pushed is a long-standing repeat that has been shown to be baseless over and over again. Do you actually think that repeating nonsense will turn it into something meaningful?

Until you can offer more than ludicrous questions, perhaps you should spend some time educating yourself.

Unless you show me that you have done so, I won't be responding again.

BYE!

[morepuppies]

14. Been reading that biased CYA fo years... thanks

... what none of those links that you have provided to, is offer me a piece of research to show that DTaP is not associated with autism. Neither does it show that any other vaccine than MMR is disassociated from autism causation.

You can spend a month on pubmed and you will never find that research, and that research is necessary to back up your claim that vaccines cannot cause autism.

16 vaccines on the schedule... one studied. 15 to go... get back to me when those are done.

But thank you for responding with a long diatribe of insults. You prove my point that you have no substantive response to a basic point of logic and nothing else to offer but arrogance.

[HuckleB]

15. Ah, so you have no need for actual information.

You simply your logical fallacies, and offer up more one-line attacks, sans any support. BTW, by repeating your logical fallacies, you proved that you didn't read the links, and that you don't care about the science.

Arrogance comes from ignorance, and that is all you've offered.

[Odin2005]

8. K&R

[HuckleB]

16. Thanks. I think it's time to kick this again.