I am with you Kerry, I stopped Vaccinating 5 years ago. All good no problems. Vaccines are a way to kill or injure people. Fight back.

It's sad when people fears trump science. Of course you're "all good no problems"...you've been vaccinated for everything you'd need. It's not like a pharma drug where you have to take it for a prolonged period of time for effectiveness...you've already gotten immunity from it!

Hardly seems likely that you did a report on this, since you don't even realize that Bacillus anthracis is a BACTERIUM, not a virus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_anthracis

So before you put your foot in your mouth again, you might want to understand what the hell you're talking about, since there aren't "quite a few variants of the virus out there". It's bacterial infection, not viral.

Fear-mongering without understanding what you're talking about. Brilliant.

Well done, penguin. Plus there are no "variants". If the guy above works for the military and provides them with reports then we are in big trouble.

I'm in favor of vaccines for the most part, like the standard polio, MMR, meningitis, tetanus, but things like anthrax one, where it's only useful in an end of days scenario, and the chickenpox one are in my book pointless. We need to keep our kids free of polio, measles, etc. because there indeed ARE these viruses in the environment and in people. Anti-vaxxers forget that we all can carry these viruses, even if we're vaccinated. We don't feel the effects of the viruses because our bodies are primed and process these invaders out before they can do harm...but that doesn't mean we never come into contact with them! If I, as a vaccinated parent, can carry the virus, I can transfer it to my young daughter...that's why we get our children vaccinated too. Your immunity does not protect your child. A concept lost on many vaccine deniers and activists.

But back to the point. Anyone who's really knowledgeable about this illness would know that it's a bacterial infection, not a viral one. Viewer_Ready has been shown to be a fraud.

big ian. you are a joke. scum . what do you know about ethical you moron. Vaccines are not safe. You must not read much. or read only what you are given. Stupid people like you should do us a favor and go jump off a cliff.

Wow, al sigala...the vitriol! What do you know about vaccines, sir? Answer: Just what you've read on misinformation websites. Vaccines aren't safe? REALLY??? They're a lot safer than going without and getting the disease! I'm sure anyone with polio would much rather just have gotten vaccinated.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30930593/ns/health-childrens_health/t/vaccine-refusal-hikes-whooping-cough-risks/

Kids who aren't vaccinated are 23 TIMES more likely to get the disease. Tell me that's safer than getting vaccinated. HA! You're "vaccines are not safe" argument is bogus...compared to what, you're utopia where no one gets sick? Get real.

Oh if anyone cares, the military said there was no link between the shots and my illnesses. Every time I would get a new shot in the series my condition got worse. I had to go to a civilian doctor to get a note explaining those shots were harming me and could potentially kill me. After that I was discharged honorably and never given a medical exam. They tossed me to the side and I got nothing from the government because I was a reservist that was discharged before his time was officially up.

Sounds like you had more issues than just side effects from a vaccine. Harming you and could potentially kill you? A doctor said that? If you got all the shots then went to the doctor, how could he tell if those shots (and not something else) were the reason for your condition? Sounds like a fishy story, sorry. If you were really that sick, I'd expect that you would've had blood work done to confirm what was really wrong, not just a physical and a doctor's note. Sounds like you're really bitter. Sorry, but lambasting others because you are depressed is not healthy.

Shut up Penguin. you are not a doctor. not even related to one. You fool. Do research before you open you mouth. Vaccines do a lot of damage. Go line up for it (*take my kids vaccine also). hope you have a bad reaction.

you are not a doctor. not even related to one.

Yeah, except my grandfather was a surgeon during WWII, physician afterward near Philly for 40+ years, and my grandmother was a nurse. He died last year, and would still not discuss what he saw 60+ years ago at war b/c it was that bad. I'll post the obituary if you wish. W.P.R. Sr.

Ad hominem attacks do nothing for your argument. Trying to discredit my by lying and guessing about my background? That's pathetic. How about you debate the facts instead of trying to shoot the messenger? Oh yeah, because you can't win an argument based on the misinformation you have.

