HHS report will link autism to acetaminophen and folate deficiency

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand some of you upset over this, it’s not new information. I am grateful it is now being discussed more prevalently and thus might prevent just 1 child from developing autism.

A child does not develop autism. A child is born with it. Genetics is where you want look- not food, vitamins, supplements, or medication.

I mean glacatosemia (which all infants are screened for) is genetic and you still would look to food there. Only autism do people just call it a day from there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand some of you upset over this, it’s not new information. I am grateful it is now being discussed more prevalently and thus might prevent just 1 child from developing autism.

A child does not develop autism. A child is born with it. Genetics is where you want look- not food, vitamins, supplements, or medication.

Not true at all. Sometimes it’s present from birth while other times development is typical until it isn’t. Reasons TBD.

Just because it's not observable for a time doesn't mean the condition isn't present. There are plenty of examples of genetic conditions that don't manifest until later in life, much later than autism.

Go do some research, you aren’t ready for a discussion on this topic if you think all cases present from birth.

Okay, maybe there's a problem with "present," the verb versus the noun. A person may show no symptoms at all for years, but genetic underpinning is there and slowly working its way to being observable. For an extreme example, think of Huntington's disease: If you have the gene and live long enough, you will get the disease. But it may not manifest until midlife despite being undetectable (other than by genetic testing) for decades.

I suppose it's possible, perhaps likely, that there are different forms of what we label "autism," and some forms may be triggered by environmental factors. But even those cases likely have some underlying genetic vulnerability.

I wasn't aware of the type of folate deficiency that may occur in certain individuals (again, genetically determined), in which certain types of folate can't be metabolized and block folate receptors.

DP. There are decades of research on the prenatal environment and autism risk. Numerous autism/identical twin studies. Cerebral folate deficiency is a thing that exist. There are many other factors which are not purely genetic. Also the sheer volume of genes that have been identified as moderate impact for developing autism. Just because you hate RFK jr doesn’t make you any more informed than he is. Many people on here have autistic kids and have worked with geneticists and participated in research and actually read the studies as opposed to reading a few articles summarizing it written by people who majored in English.

Honestly I find this whole thing a bit of a nothing after he hyped up how he was going to blow the lid of this autism thing.

I don’t think there’s any lid left to blow, those of us that are in the field understand there’s a range of contributing factors and things like medications and yes even vaccine ingredients and other chemicals etc are possible environmental contributors along with genetic components. All these things have been known since at least the 90s, probably before that.

I think RFK’s job will be informing the masses and cleaning up research to minimize data suppression and hopefully eliminate some of the problems with research efficacy and conflicts of interest.

Hopefully in 10 years none of this will be taboo to talk about, parents and physicians will be better informed and understand environmental and genetic risks, and they will be able to recognize early signs and know how to gain access to early intervention and childhood services. Hopefully we can get improvements in adult services too as those are lacking.

You wrote a bunch of stuff without saying anything meaningful.

And RFK won't be "cleaning up" anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand some of you upset over this, it’s not new information. I am grateful it is now being discussed more prevalently and thus might prevent just 1 child from developing autism.

A child does not develop autism. A child is born with it. Genetics is where you want look- not food, vitamins, supplements, or medication.

Not true at all. Sometimes it’s present from birth while other times development is typical until it isn’t. Reasons TBD.

Just because it's not observable for a time doesn't mean the condition isn't present. There are plenty of examples of genetic conditions that don't manifest until later in life, much later than autism.

Go do some research, you aren’t ready for a discussion on this topic if you think all cases present from birth.

Okay, maybe there's a problem with "present," the verb versus the noun. A person may show no symptoms at all for years, but genetic underpinning is there and slowly working its way to being observable. For an extreme example, think of Huntington's disease: If you have the gene and live long enough, you will get the disease. But it may not manifest until midlife despite being undetectable (other than by genetic testing) for decades.

