Comments on: The Symptoms of Pseudoscience http://www.blisstree.com/articles/the-symptoms-of-pseudoscience/ Family, Health, Home and Lifestyles Wed, 16 Dec 2009 23:04:14 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Kristina Chew, PhD http://www.blisstree.com/articles/the-symptoms-of-pseudoscience/comment-page-1/#comment-538132 Kristina Chew, PhD Sun, 23 Sep 2007 17:46:45 +0000 http://www.autismvox.com/the-symptoms-of-pseudoscience/#comment-538132 I don't think it is so much an issue of "denying mercury" as valid scientific evidence not pointing to a mercury-autism link. I don’t think it is so much an issue of “denying mercury” as valid scientific evidence not pointing to a mercury-autism link.

]]> By: Cliff http://www.blisstree.com/articles/the-symptoms-of-pseudoscience/comment-page-1/#comment-538127 Cliff Sun, 23 Sep 2007 17:27:10 +0000 http://www.autismvox.com/the-symptoms-of-pseudoscience/#comment-538127 I'm wouldn't advocate for mercury put casually into vaccines, certainly. But that doesn't mean I think that it happens to be the cause. Mercury has been in the diet of the Japanese forever, in the form of eating more fish than most other cultures; would it be much to suggest that the Japanese, if mercury was the case, would have incredibly high levels of autism? I don't remember any such statistic. There still is the assumption that it can't be genetic and that if it is there must be an external factor. I've never seen anything convincing in this regard, even given the delay, given how a person's genetic code doesn't all come into play at birth. Cliff I’m wouldn’t advocate for mercury put casually into vaccines, certainly. But that doesn’t mean I think that it happens to be the cause.

Mercury has been in the diet of the Japanese forever, in the form of eating more fish than most other cultures; would it be much to suggest that the Japanese, if mercury was the case, would have incredibly high levels of autism? I don’t remember any such statistic.

There still is the assumption that it can’t be genetic and that if it is there must be an external factor. I’ve never seen anything convincing in this regard, even given the delay, given how a person’s genetic code doesn’t all come into play at birth.

Cliff

]]> By: John Fryer http://www.blisstree.com/articles/the-symptoms-of-pseudoscience/comment-page-1/#comment-537478 John Fryer Sun, 23 Sep 2007 16:58:59 +0000 http://www.autismvox.com/the-symptoms-of-pseudoscience/#comment-537478 The science of autism is not known. Therefore you cannot discount any plausible hypothesis. The fact that something does not decrease when you remove it does not mean that the item removed is good and for mercury if it doesn't cause autism we need to ask what it does cause. Perhaps things worse than autism? The science of mercury and its effects have been known for thousands of years. Anyone who still puts this in vaccines and all those that use it are possibly aiding or committing murder. The science of the vaccine industry on mercury is not just flawed it is perversely wrong. And chemicals interact with other chemicals so we need to look at other bad chemicals in vaccines and elsewhere in contact with pregnant mothers and their babies. Ten years ago autism was a psychiatric illness. It is clear today that something chemical must cause it and those that deny mercury are in fact saying that another substance must be to blame for their is no other way this illness can mount at this steady rate. So those that deny mercury - what are your thoughts? John Fryer Chemist The science of autism is not known. Therefore you cannot discount any plausible hypothesis. The fact that something does not decrease when you remove it does not mean that the item removed is good and for mercury if it doesn’t cause autism we need to ask what it does cause. Perhaps things worse than autism?
The science of mercury and its effects have been known for thousands of years.
Anyone who still puts this in vaccines and all those that use it are possibly aiding or committing murder.
The science of the vaccine industry on mercury is not just flawed it is perversely wrong.
And chemicals interact with other chemicals so we need to look at other bad chemicals in vaccines and elsewhere in contact with pregnant mothers and their babies.
Ten years ago autism was a psychiatric illness. It is clear today that something chemical must cause it and those that deny mercury are in fact saying that another substance must be to blame for their is no other way this illness can mount at this steady rate. So those that deny mercury – what are your thoughts?

