Autism message

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 03:43:30 +0000, David Wright wrote:

In article ,
Mark Probert wrote:
mike wrote:

Wrong. Now that we do not have to waste scarce money on looking for a
vaccine link, other causes, genetic, environmental, etc. can be looked for.

Chemicals in the air or vaccines are also an environmental factor, and at
this point vaccines look like the most likely explanation.


I would LOVE for a clear cut environmental factor to be found as the
cause, or trigger, of Autism. Such a cause could hopefully be addressed,
and the incidence rate would drop dramatically. That would be wonderful.

I'm skeptical we're going to find one, though. I'm betting on a
primarily genetic cause.

There are definitely both genetic AND environmental factors.
Debating what is primary is pointless.

In article , mike wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 03:43:30 +0000, David Wright wrote:

In article ,
Mark Probert wrote:
mike wrote:

Wrong. Now that we do not have to waste scarce money on looking for a
vaccine link, other causes, genetic, environmental, etc. can be looked for.

Chemicals in the air or vaccines are also an environmental factor, and at
this point vaccines look like the most likely explanation.

No, they don't. And they won't, either, until and unless we see a
huge drop in autism cases over the next couple of years. At which
point, I'm sure you'll come up with some lame rationalization about
why vaccines are still to blame, even though they don't contain any
mercury any more.

I would LOVE for a clear cut environmental factor to be found as the
cause, or trigger, of Autism. Such a cause could hopefully be addressed,
and the incidence rate would drop dramatically. That would be wonderful.

I'm skeptical we're going to find one, though. I'm betting on a
primarily genetic cause.

There are definitely both genetic AND environmental factors.
Debating what is primary is pointless.

I love the way you toss out the word "definitely," there, as if you
had the slightest idea what the real causes are.

And there is plenty of reason to try to determine environmental vs
genetic. If it's primarily environmental, we have a much better
chance of being able to do something about it. If everyone in the
world quit smoking tomorrow, lung cancer rates would drop quite
sharply over the next few decades. That's an environmental factor
that can actually be controlled, though admittedly it probably won't
be.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth

mike wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 03:43:30 +0000, David Wright wrote:


In article ,
Mark Probert wrote:

mike wrote:


Wrong. Now that we do not have to waste scarce money on looking for a
vaccine link, other causes, genetic, environmental, etc. can be looked for.


Chemicals in the air or vaccines are also an environmental factor, and at
this point vaccines look like the most likely explanation.

Wrong. That has been disproven by replicated epidemiological studies.


I would LOVE for a clear cut environmental factor to be found as the
cause, or trigger, of Autism. Such a cause could hopefully be addressed,
and the incidence rate would drop dramatically. That would be wonderful.

I'm skeptical we're going to find one, though. I'm betting on a
primarily genetic cause.


There are definitely both genetic AND environmental factors.

Can you prove that?

Debating what is primary is pointless.

Wrong. It allows for focus of funding for research.

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 09:00:31 -0400, Mark Probert wrote:

mike wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 03:43:30 +0000, David Wright wrote:


In article ,
Mark Probert wrote:

mike wrote:


Wrong. Now that we do not have to waste scarce money on looking for a
vaccine link, other causes, genetic, environmental, etc. can be looked for.


Chemicals in the air or vaccines are also an environmental factor, and at
this point vaccines look like the most likely explanation.

Wrong. That has been disproven by replicated epidemiological studies.

And they are flawed.
The statistical correlation is too significant to be shrugged off, and
it has not been explained. I would say the jury is out.


I would LOVE for a clear cut environmental factor to be found as the
cause, or trigger, of Autism. Such a cause could hopefully be addressed,
and the incidence rate would drop dramatically. That would be wonderful.

I'm skeptical we're going to find one, though. I'm betting on a
primarily genetic cause.


There are definitely both genetic AND environmental factors.

Can you prove that?


Yes. As I said a single couple of identical twins with only one affected
by XYZ is a conclusive proof that XYZ is not purely genetic. And if you
do not understand that then you are dumb (sorry).
Or maybe you insist that there are no genetic factors? Methinks you
do not insist on that.

Debating what is primary is pointless.

Wrong. It allows for focus of funding for research.

Only if the goal is to steer clear of anything that can offend some
powerful interests. Research focused on environmental factors can bring
unpleasant results, so if the goal is to defund such research then yes,
putting emphasis exclusively on genetics makes sense.
But if the goal is to find the cause of the disease then both genetic
and environmental factors must be researched because both are important.
Research focused on only one group will miss their interaction and
will be fruitless.

mike wrote:
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 09:00:31 -0400, Mark Probert wrote:


mike wrote:

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 03:43:30 +0000, David Wright wrote:



In article ,
Mark Probert wrote:


mike wrote:


Wrong. Now that we do not have to waste scarce money on looking for a
vaccine link, other causes, genetic, environmental, etc. can be looked for.


Chemicals in the air or vaccines are also an environmental factor, and at
this point vaccines look like the most likely explanation.

Wrong. That has been disproven by replicated epidemiological studies.


And they are flawed.

So you say, but, no one has actually demonstrated that they are all
flawed. There are claims by the conspiracists, but, they are desperate
attempts to ignore facts. Remember, the studies were done on separate
populations, by different groups, and all reached the same conclusion.
That, bub, is called replication of results, and is one of the hallmarks
of accuracy in scientific inquiry.