I suppose it's possible, perhaps likely, that there are different forms of what we label "autism," and some forms may be triggered by environmental factors. But even those cases likely have some underlying genetic vulnerability.

I wasn't aware of the type of folate deficiency that may occur in certain individuals (again, genetically determined), in which certain types of folate can't be metabolized and block folate receptors.

DP. There are decades of research on the prenatal environment and autism risk. Numerous autism/identical twin studies. Cerebral folate deficiency is a thing that exist. There are many other factors which are not purely genetic. Also the sheer volume of genes that have been identified as moderate impact for developing autism. Just because you hate RFK jr doesn’t make you any more informed than he is. Many people on here have autistic kids and have worked with geneticists and participated in research and actually read the studies as opposed to reading a few articles summarizing it written by people who majored in English.

Honestly I find this whole thing a bit of a nothing after he hyped up how he was going to blow the lid of this autism thing.

I don’t think there’s any lid left to blow, those of us that are in the field understand there’s a range of contributing factors and things like medications and yes even vaccine ingredients and other chemicals etc are possible environmental contributors along with genetic components. All these things have been known since at least the 90s, probably before that.

I think RFK’s job will be informing the masses and cleaning up research to minimize data suppression and hopefully eliminate some of the problems with research efficacy and conflicts of interest.

Hopefully in 10 years none of this will be taboo to talk about, parents and physicians will be better informed and understand environmental and genetic risks, and they will be able to recognize early signs and know how to gain access to early intervention and childhood services. Hopefully we can get improvements in adult services too as those are lacking.

You wrote a bunch of stuff without saying anything meaningful.

And RFK won't be "cleaning up" anything.

I found PPs opinion very interesting. Please enlighten us with yours since you know everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand some of you upset over this, it’s not new information. I am grateful it is now being discussed more prevalently and thus might prevent just 1 child from developing autism.

A child does not develop autism. A child is born with it. Genetics is where you want look- not food, vitamins, supplements, or medication.

Not true at all. Sometimes it’s present from birth while other times development is typical until it isn’t. Reasons TBD.

Just because it's not observable for a time doesn't mean the condition isn't present. There are plenty of examples of genetic conditions that don't manifest until later in life, much later than autism.

Go do some research, you aren’t ready for a discussion on this topic if you think all cases present from birth.

He already has. Sorry youre mad.
Okay, maybe there's a problem with "present," the verb versus the noun. A person may show no symptoms at all for years, but genetic underpinning is there and slowly working its way to being observable. For an extreme example, think of Huntington's disease: If you have the gene and live long enough, you will get the disease. But it may not manifest until midlife despite being undetectable (other than by genetic testing) for decades.

I suppose it's possible, perhaps likely, that there are different forms of what we label "autism," and some forms may be triggered by environmental factors. But even those cases likely have some underlying genetic vulnerability.

I wasn't aware of the type of folate deficiency that may occur in certain individuals (again, genetically determined), in which certain types of folate can't be metabolized and block folate receptors.

DP. There are decades of research on the prenatal environment and autism risk. Numerous autism/identical twin studies. Cerebral folate deficiency is a thing that exist. There are many other factors which are not purely genetic. Also the sheer volume of genes that have been identified as moderate impact for developing autism. Just because you hate RFK jr doesn’t make you any more informed than he is. Many people on here have autistic kids and have worked with geneticists and participated in research and actually read the studies as opposed to reading a few articles summarizing it written by people who majored in English.

Honestly I find this whole thing a bit of a nothing after he hyped up how he was going to blow the lid of this autism thing.

I don’t think there’s any lid left to blow, those of us that are in the field understand there’s a range of contributing factors and things like medications and yes even vaccine ingredients and other chemicals etc are possible environmental contributors along with genetic components. All these things have been known since at least the 90s, probably before that.

I think RFK’s job will be informing the masses and cleaning up research to minimize data suppression and hopefully eliminate some of the problems with research efficacy and conflicts of interest.

