Thursday, April 12, 2012

Reply to: Autism Linked to Inherited Gene Mutations

Reply to: Autism Linked to Inherited Gene Mutations

Here is again the reply sent to this referenced to blog, and again it will not be published because it is to much truth, just like again the blog page before that. He never could stand up to me ever one on one, and that is the reason he created the blog he did, with not his name in the url, but my name. At least I fearlessly put my name right out into the public light for the past three years; unlike people like this which make up false excuses and must hide their identity. If he was anything near being credible, he would stand up lie a real man and put his information front and center for the world to see; wouldn't you think? What does that tell you about the agenda going on? That's right, it is what you see it is.

Here is a copy of the reply that was sent.

  Another in denial and intellectually dishonest blog, by alias no identity Costner. And with again that hateful and all to typical personal attack, based in every blog page. Your really looking good, don't you think? LOL.

Lets take a look at those studies.

Excerpted from the said blogs linked to article.

[At least 14 to 15 percent of children with autism will have some form of these identified gene mutations, said Geshwind.But the findings won't necessarily tell parents much. While having the mutation may increase the risk of autism, it doesn't necessarily mean the child will develop the disorder. The findings also can't tell researchers how severe a child's autism will be.]

Excerpted from the first study.

[Specifically, the frequency and distribution of these mutations have not been well characterized in matched unaffected controls, and such data are vital to the interpretation of de novo coding mutations observed in probands]

Here we show, using whole-exome sequencing of 928 individuals, including 200 phenotypically discordant sibling pairs, that highly disruptive (nonsense and splice-site) de novo mutations in brain-expressed genes are associated with autism spectrum disorders and carry large effects. On the basis of mutation rates in unaffected individuals, we demonstrate that multiple independent de novo single nucleotide variants in the same gene among unrelated probands reliably identifies risk alleles, providing a clear path forward for gene discovery. Among a total of 279 identified de novo coding mutations, there is a single instance in probands, and none in siblings, in which two independent nonsense variants disrupt the same gene, SCN2A (sodium channel, voltage-gated, type II,  subunit), a result that is highly unlikely by chance.]

Excerpted from the second study

[Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are believed to have genetic and environmental origins, yet in only a modest fraction of individuals can specific causes be identified1, 2. To identify further genetic risk factors, here we assess the role of de novo mutations in ASD by sequencing the exomes of ASD cases and their parents (n = 175 trios). Fewer than half of the cases (46.3%) carry a missense or nonsense de novo variant, and the overall rate of mutation is only modestly higher than the expected rate. In contrast, the proteins encoded by genes that harboured de novo missense or nonsense mutations showed a higher degree of connectivity among themselves and to previous ASD genes3 as indexed by protein-protein interaction screens. The small increase in the rate of de novo events, when taken together with the protein interaction results, are consistent with an important but limited role for de novo point mutations in ASD, similar to that documented for de novo copy number variants. Genetic models incorporating these data indicate that most of the observed de novo events are unconnected to ASD; those that do confer risk are distributed across many genes and are incompletely penetrant (that is, not necessarily sufficient for disease). Our results support polygenic models in which spontaneous coding mutations in any of a large number of genes increases risk by 5- to 20-fold. Despite the challenge posed by such models, results from de novo events and a large parallel case–control study provide strong evidence in favour of CHD8 and KATNAL2 as genuine autism risk factors.]

The second study as well seems to contradict the solid nature of the study that the first one eluded to. Again, while their data is at best quite inconclusive, that past that off in their conclusion as highly indicative of a link in causation.

As well in their statement that at least 14 to 15 percent of children with autism will have some form of these identified gene mutations; then even if one day the finding is more conclusive on a larger scale, that does not and has not yet linked any common findings for the other 85% of the autistic! Looks like you have a LONG way to go, to ever even begin to make the claim that you have, whihc was exactly this. [However these studies do show us a link, and finding more and more of these links coupled with determining other risk factors can lead us to the true cause somewhere down the road.]

If call that proving or showing a link or any link, then you are a delusional as the authors of those two studies, who like you, have clearly a vested interest in accusing any cause but vaccines. nature as well is not a nature publication nor anything even related to it, it is clearly a pharma connected journal I have seen articles from many times before.

I can show you a horror story list of recent scientific studies that far far more conclusively link autism to vaccines, than you can come up with any study at all, to dig yourself out of that information, in a month of Sundays, Costner! You know they are there, because you clearly directed to that and linked and referenced to them. it is quite all to obviously YOU that needs to start to pay attention to that research and modify their hypothesis. It, and as to that information and the science is as well far past the hypothesis state, in any rational and honest mind, alias no identity Costner!

Antivaxxers are nothing if not consistently misleading and flat-out dishonest???? Really? How is that? You have no science that even actually supports a hypothesis that genes of any kind are responsible for the major increase in autism; which you also denied that actual increase, in your previous blog page. The hypothesis in those two studies is so extremely weak it is pathetic that they would even promote that as the definitive cause of autism. Where is the proof as well that even if that gene is correctly identified, that the gene itself is solely responsible for autism, and the now known major increases in autism, and that nothing else triggers it? And yet it was as said only found in 15% of the autistic? Keep digging Costner, this blog page would be nearly hilarious, if the issue of autism was was not so serious.

The rate of autism going from 1 in 10,000 pre 1987 and the enactment of no federal liability act and the major increase in vaccines, to now rate of 1 in 88; is all due to a major shift in the gene pool of humanity??? And you specifically name me and have the hateful audacity to claim - Antivaxxers are nothing if not  consistently misleading and flat-out dishonest??? Wow. Another page filled with denial of all, imagine that, and a personal attack to go with it.