The statistical correlation is too significant to be shrugged off, and
it has not been explained.

It has been well explained, and, if you choose to ignore it, then you
have the problem.

I would say the jury is out.

Yes, the jury decided that the free lunch was too good to pass up and
stayed out a few more minutes. However, they are back now, and
thimerosal was found not guilty.

I would LOVE for a clear cut environmental factor to be found as the
cause, or trigger, of Autism. Such a cause could hopefully be addressed,
and the incidence rate would drop dramatically. That would be wonderful.

I'm skeptical we're going to find one, though. I'm betting on a
primarily genetic cause.


There are definitely both genetic AND environmental factors.

Can you prove that?

Yes. As I said a single couple of identical twins with only one affected
by XYZ is a conclusive proof that XYZ is not purely genetic. And if you
do not understand that then you are dumb (sorry).

I fully understand it as I pointed out when you first raised it. My
comments are above. I was asking for you to prove that "[t]here are
definitely both genetic AND environmental factors." You made such a
definitive statement that I assumed, apparently incorrectly, that you
had such a high level of proof that you could make such a statement. My
apologies for overestimating you.

And, BTW, I am sorry that you have a defective memory since you could
not recall what I said within the same post.

Or maybe you insist that there are no genetic factors? Methinks you
do not insist on that.

That is not true. You do not think.

AFAIAC, autism is most likely 90% genetic.

Debating what is primary is pointless.

Wrong. It allows for focus of funding for research.

Only if the goal is to steer clear of anything that can offend some
powerful interests.

Bull****. We now know that there is virtually no possibility that
thimerosal and autism are linked. Thus, we focus the money on further
genetic research, find the genes responsible, and then see whether they
need an external trigger to cause autism.

Research focused on environmental factors can bring
unpleasant results, so if the goal is to defund such research then yes,
putting emphasis exclusively on genetics makes sense.

See above. Since there is substantial evidence that autism has a strong
genetic component, I would prefer to see that avenue thoroughly explored
and understood, then to look to see how these genes function in the
environment.

But if the goal is to find the cause of the disease then both genetic
and environmental factors must be researched because both are important.

Sequence is everything.

Research focused on only one group will miss their interaction and
will be fruitless.

See above.

Mark Probert wrote:

But conventional medicine doesn't help you either -- why aren't
you equally ****ed off by that?

Because Real Medicine never raised my hopes falsely. At every turn we
were told that there may be some effect, etc.

That's lame even for you. Good conventional medicine practitioners
will tell you if something is not very likely to work well.
So will good alternative medicine practitioners.

Bad conventional medicine practitioners will neglect to
tell you that the medicine may not necessarily cure you.
So will bad alternative medicine practitioners.

Does the research
time wasted trying to protect a particular
preservative agent help anybody?

You make a fundamental assumption, i.e. the purpose of the research is
to protect. I disagree as I do not buy into these extensive consipiracy
arguments where it would take a huge number of people to actually
effectuate the conspiracy.

I don't think you understand the power of good psychological
public relations. It doesn't take a huge number of people
at all, since you (and many others) already place great
amounts of trust in certain sources, e.g. certain journals.
All it takes is slight subversion of these very trusted
sources, and then a very small number of people can have
an army of trusting and well-intentioned people fighting
tooth-and-nail on their behalf. For even something so irrelevant
to most people (but very relevant from a profit perspective)
as a certain medicine's shelf-life.

Think about it. Shelf-life.

wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:


But conventional medicine doesn't help you either -- why aren't
you equally ****ed off by that?

Because Real Medicine never raised my hopes falsely. At every turn we
were told that there may be some effect, etc.


That's lame even for you.

Not at all. My experience, and, in AltLand that is all that counts, is
that.

Good conventional medicine practitioners
will tell you if something is not very likely to work well.
So will good alternative medicine practitioners.

Nope. Not even close. Every AltSalesPitch was devoid of that. When I
questioned several, they told me that if I do not believe in what they
are doing, then their hocus-pocus will not work. Of course, they did not
come right out and say that, but one does not have to have a degree in
rocket science to understand it.

Bad conventional medicine practitioners will neglect to
tell you that the medicine may not necessarily cure you.
So will bad alternative medicine practitioners.

Nope. Never has happened.

Does the research

time wasted trying to protect a particular
preservative agent help anybody?

You make a fundamental assumption, i.e. the purpose of the research is
to protect. I disagree as I do not buy into these extensive consipiracy
arguments where it would take a huge number of people to actually
effectuate the conspiracy.

I don't think you understand the power of good psychological
public relations.

I sure do. I have seen several outstanding PR gimics used by the
AltWorlders and others.

It doesn't take a huge number of people
at all, since you (and many others) already place great
amounts of trust in certain sources, e.g. certain journals.

Sure it does. There is a rule in intelligence that simply states that
the likelihood of being discovered increases with the more people who
know about it. It is truly that simple.

All it takes is slight subversion of these very trusted
sources, and then a very small number of people can have
an army of trusting and well-intentioned people fighting
tooth-and-nail on their behalf. For even something so irrelevant
to most people (but very relevant from a profit perspective)
as a certain medicine's shelf-life.

Think about it. Shelf-life.