Yes all those genetic mutations in one generation. How exciting! (But whatever you do, don't look at those studies that suggest some links to vaccines, and particularly don't listen to the CDC scientist who says they have covered this up. He can't be telling the truth.)
-
-
Replying to @SharylAttkisson
*shrug* Many studies have looked at whether vaccines are involved, and the answer seems to be 'no'; see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24814559 . The evidence for prenatal causes, by comparison, is quite compelling (see above).
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dkegel
The scientists I have relied on (including some who have worked for govt and some in vaccine industry) indicate they believe it's like a lot of things: genetics and then exposures... Like smoking/lung cancer. Most people who smoke will never get lung cancer
1 reply 4 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @SharylAttkisson
Sure - genetics and *prenatal (and maybe perinatal)* exposure. The mutations in question appear to be largely de novo. They have been going on for ages & are not uncommon; but when they happen to genes that control brain development, they tend to be selected against by nature.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @dkegel
And, as the head of CDC immunization --and others-- have stated, vaccines may trigger autism in susceptible children (perhaps these are some of the susceptibilities). Doesn't mean it explains all the autism/ADD but some scientists believe it's a factor.
1 reply 2 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @SharylAttkisson
Ah, but when did they say that? As one of them said later: "The beauty of science is that you are taken where the evidence leads you. [Early in 2011] I thought that there was some chance that postnatal factors might lead to some cases of autism - particularly in children...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dkegel @SharylAttkisson
that had a genetic or other medical predisposing condition. But, our own research has argued against this view. Later in 2011, we published a paper about brain changes in children with and without regression (Nordahl et al 2011). We found that it was the children ...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dkegel @SharylAttkisson
... with evidence of regression that generally had enlarged brains. We also found that head enlargement started at 4-6 months of life - long before the behavioral regression." Science moves on when better info becomes available. Do you?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dkegel
I try to do that with all my stories. It's tempting to think you know something and get vested in that. As an intellectual exercise, I try hard not to do that.. .and I've really found some amazing stories that way.
1 reply 2 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @SharylAttkisson
Please do try to keep up with the science. Sometimes it really does get better answers to questions about the natural world than politicians and activists do.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Exactly--I would remind you to do the same. Try not to get too entrenched in what's being popularly pushed. Throughout time, that has sometimes proven to be incorrect.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.