John Fryer Chemist

]]> By: MJ http://www.blisstree.com/articles/the-symptoms-of-pseudoscience/comment-page-1/#comment-536954 MJ Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:21:54 +0000 http://www.autismvox.com/the-symptoms-of-pseudoscience/#comment-536954 "Correct. It may very likely point to epigenetics*, however." While there can be epigenetic differences in identical twins, my understanding is that these develop (for the most part) over the course of their lifetime due to environmental influences, lifestyle, etc. But at the age when autism appears there will be few epigenetic changes that could account for it. As to heritable epigenetic traits, I have not seen any research that says that one identical twin could inherit the trait without the other having it as well. This would go counter to the notion of what these modifications are (from what I understand). Regardless, if there is a change large enough to produce autism I would think trigger for the change would have to be something in the child's environment. “Correct. It may very likely point to epigenetics*, however.”

While there can be epigenetic differences in identical twins, my understanding is that these develop (for the most part) over the course of their lifetime due to environmental influences, lifestyle, etc. But at the age when autism appears there will be few epigenetic changes that could account for it.

As to heritable epigenetic traits, I have not seen any research that says that one identical twin could inherit the trait without the other having it as well. This would go counter to the notion of what these modifications are (from what I understand).

Regardless, if there is a change large enough to produce autism I would think trigger for the change would have to be something in the child’s environment.

]]> By: Schwartz http://www.blisstree.com/articles/the-symptoms-of-pseudoscience/comment-page-1/#comment-537161 Schwartz Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:18:52 +0000 http://www.autismvox.com/the-symptoms-of-pseudoscience/#comment-537161 "Correct. It may very likely point to epigenetics*, however" That's a pretty strong statement. It "could" point to epigenetics or a number of other hypothesis (vaccines or other). Even more revolutionary, it may be a confluence of factors from a number of different fields, something our medical and science organizations are poorly equiped to deal with. “Correct. It may very likely point to epigenetics*, however”

That’s a pretty strong statement. It “could” point to epigenetics or a number of other hypothesis (vaccines or other).

Even more revolutionary, it may be a confluence of factors from a number of different fields, something our medical and science organizations are poorly equiped to deal with.

]]> By: long day's journey into acceptance http://www.blisstree.com/articles/the-symptoms-of-pseudoscience/comment-page-1/#comment-537229 long day's journey into acceptance Thu, 20 Sep 2007 02:13:13 +0000 http://www.autismvox.com/the-symptoms-of-pseudoscience/#comment-537229 Failure to submit to peer-review may also have to do with a researcher being too enamored with his or her own hypothesis. What's that saying: Never marry your hypothesis; only date it. Or something like that. Failure to submit to peer-review may also have to do with a researcher being too enamored with his or her own hypothesis. What’s that saying: Never marry your hypothesis; only date it. Or something like that.

]]> By: long day's journey into acceptance http://www.blisstree.com/articles/the-symptoms-of-pseudoscience/comment-page-1/#comment-540793 long day's journey into acceptance Thu, 20 Sep 2007 02:10:52 +0000 http://www.autismvox.com/the-symptoms-of-pseudoscience/#comment-540793 "... kinda points that to the fact that something other than genetics." Correct. It may very likely point to epigenetics*, however. * and, 'no', this does not implicate immunizations. “… kinda points that to the fact that something other than genetics.”

Correct. It may very likely point to epigenetics*, however.

* and, ‘no’, this does not implicate immunizations.

]]> By: Schwartz http://www.blisstree.com/articles/the-symptoms-of-pseudoscience/comment-page-1/#comment-537238 Schwartz Thu, 20 Sep 2007 01:42:13 +0000 http://www.autismvox.com/the-symptoms-of-pseudoscience/#comment-537238 "But consistent failure to pass peer review,... equals bad science." I agree 100% "... reluctance to submit your findings for peer review, equals bad science." That can be true, but is not necessarily so. The science itself is either good or bad. Submission for peer review is a review process and does not reflect on the science itself, it only reflects on certain people's impression of the science. In particular, people who are unable or unwilling to evaluate the science themselves, rely on passing peer review as a judgement of good science. Too bad it isn't true. A reluctance to submit findings for peer review MAY indicate a fear of bad science being exposed, but that is not always the case. “But consistent failure to pass peer review,… equals bad science.”