Go line up for it (*take my kids vaccine also). hope you have a bad reaction.

Just got my daughter her first vaccinations...she's the happiest she's ever been. The week after her shots was when she first began showing her happy personality. Also just got my flu shot (first time ever, to protect her from me and vice versa, since she'll be in day care soon).

So by "doing my research" (which I've done, btw, since autism runs in my wife's family), does that mean I have to avoid vaccines? I mean, do you consider anyone who gets vaccines to have not done their research? That's ridiculous. Just because we go against your theory that vaccines do a lot of damage (which you have yet to show, btw), you assume that we haven't thought about it? Hogwash.

Actually didn't have any reaction to the flu vaccine, and my daughter is more active than ever. Would I rather have her 23 times more likely to get sick? Not remotely.

So the vaccinations put your daughter in happy mode? Daycare soon? Isn't your daughter less than a year old?

Daughter was perfectly content after one oral immunization (rotovirus) and one combination shot for polio and others. Yes, we all don't have the ability to spend a year or more at home with our kids, Mike, so she's going to daycare part-time and we're each working from home one day a week. She'll be about 3.5 months when she enters daycare at my work. They accept kids from 6 weeks old onward, so 3.5 months is hardly the youngest on site. Is there a problem with both parents working in your opinion? Glad you took the time to stalk me and question my parenting. Thanks Mike!

Sounds like good parenting. Let's have a baby and put her in daycare @ 3.5 months old. That explains alot.

Sounds like good parenting. Let's have a baby and put her in daycare @ 3.5 months old. That explains alot.

So, Mike, with your "21 years of parenting experience", what is the proper age to put a child into daycare? I'm sorry, but my wife and I both work for a living. So your idea is what, to force a woman into becoming a stay-at-home mom? How 19th century.

Btw, my wife is a social worker and helps underprivileged kids. Is this a "worthy enough cause" to have her work, or do you still want her in the kitchen and making babies? I didn't think you could be so chauvinistic!

Daycare at 3.5 months...seems that infant day care can start at 6 weeks at the center I'm using: http://www.brighthorizons.com/programs/fullservice.aspx

Not all husbands make their wives stay home for years with their babies and delay their careers like you apparently did. Some of us are actually open-minded! Gasp!

You know, it's kind of ironic that you tell me that we're neglecting our baby by putting her in daycare, while you ignore your special needs child by spending all your time doing online "research" and going to your professor friend to try and determine what's "wrong" with your son. So all my time after work is spent with my baby (and soon will have the 1-hour commute each way as well), and I can just walk over to the daycare on campus and see her whenever I want during the day, and you spend your hours trying to figure out what's "wrong" with your son...and you're saying I'M the worse parent? Yikes.

So my wife took 4 months off of work and is itching to get back and help children again...and you're upset about that? Get a life, man, and perhaps reflect on how much time YOU are spending with YOUR child instead of chastising me for my time.

Oh yeah, and it's "a lot", not "alot". After "21 years of parenting" you may have wanted to learn that.

Sorry Penguin, a 3 and a half month old should not be in daycare.

"So my wife took 4 months off of work and is itching to get back and help children again...and you're upset about that?"

I would expect nothing less from a woman married to you. Itchin to put her daughter in daycare to get back to help other children. Sounds like what a normal parent would do.

Sorry Penguin, a 3 and a half month old should not be in daycare.

And your rationale for this is...? So a new mother gets 6 weeks off (8 if C-section)...where does the child go after that? How would single mothers survive? If childcare centers are accepting 6-week olds into the program, obviously it's okay to do. And I'm doing it at almost 16 weeks, not 6. I LOVE the fact that you don't want me chastising you for your parenting, but you have no problems doing it to me. Ironic, no?

So please tell me why 3.5 month olds should not be in daycare (and where this advice comes from)...where else are they going to go? We live comfortably in a great 4-bedroom in a nice neighborhood, but we do need income to survive.