Hopefully in 10 years none of this will be taboo to talk about, parents and physicians will be better informed and understand environmental and genetic risks, and they will be able to recognize early signs and know how to gain access to early intervention and childhood services. Hopefully we can get improvements in adult services too as those are lacking.

You wrote a bunch of stuff without saying anything meaningful.

And RFK won't be "cleaning up" anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand some of you upset over this, it’s not new information. I am grateful it is now being discussed more prevalently and thus might prevent just 1 child from developing autism.

A child does not develop autism. A child is born with it. Genetics is where you want look- not food, vitamins, supplements, or medication.

Not true at all. Sometimes it’s present from birth while other times development is typical until it isn’t. Reasons TBD.

Just because it's not observable for a time doesn't mean the condition isn't present. There are plenty of examples of genetic conditions that don't manifest until later in life, much later than autism.

Go do some research, you aren’t ready for a discussion on this topic if you think all cases present from birth.

Okay, maybe there's a problem with "present," the verb versus the noun. A person may show no symptoms at all for years, but genetic underpinning is there and slowly working its way to being observable. For an extreme example, think of Huntington's disease: If you have the gene and live long enough, you will get the disease. But it may not manifest until midlife despite being undetectable (other than by genetic testing) for decades.

I suppose it's possible, perhaps likely, that there are different forms of what we label "autism," and some forms may be triggered by environmental factors. But even those cases likely have some underlying genetic vulnerability.

I wasn't aware of the type of folate deficiency that may occur in certain individuals (again, genetically determined), in which certain types of folate can't be metabolized and block folate receptors.

DP. There are decades of research on the prenatal environment and autism risk. Numerous autism/identical twin studies. Cerebral folate deficiency is a thing that exist. There are many other factors which are not purely genetic. Also the sheer volume of genes that have been identified as moderate impact for developing autism. Just because you hate RFK jr doesn’t make you any more informed than he is. Many people on here have autistic kids and have worked with geneticists and participated in research and actually read the studies as opposed to reading a few articles summarizing it written by people who majored in English.

Honestly I find this whole thing a bit of a nothing after he hyped up how he was going to blow the lid of this autism thing.

I don’t think there’s any lid left to blow, those of us that are in the field understand there’s a range of contributing factors and things like medications and yes even vaccine ingredients and other chemicals etc are possible environmental contributors along with genetic components. All these things have been known since at least the 90s, probably before that.

I think RFK’s job will be informing the masses and cleaning up research to minimize data suppression and hopefully eliminate some of the problems with research efficacy and conflicts of interest.

Hopefully in 10 years none of this will be taboo to talk about, parents and physicians will be better informed and understand environmental and genetic risks, and they will be able to recognize early signs and know how to gain access to early intervention and childhood services. Hopefully we can get improvements in adult services too as those are lacking.

You wrote a bunch of stuff without saying anything meaningful.

And RFK won't be "cleaning up" anything.

He’s been working on this for months, sorry you haven’t been paying attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand some of you upset over this, it’s not new information. I am grateful it is now being discussed more prevalently and thus might prevent just 1 child from developing autism.

A child does not develop autism. A child is born with it. Genetics is where you want look- not food, vitamins, supplements, or medication.

Not true at all. Sometimes it’s present from birth while other times development is typical until it isn’t. Reasons TBD.

Just because it's not observable for a time doesn't mean the condition isn't present. There are plenty of examples of genetic conditions that don't manifest until later in life, much later than autism.

Go do some research, you aren’t ready for a discussion on this topic if you think all cases present from birth.

Okay, maybe there's a problem with "present," the verb versus the noun. A person may show no symptoms at all for years, but genetic underpinning is there and slowly working its way to being observable. For an extreme example, think of Huntington's disease: If you have the gene and live long enough, you will get the disease. But it may not manifest until midlife despite being undetectable (other than by genetic testing) for decades.

I suppose it's possible, perhaps likely, that there are different forms of what we label "autism," and some forms may be triggered by environmental factors. But even those cases likely have some underlying genetic vulnerability.

