If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Adopting step child | david adams | Child Support | 41 | August 12th 05 04:24 AM |
NY Times article on Vaccines | Cocoa Butter | Kids Health | 8 | June 29th 05 01:56 AM |
FYI 0028 Minimum Set of Guidelines | Pop | Foster Parents | 0 | May 1st 05 03:49 PM |
to homemakers and single moms | [email protected] | Solutions | 1 | February 25th 05 02:55 PM |
[asaphilly] New Children's Book and Autism Awareness Mdse Avail from GrPhila ASA | PabloMas246 | Kids Health | 0 | January 23rd 04 01:57 AM |