Itchin to get back to work and put your daughter in daycare at 3.5 months. That's like itchin to get away from a nagging wife.

I understand that some people need daycare for a number of reasons. I don't recall you saying that your wife needed to get back to work. You said she was itching to go back to help others.

That's great. You just had your first child and couldn't wait, actually were itchin to get back to work and let someone else care for your 3.5 month old daughter. Thank goodness your child was born healthy, that could have seriously put a crimp in your comfortable lifestyle.

You're funny- I have a 3.5 month old daughter and my wife's 6 week leave is up-where else can she go but daycare?

Good thing you get all the vaccinations for her. I'm sure that daycare is a breeding ground for several diseases. I personally would keep my infant at home and reduce the risk of exposure, at least until her immune system develops, but that's just me.

I understand that some people need daycare for a number of reasons

Yet you question my decision to put my child in daycare...now you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

I don't recall you saying that your wife needed to get back to work. You said she was itching to go back to help others

Whether she needs to or wants to is not the issue. She has a job that is a commitment to others in her organization that she will work, and maybe it's just me, but I'm not going to be a husband that forces her to stay home in a 1950's mentality to cook, clean, and raise kids. Didn't we have that women's lib thing before I was even born? I thought we had gotten rid of male-centric, chauvinist pigs like you, but apparently your kind are still out there.

You just had your first child and couldn't wait, actually were itchin to get back to work and let someone else care for your 3.5 month old daughter. Thank goodness your child was born healthy, that could have seriously put a crimp in your comfortable lifestyle.

Now you just sound bitter that you had a special needs child and can't live the way you had intended. Life throws you curveballs, Mike. The people that survive are the ones who can handle the offspeed pitches. Maybe it's a blessing that you had a special needs child to make you appreciate the wonderful life you've already got.

Would I love it if we were Bill Gates wealthy and we could afford to have her stay home for years on end? Sure. But that wouldn't be fair to someone...my wife. You seem to think that it's somehow her job to raise a child until school age and to postpone her career ambitions. We both have Master's degrees. No one's going to make us sit on the sidelines while life passes us by. It ain't the 50's anymore...women can (and want to) work AND have a healthy home life. Just because a child goes to daycare does not mean he/she's any less loving, caring, smart, etc. when they grow up. You seem to think that a child has to be raised by a stay-at-home mom in order to be successful. How childish.

I personally would keep my infant at home and reduce the risk of exposure, at least until her immune system develops, but that's just me.

And be raised by whom? Your wife? You're saying you'd forcefully keep your wife at home to prevent your child from getting disease. Brilliant. Force someone else to take care of your child (hmmm, sounds like daycare to me).

Infant immune systems are fully-developed at 6 months. Don't know what you're really concerned about here...that doesn't necessitate being a stay-at-home parent until school age. Our daughter's immune system will be just fine, don't worry. I'm sure that your wife loved being locked up with your 4 kids for years at a time so that you could forcefully "protect" your child from nasty diseases. I thought they outlawed slavery in the U.S.

So continue to question others' parenting skills (while at the same time telling your son there's something "wrong" with him) and making fun of his condition...you're really showing us that after 21 years of parenting you're still in parental infancy.

"You seem to think that it's somehow her job to raise a child until school age and to postpone her career ambitions. We both have Master's degrees. No one's going to make us sit on the sidelines while life passes us by."

It is your job to raise your child, not only until school age. I understand, no one, including your daughter, is going to make you sit on the side lines while your career and life pass you by. She just isn't important enough to dedicate your full attention.

"And be raised by whom? Your wife? You're saying you'd forcefully keep your wife at home to prevent your child from getting disease. Brilliant. Force someone else to take care of your child (hmmm, sounds like daycare to me)."

I don't recall forcing my wife to take care of our children. She does that because she loves them.