I wasn't aware of the type of folate deficiency that may occur in certain individuals (again, genetically determined), in which certain types of folate can't be metabolized and block folate receptors.

DP. There are decades of research on the prenatal environment and autism risk. Numerous autism/identical twin studies. Cerebral folate deficiency is a thing that exist. There are many other factors which are not purely genetic. Also the sheer volume of genes that have been identified as moderate impact for developing autism. Just because you hate RFK jr doesn’t make you any more informed than he is. Many people on here have autistic kids and have worked with geneticists and participated in research and actually read the studies as opposed to reading a few articles summarizing it written by people who majored in English.

Honestly I find this whole thing a bit of a nothing after he hyped up how he was going to blow the lid of this autism thing.

I don’t think there’s any lid left to blow, those of us that are in the field understand there’s a range of contributing factors and things like medications and yes even vaccine ingredients and other chemicals etc are possible environmental contributors along with genetic components. All these things have been known since at least the 90s, probably before that.

I think RFK’s job will be informing the masses and cleaning up research to minimize data suppression and hopefully eliminate some of the problems with research efficacy and conflicts of interest.

Hopefully in 10 years none of this will be taboo to talk about, parents and physicians will be better informed and understand environmental and genetic risks, and they will be able to recognize early signs and know how to gain access to early intervention and childhood services. Hopefully we can get improvements in adult services too as those are lacking.

You wrote a bunch of stuff without saying anything meaningful.

And RFK won't be "cleaning up" anything.

He’s been working on this for months, sorry you haven’t been paying attention.

Wow, the Vigilant Fox said so??!! Now I really believe it. He's blowing the lid off this!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand some of you upset over this, it’s not new information. I am grateful it is now being discussed more prevalently and thus might prevent just 1 child from developing autism.

A child does not develop autism. A child is born with it. Genetics is where you want look- not food, vitamins, supplements, or medication.

Not true at all. Sometimes it’s present from birth while other times development is typical until it isn’t. Reasons TBD.

Just because it's not observable for a time doesn't mean the condition isn't present. There are plenty of examples of genetic conditions that don't manifest until later in life, much later than autism.

Go do some research, you aren’t ready for a discussion on this topic if you think all cases present from birth.

Okay, maybe there's a problem with "present," the verb versus the noun. A person may show no symptoms at all for years, but genetic underpinning is there and slowly working its way to being observable. For an extreme example, think of Huntington's disease: If you have the gene and live long enough, you will get the disease. But it may not manifest until midlife despite being undetectable (other than by genetic testing) for decades.

I suppose it's possible, perhaps likely, that there are different forms of what we label "autism," and some forms may be triggered by environmental factors. But even those cases likely have some underlying genetic vulnerability.

I wasn't aware of the type of folate deficiency that may occur in certain individuals (again, genetically determined), in which certain types of folate can't be metabolized and block folate receptors.

DP. There are decades of research on the prenatal environment and autism risk. Numerous autism/identical twin studies. Cerebral folate deficiency is a thing that exist. There are many other factors which are not purely genetic. Also the sheer volume of genes that have been identified as moderate impact for developing autism. Just because you hate RFK jr doesn’t make you any more informed than he is. Many people on here have autistic kids and have worked with geneticists and participated in research and actually read the studies as opposed to reading a few articles summarizing it written by people who majored in English.

Honestly I find this whole thing a bit of a nothing after he hyped up how he was going to blow the lid of this autism thing.

I don’t think there’s any lid left to blow, those of us that are in the field understand there’s a range of contributing factors and things like medications and yes even vaccine ingredients and other chemicals etc are possible environmental contributors along with genetic components. All these things have been known since at least the 90s, probably before that.

I think RFK’s job will be informing the masses and cleaning up research to minimize data suppression and hopefully eliminate some of the problems with research efficacy and conflicts of interest.

