tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637697413373553380.post6998400520020676757..comments2023-09-24T00:04:50.665-07:00Comments on Conspiracy Factory: How does a scientist determine causation?The Facticianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09982867322659167014noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637697413373553380.post-25029634594095700312007-05-30T13:42:00.000-07:002007-05-30T13:42:00.000-07:00“So is the increase in autism frequency we've seen...“So is the increase in autism frequency we've seen over time due to an actual increase in frequency of autism? Or due to an increase in our ability to diagnose it?”<BR/><BR/>You missed another possibility. Is it possible to change our diagnosis criteria and thereby change the diagnosis frequency? The answer to that has already been proven to be, “YES”. I also predict that the diagnosis criteria Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637697413373553380.post-54699516120747298022007-05-30T12:48:00.000-07:002007-05-30T12:48:00.000-07:0010-30% does not prove causation for all ASD disord...<I> 10-30% does not prove causation for all ASD disorders, only a fraction as the paper explains. </I><BR/><BR/>You're absolutely right. But it does explain that fraction quite well.<BR/><BR/><I> Even if this study does prove these mutations lead to ASD disorders, then is there an increase in de novo mutations and what might be causing them? </I><BR/><BR/>There's two parts to your question, The Facticianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09982867322659167014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637697413373553380.post-60648017802123136492007-05-30T12:30:00.000-07:002007-05-30T12:30:00.000-07:00What the study you site does is provide is a poten...What the study you site does is provide is a potential genetic cause to symptoms in 10-30% of the studied population. 10-30% does not prove causation for all ASD disorders, only a fraction as the paper explains. This genetic mutation would not explain regressive autism in which children loose communications and socialization skills in early development after birth. Even if this study does prove Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637697413373553380.post-29634909276345145502007-05-30T11:49:00.000-07:002007-05-30T11:49:00.000-07:00De novo mutations does not cause any ASD, they may...<I> De novo mutations does not cause any ASD, they may increase the probability of being diagnosed with an ASD. All de novo mutations do not contribute to ASD disorders. </I><BR/><BR/>You are incorrect. I suggest you read the Nature paper that I link to in my response to you above. It tells quite a different story from what you are representing. <BR/><BR/><I> You cannot prove causality to a The Facticianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09982867322659167014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637697413373553380.post-22739898419681017942007-05-30T11:42:00.000-07:002007-05-30T11:42:00.000-07:00De novo mutations does not cause any ASD, they may...De novo mutations does not cause any ASD, they may increase the probability of being diagnosed with an ASD. All de novo mutations do not contribute to ASD disorders.<BR/><BR/>Smoking cigarettes does not cause lung cancer but it does increase the probability of it. People are genetically susceptible to becoming alcoholic (my doctor quotes an 80% likelihood if both parents are alcoholic), yet Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637697413373553380.post-9244242546209060362007-05-30T11:10:00.000-07:002007-05-30T11:10:00.000-07:00NAS has never done a control study of un-vaccinate...<I>NAS has never done a control study of un-vaccinated individuals because that would be unethical. </I><BR/><BR/>Not true. The National Academies study that I link to above is a compilation of many experimental studies (they don't do experiments as a part of this study, they review everyone else's). They contain numerous epidemiological experiments that contain vaccinated and unvaccinated The Facticianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09982867322659167014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637697413373553380.post-59992576616975161462007-05-30T10:12:00.000-07:002007-05-30T10:12:00.000-07:00NAS has never done a control study of un-vaccinate...NAS has never done a control study of un-vaccinated individuals because that would be unethical. Also epidemical studies neither proves, nor disproves causation. Since there is no defined pathology in the DSM criteria, there are no defined areas that must be affected for an ASD diagnosis. Also, like cancer, there is probably no one single agent or disorder that would increase the likelihood of Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4637697413373553380.post-82566769773450393642007-05-14T16:03:00.000-07:002007-05-14T16:03:00.000-07:00I enjoyed the comic and immediately thought of my ...I enjoyed the comic and immediately thought of my son-in-law who is neither a scientist or autistic. He's just all male. (lol)KG Finfrockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04854259207869467567noreply@blogger.com