"Infant immune systems are fully-developed at 6 months. Don't know what you're really concerned about here...that doesn't necessitate being a stay-at-home parent until school age. Our daughter's immune system will be just fine, don't worry. I'm sure that your wife loved being locked up with your 4 kids for years at a time so that you could forcefully "protect" your child from nasty diseases. I thought they outlawed slavery in the U.S."

I've read a lot of moronic comments, this one takes first prize.

It is your job to raise your child, not only until school age. I understand, no one, including your daughter, is going to make you sit on the side lines while your career and life pass you by. She just isn't important enough to dedicate your full attention.

Are you f'n serious with this? Understanding that it is the parental responsibility for overall raising of a child, it is outlandish to think that the parent(s) must be holding the child's hand 24/7 until age 18. How many parents spend every waking minute with their child? None. Do they spend time at grandma's? Go to the movies? Extracurricular activities? Have a babysitter? It is ridiculous to say that a child needs to avoid daycare in order to be sufficiently raised.

I don't recall forcing my wife to take care of our children. She does that because she loves them.

Oh, so now you don't love your child if they go to daycare. Got it. Speaking of moronic comments! We're seeing your true side here, Mike. If she wants to devote her entire life to raising your kids and does not want something more out of life, great. But many women nowadays have careers (or haven't you heard from your cave?), and are not going to give it all up for the sake of cooking, cleaning, and raising babies.

I've read a lot of moronic comments, this one takes first prize

Which part? The part about a fully-developed immune system at 6 months? Look it up: http://www.wellness.com/reference/allergies/newborn-immune-system/ The part about being successful even if you didn't have a stay-at-home parent?

What if your wife wanted to work, Mike? Would you have let her? What would you have done with your kids? You're lucky that you had a wife that was willing to sacrifice her career to stay home...many women nowadays aren't that unambitious. My wife loves her child, but realizes that she'll go crazy if she does nothing but care for her for the rest of her life. Not because she doesn't love our daughter, but because there's more to life than cooking, cleaning, and raising babies. She makes a difference for underprivileged kids in our county, and wins awards for her approach. She's proud of her job, and she affects tens of lives, IN ADDITION TO (not in spite of) the life we care for back home.

You sure you didn't take that DeLorean back to 1955? We live in 2011, Mike...face it, women work and kids go to daycare. I'm sorry you feel that we need to trap women in their homes to raise kids. You know you can successfully raise a child in this world AND have a job, right? We are capable of having it all. Sorry your wife can't handle two things at once, but mine can. Can you see how repugnant your views actually are?

Penguin 15= Moron.

"My wife loves her child, but realizes that she'll go crazy if she does nothing but care for her for the rest of her life."

Probably should think about giving her up for adoption. If your wife is thinking this way after 3 and a half months of being a mother, you probably should have waited until you were both mature enough to have children. Morons

Geez Penguin, would your wife go crazy if she had to care for an autistic child for the rest of her life? How about a child with Down syndrome? When does four years qualify as the rest of one's life?

Geez Penguin, would your wife go crazy if she had to care for an autistic child for the rest of her life?

Is this why you're upset? Because you realize you'll have to care for your child for the rest of your life?

If you were able to pass reading comprehension, you'd know that her younger brother by 2 years is autistic, so let's see, that means she's been taking care of him for much longer than you have with your son. We'll get guardianship of him when her parents die, so we WILL have to take care of him for the rest of his life. We are probably two of the best people to take care of an autistic child should we have one (we know the genetic risks), since we've been accustomed to those sorts of behaviors for over a decade (for me) and 28 years (for her). We get him for a week every few months, and we're getting him used to living at our house (God forbid that this should be a permanent change anytime soon).

When does four years qualify as the rest of one's life?

So she's supposed to stop her career for four years (or more if we have more children) and not make any money or strive toward any career goal for this period of time? I'm sorry you think so lowly of your wife (and whatever job she used to do) that she can't be worth anything besides cleaning, cooking, and raising kids. Look how arrogant you are! I love my wife and the job she does.