Hopefully in 10 years none of this will be taboo to talk about, parents and physicians will be better informed and understand environmental and genetic risks, and they will be able to recognize early signs and know how to gain access to early intervention and childhood services. Hopefully we can get improvements in adult services too as those are lacking.

You wrote a bunch of stuff without saying anything meaningful.

And RFK won't be "cleaning up" anything.

He’s been working on this for months, sorry you haven’t been paying attention.

Wow, the Vigilant Fox said so??!! Now I really believe it. He's blowing the lid off this!!

It’s just a thread of clips of RFK Jr speaking on the topic, if you can’t get past who the middleman of information is then there’s no point talking to you about anything.

[Anonymous]

Folate deficiency is common in autism but its the child who cant absorb it well, not whether it was taken during pregnancy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand some of you upset over this, it’s not new information. I am grateful it is now being discussed more prevalently and thus might prevent just 1 child from developing autism.

A child does not develop autism. A child is born with it. Genetics is where you want look- not food, vitamins, supplements, or medication.

Not true at all. Sometimes it’s present from birth while other times development is typical until it isn’t. Reasons TBD.

Just because it's not observable for a time doesn't mean the condition isn't present. There are plenty of examples of genetic conditions that don't manifest until later in life, much later than autism.

Go do some research, you aren’t ready for a discussion on this topic if you think all cases present from birth.

Okay, maybe there's a problem with "present," the verb versus the noun. A person may show no symptoms at all for years, but genetic underpinning is there and slowly working its way to being observable. For an extreme example, think of Huntington's disease: If you have the gene and live long enough, you will get the disease. But it may not manifest until midlife despite being undetectable (other than by genetic testing) for decades.

I suppose it's possible, perhaps likely, that there are different forms of what we label "autism," and some forms may be triggered by environmental factors. But even those cases likely have some underlying genetic vulnerability.

I wasn't aware of the type of folate deficiency that may occur in certain individuals (again, genetically determined), in which certain types of folate can't be metabolized and block folate receptors.

DP. There are decades of research on the prenatal environment and autism risk. Numerous autism/identical twin studies. Cerebral folate deficiency is a thing that exist. There are many other factors which are not purely genetic. Also the sheer volume of genes that have been identified as moderate impact for developing autism. Just because you hate RFK jr doesn’t make you any more informed than he is. Many people on here have autistic kids and have worked with geneticists and participated in research and actually read the studies as opposed to reading a few articles summarizing it written by people who majored in English.

Honestly I find this whole thing a bit of a nothing after he hyped up how he was going to blow the lid of this autism thing.

I don’t think there’s any lid left to blow, those of us that are in the field understand there’s a range of contributing factors and things like medications and yes even vaccine ingredients and other chemicals etc are possible environmental contributors along with genetic components. All these things have been known since at least the 90s, probably before that.

I think RFK’s job will be informing the masses and cleaning up research to minimize data suppression and hopefully eliminate some of the problems with research efficacy and conflicts of interest.

Hopefully in 10 years none of this will be taboo to talk about, parents and physicians will be better informed and understand environmental and genetic risks, and they will be able to recognize early signs and know how to gain access to early intervention and childhood services. Hopefully we can get improvements in adult services too as those are lacking.

You wrote a bunch of stuff without saying anything meaningful.

And RFK won't be "cleaning up" anything.

He’s been working on this for months, sorry you haven’t been paying attention.

He's been working for months generating papers with AI with fake studies and saying papers came to conclusions that were thrnopposite of the data.

Actual doctors and scientists have been studying this stuff for years. The idea that this unqualified brain worm is trustworthy because "oh he's been working in it" is just... what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand some of you upset over this, it’s not new information. I am grateful it is now being discussed more prevalently and thus might prevent just 1 child from developing autism.

A child does not develop autism. A child is born with it. Genetics is where you want look- not food, vitamins, supplements, or medication.

Not true at all. Sometimes it’s present from birth while other times development is typical until it isn’t. Reasons TBD.

