For me, it is obvious that ASD is largely genetic. I’m not sure that any child is ASD solely because environmental factors, but I guess it is possible. The question is what is the missing piece? Genetics do not explain everything. The unknown factor may not even be a trigger. It might be something that simply exacerbates the symptoms of the disorder.

I think many so called ASD’s are simply personality traits. So someone has narrow interests? What’s wrong with being passionate about something? When did that become a crime? No one thinks Tiger Woods has a “disorder” even though his life has been focused on golf since he was 2 years old. When did being blunt and direct become a disorder and lying become the accepted norm?

One final thought for everyone since we will agree to disagree (and that’s what life is about) . . .

“The answer is never the answer. What’s really interesting is the mystery. If you seek the mystery instead of the answer, you’ll always be seeking. I’ve never seen anybody really find the answer—they think they have, so they stop thinking. But the job is to seek mystery, evoke mystery, plant a garden in which strange plants grow and mysteries bloom. The need for mystery is greater than the need for an answer.”

-Ken Kesey

Some say that the private sector is filled with trained monkeys who couldn’t make it in academia because they lack the creativity and intellect to develop new theories and methods. Those slaving away on boring CRO assignments to develop another “me too” drug simply plug data into statistical models developed by that nebulous scientific community.

None of the epi studies were bad. The Verstraeten study had some legitimate flaws, but was intended to be a jumping off point for further studies, not the be-all/end-all. (another more detailed study was in progress last I checked) SafeMinds posturing aside, there is nothing wrong the Denmark studies other than they are somewhat limited.

The reality is this – if thimerosal exposure played a role in autism, it should be fairly easy to pick up in an epidemiological study considering how many kids were vaccinated through the 1990’s. The fact that no study has been able to pick up that signal should tell you that if vaccines do play a role in autism, that role is really small.

And you wonder why Big Tobacco was able to convince the public that cigarettes were safe tor 20+ years when the real science showed otherwise?

This part is funny. The reality is that it’s the trial lawyers, activist groups and quacks that are acting like Big Tobacco – peddling junk studies as “sound science” while trashing the credible science on the topic. And all for the sole purpose of protecting their turf.

I haven’t evaded anything. List the studies that you have reviewed, and I will supplement your list.

“Now, where’s that study?”

Interesting choice of words. I am sure I don’t have to tell you, what with all your scientific wisdom, that no one study, in and of itself, has the ability to prove or disprove causation.

Do you know what the criteria for proving a causal effect are? If so, then you are fully aware that proving such an effect is virtually impossible to do in one study.

Of course, I am sure I am just preaching to the choir. Right?

Maybe they should read;
Sample Size Calculations in Clinical Research
by Shein-Chung Chow, Jun Shao, Hansheng Wang.

Sigma: What you’re asking for is confusing. On the one hand, I think you are asking for a study that exonerates vaccines in general, not just thimerosal or the MMR vaccine. On the other hand, you are saying that the current epidemiology on thimerosal and MMR is garbage (an assertion which you have not substantiated). Which is it?

A study on vaccination as a whole and autism has not been done that I know of. So? Any good reason why it should be done?

And you wonder why Big Tobacco was able to convince the public that cigarettes were safe tor 20+ years when the real science showed otherwise?

The situation we have today is basically the opposite of that.

Now, where’s that study?

BTW, after 58 posts of posturing, I don’t expect anyone will stand up and point to a study that they think has been well constructed. Instead, they will continue to point to the nebulous scientific community, which largely consists of individuals incapable of getting jobs in the private sector, and say that they have spoken on the issue. What seems to be pass for an epidemiological study would never fly if corporations were placing billions (or even millions) on the outcome. They are pure crap. Garbage.

And you wonder why Big Tobacco was able to convince the public that cigarettes were safe tor 20+ years when the real science showed otherwise?

To be honest, I don’t!

You brought the issue up, and failed to demonstrate that the experience of studying that material actually paid off! LoL

bones: “So stop the BS, stop deflecting focus from the primary issue with all this blather about how educated you are, and stop avoiding my question.”

Won’t happen. Hasn’t happened yet in all the time that person’s been posting.

Listen, Mr. Sigma, let’s not get all Holier-than-thou; you’ve flung your fair share of insults and condescension. So stop the BS, stop deflecting focus from the primary issue with all this blather about how educated you are, and stop avoiding my question.

You asked, some time ago, for a study demonstrating no link (which in and of itself is an utterly inane request and evidences your lack of knowledge re scientific rigor, but I’ll humor you).

So to avoid citing articles you have already reviewed, kindly list all of the articles you have read on this subject, and the particular problems with each.