If your wife is thinking this way after 3 and a half months of being a mother, you probably should have waited until you were both mature enough to have children. Morons.

So this is what you think of career women? No wonder you never evolved into Homo sapiens. We actually waited 5 years after marriage to get pregnant, in order to get on solid financial ground in terms of school debt, cars, house, etc. We're mature, thank you very much. Your maturity seems to be lacking by the way you name-call and make fun of autism spectrum disorder.

My wife LOVES being a mother, as I've explained. She's too ambitious of a person to be ONLY labeled a mother and nothing else, though. She's not going to be "just a mother" like your wife, sorry. She's going to set an example for our daughter that she can be anything she wants and have anything she wants in life (not meant in the materialistic sense). No one's going to pigeonhole her into the monotony of being a stay-at-home mom for years on end. I'm sorry that you feel a woman's place is in the house. My wife has free will, and does what's best for her and baby. You know what's funny? You'd rather see a first-time mother raise her baby alone in a house than have a trained professional care for them. Our on-site daycare is the best in the biz, as I've shown you. Would it be ideal for her to stay at home with mom? Sure. But we can't all be Bill Gates rich...besides, she'd rather work her brain than work the "airplane into the mouth" for the rest of her life and not ever be challenged. Sorry there's no ambition on the other side of your bed.

So keep going with those personal attacks...they're really showing how chauvinistic you are. Perhaps your son would like to stay with us for awhile to give you respite? You seem a bit hostile recently -- bitter much for the lot you were cast?

Wow. I'm at a loss for words. I can't speak moron and have a discussion with you.

Finally you're at a loss for words. Although personal attacks get you no closer to finding the reason why your son is autistic. Attacking my parental skills and our choice to use daycare instead of forcing my wife to stay home -- yeah, those don't help him either.

I seriously cannot believe your arrogance in your assumption that you can't raise a child without staying home with them for the first 4 years of their lives. Keep calling me a moron - that's really helping your cause!

I call it as I see it.

I call it as I see it.

Exactly, let no fact stand in the way of your bluster. Your kid's autism? Couldn't be genetic, got to be formula! Someone that questions your theory? Must be a moron or an Asperger's case! Think you've been slighted? File a lawsuit. That one gets thrown out? File another one! Formula causes changes in brain activity? Must be the cause of autism!

Yup, you call it as you see it...with blinders on.

The difference between you and me is .... I actually stand up for what I believe in. In court, with professors and at home with my family. You talk a lot, but when it comes down to it, you haven't done anything. You've been a father for @ 3.5 months. Twenty years from now, when you get some experience and knowledge, you may begin to understand where I have been and what it means to be a father. You have to earn it. Can't just fake it online.

mike - no one on here is going to take you seriously if you start calling anyone who challenges you a moron or asperger's case. if you pull that in the scientific community without some serious tangible evidence to support your case, it's basically grounds for banishment at the least, chase down with pitchforks and a public burning of CVs and degrees at the most. i've watched it happen and helped move it forward more than once when it was called for. it isn't pretty and is insanely hard to recover from if at all possible.

i've talked to you before and i've seen how you react when you're challenged by others. i don't know everything you've done so i'm gonna attempt to get an idea. like i said earlier, any professional in these fields is also not ever going to take anyone seriously without experimentally determined evidence to back it up. if you can't prove it in black and white, it doesn't happen. i'm doing my best to remain somewhat civil, so i'm going to go ahead and ask a couple questions instead of jumping on my personal soapbox and going on the offensive for the time being.

i don't know you. i don't know what you've done. i don't know what professional level experience you have. humor me. first, do you have any scientific degrees that required higher level course or lab experience in biology, chem, and biochem? second, do you actually have any lab funding guaranteed now or in the past that actually went through or was actually used? third, if you did\do, what agency was it through, what institution did\will it go to to actually test the hypothesis, and who specifically will be carrying it out?