I agree 100%

“… reluctance to submit your findings for peer review, equals bad science.”

That can be true, but is not necessarily so. The science itself is either good or bad. Submission for peer review is a review process and does not reflect on the science itself, it only reflects on certain people’s impression of the science. In particular, people who are unable or unwilling to evaluate the science themselves, rely on passing peer review as a judgement of good science. Too bad it isn’t true.

A reluctance to submit findings for peer review MAY indicate a fear of bad science being exposed, but that is not always the case.

]]> By: Dan Aykroyd, Autism, Acting, UFOs…… http://www.blisstree.com/articles/the-symptoms-of-pseudoscience/comment-page-1/#comment-537301 Dan Aykroyd, Autism, Acting, UFOs…… Wed, 19 Sep 2007 20:04:15 +0000 http://www.autismvox.com/the-symptoms-of-pseudoscience/#comment-537301 [...] what isn’t” and what needs further examination: Words to consider when thinking about autism and science….. ASD, Aspergers, autism, blues, blues brothers, children, comedy, dan aykroyd, family, [...] [...] what isn’t” and what needs further examination: Words to consider when thinking about autism and science….. ASD, Aspergers, autism, blues, blues brothers, children, comedy, dan aykroyd, family, [...]

]]> By: MJ http://www.blisstree.com/articles/the-symptoms-of-pseudoscience/comment-page-1/#comment-537368 MJ Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:41:37 +0000 http://www.autismvox.com/the-symptoms-of-pseudoscience/#comment-537368 "Because there was no evidence to believe that autism is caused by bad parenting, while there is strong evidence to believe that autism is based on heredity. Such as, if one identical twin is autistic, the other has a bare 25% chance not to be." As the parent of identical twins with autism, I find the twins argument to be misleading at best. The identical twin argument actually proves the opposite of what you are trying to say. If it were based on heredity alone, then each twin would almost always (99.9%) have autism. The fact that this isn't the case proves that something other than genetics is in play. The other flaw in that statement is that in identical twins the autism can take a different form and severity in each child. This again is something that would not be expected if it were entirely genetic. If it is genetic the twins will be very, very close to each other, especially at a young age (as an aside, did you know that the order in which teeth come in in babies has a strong genetic component?) Furthermore, if you look at fraternal twins, if one twin is autistic, the other has a greater chance of being autistic than they would be if they were just another sibling of an autistic child. Since fraternal twins don't (normally) have any more in common on a genetic level that any other sibling, the greater chance kinda points that to the fact that something other than genetics. “Because there was no evidence to believe that autism is caused by bad parenting, while there is strong evidence to believe that autism is based on heredity. Such as, if one identical twin is autistic, the other has a bare 25% chance not to be.”

As the parent of identical twins with autism, I find the twins argument to be misleading at best.

The identical twin argument actually proves the opposite of what you are trying to say. If it were based on heredity alone, then each twin would almost always (99.9%) have autism. The fact that this isn’t the case proves that something other than genetics is in play.

The other flaw in that statement is that in identical twins the autism can take a different form and severity in each child. This again is something that would not be expected if it were entirely genetic. If it is genetic the twins will be very, very close to each other, especially at a young age (as an aside, did you know that the order in which teeth come in in babies has a strong genetic component?)

Furthermore, if you look at fraternal twins, if one twin is autistic, the other has a greater chance of being autistic than they would be if they were just another sibling of an autistic child. Since fraternal twins don’t (normally) have any more in common on a genetic level that any other sibling, the greater chance kinda points that to the fact that something other than genetics.

]]>