Recent research on autism

[Anonymous]

I came across this blog that highlights a few recent research studies on autism. Please see the blog for details of the articles. In one oversimplified sentence the findings were...

Study 1. Kids with autism have 10% bigger brains
Study 2: There is no recent epidemic of autism...rates in adults are also about 1:100, with most just not diagnosed.
Study 3: Eighteen genetic markers have been identified specific to people with autism

The blogger is presenting these studies from the viewpoint of why autism and vaccination aren't related however I think the studies are interesting in and off themselves.

http://www.stuartduncan.name/autism/autism-vaccines-brains-epidemics-genes-wakefield-what-does-it-all-mean/

[Anonymous]

*of themselves* not off

[Anonymous]

Mainstream Media news is finally catching on to the truth:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4687300/law-school-links-autism-vaccines-in-report/

[Anonymous]

This isn't the mainstream media. This is media for idiots, crack-pots and nutters. Like your good self.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mainstream Media news is finally catching on to the truth:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4687300/law-school-links-autism-vaccines-in-report/

News? This is a "study" by lawyers who litigating vaccine cases and have a very direct interest in their "results."

The genetic basis for ASDs is becoming increasingly apparent. The head size observation has been around for a long time and the theory there is that children with ASDs can have an overgrowth of brain matter and that its the fact that they have too many neurons firing is what causes the disorder. There are other brain-based theories as well.

[Anonymous]

NP. Can we please be nice to each other? Isn't it possible to disagree without insulting?

This forum is the island of kindness in the otherwise unruly DCUM mosh pit. Let's keep it that way.

[Anonymous]

Actually:
http://autism.about.com/b/2011/05/10/update-on-vaccine-court-publication-raises-questions.htm

"According to the Pace Law School, no one from the school was involved with the investigation, nor did anyone from the law school take part in the presentation. In addition, it is important to note, the Pace Environmental Law Review is a student run publication. What's more, all of the investigators involved with this publication and presentation represent clients who have claims on behalf of family members in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. "

Also, the numbers of the study were "massaged" a bit. For example, there was 2500 cases studied, only 21 that mentioned autism or "autism-like symptoms". They dug around and were able to find an additional 62 by "investigating parents" and determining their children had autism that way... which is obviously not an official diagnosis.

In fact, even the initial 21 are suspect since non of those specify if there was a diagnosis either.

For those that wonder what "autism-like symptoms" are: http://www.autism-resources.com/autismfaq-simi.html

For a bunch of "experts" that went looking for autism where they figured they'd find a ton of cases, what they actually found was that between 1-3 % of those that were vaccine injured did in fact meet the criteria for autism which coincides with the numbers presented in various population studies (1 in 110 from the CDC and 1 in 38 from the South Korean study).

Long story short is, don't believe everything you hear. This study was not "proof" of anything, but rather it was an attempt at getting the attention of congress to look more closely at vaccines.

By the way, my name is Stuart Duncan and I wrote the blog post in the initial post. Thanks for the mention!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mainstream Media news is finally catching on to the truth:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4687300/law-school-links-autism-vaccines-in-report/

News? This is a "study" by lawyers who litigating vaccine cases and have a very direct interest in their "results."

The genetic basis for ASDs is becoming increasingly apparent. The head size observation has been around for a long time and the theory there is that children with ASDs can have an overgrowth of brain matter and that its the fact that they have too many neurons firing is what causes the disorder. There are other brain-based theories as well.

I agree. People fail to understand Law is not Science. It points to an overall ignorance of science and the scientific method. I had this argument with my lawyer neighbor. We have basically agreed not to discuss it in order to remain friends. She is a great lawyer but she knows #h*t about science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually:
http://autism.about.com/b/2011/05/10/update-on-vaccine-court-publication-raises-questions.htm

"According to the Pace Law School, no one from the school was involved with the investigation, nor did anyone from the law school take part in the presentation. In addition, it is important to note, the Pace Environmental Law Review is a student run publication. What's more, all of the investigators involved with this publication and presentation represent clients who have claims on behalf of family members in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. "

Also, the numbers of the study were "massaged" a bit. For example, there was 2500 cases studied, only 21 that mentioned autism or "autism-like symptoms". They dug around and were able to find an additional 62 by "investigating parents" and determining their children had autism that way... which is obviously not an official diagnosis.

In fact, even the initial 21 are suspect since non of those specify if there was a diagnosis either.

For those that wonder what "autism-like symptoms" are: http://www.autism-resources.com/autismfaq-simi.html

For a bunch of "experts" that went looking for autism where they figured they'd find a ton of cases, what they actually found was that between 1-3 % of those that were vaccine injured did in fact meet the criteria for autism which coincides with the numbers presented in various population studies (1 in 110 from the CDC and 1 in 38 from the South Korean study).

Long story short is, don't believe everything you hear. This study was not "proof" of anything, but rather it was an attempt at getting the attention of congress to look more closely at vaccines.

By the way, my name is Stuart Duncan and I wrote the blog post in the initial post. Thanks for the mention!

So this will be published in peer reviewed scientific or medical journal?