Just because it's not observable for a time doesn't mean the condition isn't present. There are plenty of examples of genetic conditions that don't manifest until later in life, much later than autism.

Go do some research, you aren’t ready for a discussion on this topic if you think all cases present from birth.

Okay, maybe there's a problem with "present," the verb versus the noun. A person may show no symptoms at all for years, but genetic underpinning is there and slowly working its way to being observable. For an extreme example, think of Huntington's disease: If you have the gene and live long enough, you will get the disease. But it may not manifest until midlife despite being undetectable (other than by genetic testing) for decades.

I suppose it's possible, perhaps likely, that there are different forms of what we label "autism," and some forms may be triggered by environmental factors. But even those cases likely have some underlying genetic vulnerability.

I wasn't aware of the type of folate deficiency that may occur in certain individuals (again, genetically determined), in which certain types of folate can't be metabolized and block folate receptors.

DP. There are decades of research on the prenatal environment and autism risk. Numerous autism/identical twin studies. Cerebral folate deficiency is a thing that exist. There are many other factors which are not purely genetic. Also the sheer volume of genes that have been identified as moderate impact for developing autism. Just because you hate RFK jr doesn’t make you any more informed than he is. Many people on here have autistic kids and have worked with geneticists and participated in research and actually read the studies as opposed to reading a few articles summarizing it written by people who majored in English.

Honestly I find this whole thing a bit of a nothing after he hyped up how he was going to blow the lid of this autism thing.

I don’t think there’s any lid left to blow, those of us that are in the field understand there’s a range of contributing factors and things like medications and yes even vaccine ingredients and other chemicals etc are possible environmental contributors along with genetic components. All these things have been known since at least the 90s, probably before that.

I think RFK’s job will be informing the masses and cleaning up research to minimize data suppression and hopefully eliminate some of the problems with research efficacy and conflicts of interest.

Hopefully in 10 years none of this will be taboo to talk about, parents and physicians will be better informed and understand environmental and genetic risks, and they will be able to recognize early signs and know how to gain access to early intervention and childhood services. Hopefully we can get improvements in adult services too as those are lacking.

You wrote a bunch of stuff without saying anything meaningful.

And RFK won't be "cleaning up" anything.

He’s been working on this for months, sorry you haven’t been paying attention.

Wow, the Vigilant Fox said so??!! Now I really believe it. He's blowing the lid off this!!

It’s just a thread of clips of RFK Jr speaking on the topic, if you can’t get past who the middleman of information is then there’s no point talking to you about anything.

The lack of credibility compounds between you, your source, and the human subject.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Folate deficiency is common in autism but its the child who cant absorb it well, not whether it was taken during pregnancy.

There's autism shares a link to digestive disorders, it's known but they don't know if that relationship is causal or shares a common cause. They have, in fact, been investigating this for a while

https://hms.harvard.edu/news/gut-brain-connection-autism

You can't expect fast answers on studying human brain development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There’s probably some truth in the report. Unfortunately the current HHS has so little credibility that it’s hard to sort the wheat from the chaff. I’ll wait to see what other experts say. It’s so upsetting not to be able to trust what should be objective scientific information from government experts.

This. Correlation has already been found. Haven't looked at research to see if the sample size, control factors and tests are enough to suggest causation. Regardless, I think there are so many paths to autism where genetics and environment interplay and he's looking for just a few scapegoats. One blames a drug, the other blames the mom or medical professionals not testing for this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Spina bifida rates decreased significantly with folic acid fortification. My Dad's a retired pediatric neurologist and is significantly in favor of it (he also hates Wakefield and RFK Jr.).

The reality is that Wakefield and a lot of these anti Vax "I can cure autism" types are snake oil salesmen.

You do understand that many things can prevent some conditions and cause others? Also what does this have to do with Wakefield or a cure?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s probably some truth in the report. Unfortunately the current HHS has so little credibility that it’s hard to sort the wheat from the chaff. I’ll wait to see what other experts say. It’s so upsetting not to be able to trust what should be objective scientific information from government experts.