How many pages does that make now, of your personal obsession with me and the information I put out there? 80 plus? Thanks to the now 100 years misinformation and lies fed to us by the likes of modern chemicalized medicine, people like you are what they created. By the way; did you ever fully comprehend that (the) soil and the seed concept? That's what I thought. People with for one reason or the other far to much to lose to ever admit the truth, nor do they now have the ability to face the truth.

Don't have facts, proof, nor any science, alias Costner? 

What's this????

You just hate it when I do that, don"t yaa!!!!

As a final thought specifically on this said replied to blog page, I found an additional interesting commentary I will provide here.

Gene Mutation Risk for Autism --5% to 20%

If rare gene mutations are suspected to be the cause of  5% to, at most, 20%  autism, it leaves the most important questions unanswered:
What about the cause of autism in 80%  (possibly 95%) of autistic children unanswered?

To date, only the MMR vaccine and mercury in vaccines have been studied.

With so many millions of children affected by autism--and the spiraling increase in that number--shouldn't scientists take seriously the eye witness reports by thousands of parents who blame vaccines for triggering autistic spectrum in their previously healthy children?

There is a pressing need to examine without prejudice whether the vaccine-autism association is valid by comparing  autism (and other health) outcomes in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children.

Why is such an obviously necessary research approach so contentious and, therefore, neglected?

Whose financial investments are threatened by an analysis of data comparing the health of children vaccinated with those not vaccinated?

Read more;

And here are a few more studies you can kick around in your head, Costner.

All that chemicalized pharma science is all good, right, Costner. All of it has followed the scientific method?

How does this happen then? Must of been all the corrupt multiple end point studies, got em confused?
Has pharma ever published a negative study on anything? No? Looks like they should have had a few? In the last 100 years, what have they accomplished for real cures??? How many times have they actually outlined the real cause of any chronic condition?  Make a list in your next blog page.

Vitamin D

What Type of Vitamin D Supplement is Best? - Video

Early Vaccines for Babies are Useless - Video

Prescription drugs kill one person every 19 minutes

Prescription Drugs Kill One Person Every 19 Minutes Dr. Joel Wallach says that there are many cures for diseases and conditions available, but they're not available. Dr. Wallach illustrates why this is and what needs to happen to allow certain cures to become mainstream.

Related article...

The Quiet Epidemic: prescription drug abuse destroys millions of lives

Death by Medicine

Most Astonishing Health Disaster of the 20th Century

Death By Doctor

Why Aren't Cures Readily Available?

Brain Inflammation Found in Autism - Study findings may reinforce immune system link.

Mechanisms of aluminum adjuvant toxicity and autoimmunity in pediatric populations

The spectrum of ASIA: ‘Autoimmune (Auto-inflammatory) Syndrome induced by Adjuvants’

Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality (2012)

Self-Organized Criticality Theory of Autoimmunity 

(Do your next blog page on that study, Costner; its far more important than the stuff you are wasting your time on).

Conclusions: SignificanceSystemic autoimmunity appears to be the inevitable consequence of over-stimulating the host's immune ‘system’ by repeated immunization with antigen, to the levels that surpass system's self-organized criticality.

Seventeen scientific references as to the harm of HPV vaccination, and as well as to the aluminum adjuvant connection.

More studies here: 

  Vaccines - The Risks, The Benefits, The Choices [complete], Dr. Sherri Tenpenny



noiln said...

Hypothesis Testing
Define Hypothesis, what is Hypothesis? Define Hypothesis Testing, null Hypothesis,

Editor said...

The fact is for many of us, we do not any longer need to form a hypothesis in the matter, as we know that vaccines do cause autism. There is no question as to that, left in the matter. What we need is for the CDC to acknowledge the existing science as to aluminum adjuvants and as well as to the MMR vaccine, and to acknowledge the need to review all the data and realize that more studies need to be done on a larger scale. They need to do that, not for us, but for themselves and to fully realize what is going on. To confirm it, and to as well notify the public in no uncertain terms, of what is in honesty and truth happening with vaccines. The reason that will not happen is that they already know what vaccines are doing, as to that harm.

You need a hypothesis for what? Their obvious denial of all, and that null hypothesis they refuse to confirm? Do you need some hypothesis to confirm that they actually have to much to lose to ever tell the truth?

We have long had the hypothesis covered, what we need is for the scientific method to take over from there and for the CDC to actually compile the studies that exist and realize what further needs to be done.

Your link nolin recognizes such things as said, Hypothesis testing refers to the recognized actions used by statisticians to recognize or rebuff statistical hypotheses, and In statistics a hypothesis is asserted or declaration concerning a belongings of a population. A statistical hypothesis is a postulation regarding a population parameter.

All that is-is a spin on it for the promotion of junk so called science! What? Do you think we need more corrupt epidemiological (population) studies, funded by the AAP and CDC? That, after well done analysis has proven those previous studies to be near worthless? What? Just let them keep getting away with that until the autism rate goes to 1 in 25? But it never will, because the authorities and CDC have that all doctored up already, right? They are going to change and modify the diagnosis criteria to make the numbers go down. Ask why have they no 2012 data, and was only up to 2008? They got away with changing the criteria for diagnosis of polio when the vaccines were working as advertised, and made the numbers go down; well why then why not do the same for this, right?

I think perhaps you need to pay more attention nolin, to what has actually been put forth here on this blog; and as to the science that already exists, and the CDC refuses to acknowledge, as if never there.

As devastating as autism is, it actually just may be the smaller of a much larger problem with vaccines, and that problem involves neurological damage, autoimmunity changes, and much more. Do you know what a blood brain barrier is? Why is it there? To keep all the toxic crap, chemicals and biological contaminants in vaccine out? Do you think Paul Offit is a smart guy; or do you think every statement he has ever made has been intellectually and scientifically without merit and dishonest to the point of being criminal?


Post a Comment