"mike - no one on here is going to take you seriously if you start calling anyone who challenges you a moron or asperger's case. if you pull that in the scientific community without some serious tangible evidence to support your case, it's basically grounds for banishment at the least, chase down with pitchforks and a public burning of CVs and degrees at the most. i've watched it happen and helped move it forward more than once when it was called for. it isn't pretty and is insanely hard to recover from if at all possible"

I see Dbhelix, you want me to divulge all my personal information so you can discredit myself and others whom have worked with me. No thanks.

I asked you about the genetic underpinnings of the Nrf2/ARE pathway in regards to homeostatic control of antioxidant gene expression. I asked because you have a solid understanding of genetics, whereas I do not. Unlike penguin, you appear to be a legit scientist. So I will extend respect, but if you want my resume, at least tell me what position I am applying for.

I actually stand up for what I believe in. In court, with professors and at home with my family. You talk a lot, but when it comes down to it, you haven't done anything.

So what, exactly, am I supposed to do? I have a full-time job not associated with autism, but do volunteer work for NAAR and Autism Speaks in addition to my parental responsibilities and caring for my autistic brother-in-law for a week at a time. Yes, it's not a 24/7 caregiving operation for an autistic child as in your case, but that doesn't mean I A) don't understand the issue or B) can't comprehend what that life is like. I see the toll on my in-laws. They're set to retire in a few years and they will never have an empty nest.

You've filed a lawsuit to get money from a formula company you perceive you were slighted by as your son has autism. Your work with the professor is also solely based on the formula aspect...it's not as if you're examining all possibilities for root cause of autism. I, as a party not affected by this company, would therefore not be interested in pursuing this aspect, since I don't believe it's in any way involved. If you were pursuing OTHER potential sources, I'd be interested...but you're only looking for something that confirms your thought...i.e. confirmation bias.

You've been a father for @ 3.5 months. Twenty years from now, when you get some experience and knowledge, you may begin to understand where I have been and what it means to be a father.

Oh, so you have to be a father for 20+ years to be able to comprehend a neurological disorder. You can't just have an autistic brother-in-law you've known for over a decade, have a wife with a Master's in psychology, have the DSM-IV on our bookshelf, and participate in numerous autism charity functions. I've been dealing with autistic individuals since 2000. I think that makes me a bit knowledgeable about the disorder.

dblhelix -- the problem I've had with Mike for awhile is that he initially presented himself as a "researcher" and had claimed that he had done research to prove that infant formula caused autism. He now concedes that there is no research conducted, that it was only online Googling of topics, and the information he has shown has only confirmed that changes in the brain occur with the use of formula (has not proven that the changes are positive or adverse, and also has not shown that these changes induce autism). He thinks he has concrete info on why his son is autistic, but the conclusions he draws from these studies are not what the studies actually showed. That was my main issue with him -- a misrepresentation of what evidence he has to support his theory. Unfortunately for him, his two court cases were tossed out of court for (gasp!) lack of evidence to support his theory. He interprets that as "I believe you, but you need more evidence", when in fact the latest judge essentially said "come back one more time with a frivolous lawsuit and no evidence and I'll bar you from ever filing a lawsuit again". Court opinion below:

http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/cgi-bin/recentops.pl?filename=otoole/pdf/pescatore%20v%20mead%20johnson%20%20order.pdf

September 2008 case: "Concluding that further prosecution of the case would be futile, waste judicial resources, and unfairly force the defendant to spend time and money defending itself, the magistrate judge recommended dismissing the action"

August 2010 case: "Any future lawsuit by the plaintiff against Mead Johnson raising similar claims must be supported by an affidavit as to causation, which must be filed contemporaneously with the new complaint. Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal with prejudice. "

He's bitter that he has lost both of his frivolous attempts to recover money from Mead Johnson. He has no data, and quickly dismisses anyone with data to support a genetic root cause of autism. He's a troll that re-states the same flawed theory on multiple discussion boards.

"I see Dbhelix, you want me to divulge all my personal information so you can discredit myself and others whom have worked with me. No thanks."