This. Correlation has already been found. Haven't looked at research to see if the sample size, control factors and tests are enough to suggest causation. Regardless, I think there are so many paths to autism where genetics and environment interplay and he's looking for just a few scapegoats. One blames a drug, the other blames the mom or medical professionals not testing for this.

Correlation was indicated in an earlier study but a Swedish study that followed 2.5 million kids showed that the correlation went away with proper controls on other factors.

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/study-reveals-no-causal-link-between-neurodevelopmental-disorders-acetaminophen-exposure-before-birth

Correlation isn't causation. Say that again and again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand some of you upset over this, it’s not new information. I am grateful it is now being discussed more prevalently and thus might prevent just 1 child from developing autism.

A child does not develop autism. A child is born with it. Genetics is where you want look- not food, vitamins, supplements, or medication.

Not true at all. Sometimes it’s present from birth while other times development is typical until it isn’t. Reasons TBD.

Just because it's not observable for a time doesn't mean the condition isn't present. There are plenty of examples of genetic conditions that don't manifest until later in life, much later than autism.

Go do some research, you aren’t ready for a discussion on this topic if you think all cases present from birth.

Okay, maybe there's a problem with "present," the verb versus the noun. A person may show no symptoms at all for years, but genetic underpinning is there and slowly working its way to being observable. For an extreme example, think of Huntington's disease: If you have the gene and live long enough, you will get the disease. But it may not manifest until midlife despite being undetectable (other than by genetic testing) for decades.

I suppose it's possible, perhaps likely, that there are different forms of what we label "autism," and some forms may be triggered by environmental factors. But even those cases likely have some underlying genetic vulnerability.

I wasn't aware of the type of folate deficiency that may occur in certain individuals (again, genetically determined), in which certain types of folate can't be metabolized and block folate receptors.

DP. There are decades of research on the prenatal environment and autism risk. Numerous autism/identical twin studies. Cerebral folate deficiency is a thing that exist. There are many other factors which are not purely genetic. Also the sheer volume of genes that have been identified as moderate impact for developing autism. Just because you hate RFK jr doesn’t make you any more informed than he is. Many people on here have autistic kids and have worked with geneticists and participated in research and actually read the studies as opposed to reading a few articles summarizing it written by people who majored in English.

Honestly I find this whole thing a bit of a nothing after he hyped up how he was going to blow the lid of this autism thing.

I don’t think there’s any lid left to blow, those of us that are in the field understand there’s a range of contributing factors and things like medications and yes even vaccine ingredients and other chemicals etc are possible environmental contributors along with genetic components. All these things have been known since at least the 90s, probably before that.

I think RFK’s job will be informing the masses and cleaning up research to minimize data suppression and hopefully eliminate some of the problems with research efficacy and conflicts of interest.

Hopefully in 10 years none of this will be taboo to talk about, parents and physicians will be better informed and understand environmental and genetic risks, and they will be able to recognize early signs and know how to gain access to early intervention and childhood services. Hopefully we can get improvements in adult services too as those are lacking.

You wrote a bunch of stuff without saying anything meaningful.

And RFK won't be "cleaning up" anything.

He’s been working on this for months, sorry you haven’t been paying attention.

Wow, the Vigilant Fox said so??!! Now I really believe it. He's blowing the lid off this!!

It’s just a thread of clips of RFK Jr speaking on the topic, if you can’t get past who the middleman of information is then there’s no point talking to you about anything.

The lack of credibility compounds between you, your source, and the human subject.

Most people understand that one source is not meant to be all encompassing nor deemed immediately credible. It’s meant as a starting point to spark interest so you can go gather additional information from the decades of existing research and form your own conclusions.

Instead of doing that though you’ll be saying “20 years ago I read something about that but decided RFK Jr was not a credible source”.

Let us know how that works out for you.