Mike, we can Google your personal info. You've certainly given us enough ammo with your lawsuits to find out you live in Mass. and have 4 kids, etc. We're asking you for things like "do you have a scientific background, or are you just trolling for scientific language online to repeat in your posts without understanding it". Outside of this whole formula/DHA/ARA issue, do you have a background in organic, biochem, genetics, etc., or did you just learn this stuff when researching this specific issue?

"I asked you about the genetic underpinnings of the Nrf2/ARE pathway in regards to homeostatic control of antioxidant gene expression. I asked because you have a solid understanding of genetics, whereas I do not. Unlike penguin, you appear to be a legit scientist. So I will extend respect, but if you want my resume, at least tell me what position I am applying for."

There you go again with personal attacks, Mike. By the way, not all "legit" scientists are familiar with a specific genetic pathway. You may have Googled the topic, but that doesn't mean you understand its meaning in the body, nor does it mean that others are not qualified to speak to it. As for being "legit", you contest our backgrounds but are unable to divulge yours? What gives?

So we cannot understand any of autism if we don't comprehend a specific genetic pathway? Gimme a break.

Did I contest Dbhelix's background? No. I expect you to reword my posts to fit your position. It's what you do.

I asked Dbhelix a question about a genetic control of a pathway. I understand this pathway to the extent of what has been discovered thus far, that's why I ask for Dbhelix's input. So since you want to discredit the science and my understanding of what I choose to examine, perhaps you can share your expertise.

I am interested in the Nrf2/ARE pathway because it serves as the master regulatory switch for antioxidant gene expression. Individuals with autism have been found to have diminished levels of glutathione and elevated levels of markers of oxidative damage. So it seems reasonable to examine what may contribute to dysregulation of this pathway.

Autistic individuals have also been shown to have a greater amount of neurons in specific areas of the brain, thus increased head size. Interestingly, the Nrf2/ARE pathway is also involved with cell proliferation and proteasomal degradation. Where dysregulation may result in protein aggregation and accumulation, found among individuals with Parkinson's and Alzheimers disease. Additionally, excessive cell proliferation may result in excessive neurons and aberrant signaling.

Since oxidation of critical cysteine residues affects negative regulation of the Nrf2 via Keap-1, exogenous factors may contribute to dysregulation. I have been examining how structural alterations in LCPUFA triacylglycerols may exert adverse effects, due to positioning among the glycerol backbone, towards antioxidant response.

So penguin, maybe you can shed some light on a few questions. How does varying the positions of LCPUFAs affect oxidative stability of these novel Triacylglycerols? If dietary supplementation of DHA will inhibit neuronal apoptosis and result in increased neuron proliferation, could increased brain volume and aberrant cell signaling result? If oxidative stability of these TAGs were to be compromised, could antioxidant protection become diminished and result in adverse downstream modification of the Nrf2/ARE pathway?

Help me out Penguin. Show me why these questions and what I have chosen to examine is irrelevant and frivolous.

Dbhelix, have you examined this pathway? Is it irrelevant?

Did I contest Dbhelix's background? No. I expect you to reword my posts to fit your position. It's what you do.

You attacked my background and called me both a moron and an Asperger's case. Did I say you attacked HIS background? No, you just attacked mine because I've questioned your theory. Your MO is to discredit and name-call those who disagree with you in the hopes that you can bully them into backing down and conceding. I will not be bullied.

I understand this pathway to the extent of what has been discovered thus far, that's why I ask for Dbhelix's input.

You understand it in the context of your theory that it causes autism. But as for any evidence that it doesn't do this, you clearly have blocked out those facts. Again, you try to bully us into the belief that if we haven't studied this exact genetic pathway, we are discredited and you supposedly win some illogical argument.

I've got an idea. Hey, Mike...have you examined and do you fully comprehend all research involving copy number variants and their affect on the expression of autism? If you haven't, then you must not be qualified to discuss it and therefore I win.

See, just by pointing out that you don't understand one potential source of autism, I've discredited you (at least according to your way of thinking).

Individuals with autism have been found to have diminished levels of glutathione and elevated levels of markers of oxidative damage. So it seems reasonable to examine what may contribute to dysregulation of this pathway.

Yet you're fixated only on exogenous sources of dysregulation and completely ignore the fact that things like puberty are onset by expression of genes in response to internal signals. You are so fixated on this ONE potential dysregulation that you are completely blinded by all other potential root causes. That has been my issue all along with you...you're searching for confirmational bias alone. As long as there's something out there referencing this pathway, you'll believe it's the only key to your son's autism, and anyone who challenges you in this regard is met with "do you understand this pathway completely? I do, so you're wrong".

Show me why these questions and what I have chosen to examine is irrelevant and frivolous.

Again, you're missing the point...it's not your examining of them that's incorrect, it's your insistence that it was the cause of your child's autism. I'm all for examining all options, but you seem to be fixated on just one potential cause, and have screamed from the mountaintops for years that you've found the cause for your son's autism, and have filed multiple lawsuits in that regard. This dysregulation could be coming from mutated genes (with additional copy number variants screwing up regulation), yet you're fixated on infant formula components causing it alone. You disagree that any of your son's autism came from genetic causes, because it's not present in your family history. I've told you that it doesn't have to be inherited to be genetic cause, but you ignore this fact and focus solely on infant formula. THAT is what I disagree with you on. You can't seriously tell me that you know your son's autism came exclusively from formula. You have blinders on that prevent you from seeing any potential genetic cause.

"As for being "legit", you contest our backgrounds but are unable to divulge yours? What gives?"

." Did I say you attacked HIS background? No, you just attacked mine because I've questioned your theory."

Our backgrounds implies your background and Dbhelix's background. This is why people refuse to debate with you. You fabricate strawman arguments, then deny that you had made specific statements as in the case above.

I believe Dbhelix understands what he talks about. I know you do not. But as I said, I expect as much from you. I don't appreciate you stating that I question Dbhelix's knowledge. I haven't and it's dishonesty on your behalf.

I also noticed that you haven't shared your infinite knowledge regarding the questions that I have presented. They are intimately involved in your self proclaimed area of expertise-

Let me get this straight, you admit that you don't understand what I have examined, as in the Nrf2/ARE pathway, or how it may be implicated with dysregulation of redox status, but you feel you are well enough informed on the subject to discredit any merit. That's a very scientific approach. Dismiss science that you are ignorant in.

Our backgrounds implies your background and Dbhelix's background.

No it doesn't. It's a generic statement not meant to be specific to anyone. Anyone who disagrees with you is someone you consider for attack mode. Hence the use of the pronoun.

You fabricate strawman arguments, then deny that you had made specific statements as in the case above

Isn't the ultimate strawman argument using a study discussing alterations in genetic expression and believing that its conclusion supports your belief that this altered expression is somehow related to autism? The studies you cite say nothing of autism...yet you somehow are using them to back your case...no wonder the judge dismissed you twice! READING COMPREHENSION...learn it.

I don't appreciate you stating that I question Dbhelix's knowledge.

Oh really? Then what is this:

Dbhelix, have you examined this pathway? Is it irrelevant?

Isn't it a question? Is it of his knowledge? You're using these questions to try and pigeonhole us (yeah, I used the pronoun "us" -- deal with it). If we say "no, Mike, I haven't examined this pathway", you'll slam us for "not understanding the research" and dismissing us outright. If we say "yeah, Mike, I examined the pathway", you'll try to trip us up with technical questions which you are obviously just cut-and-pasting from a legit technical paper. So in either case, you will claim victory. I refuse to play your games and take the bait, which is why you're (not your) so angry with me.

I also noticed that you haven't shared your infinite knowledge regarding the questions that I have presented.

No one has read all the papers that you've read online. Sorry, I have an infant and don't have time for that. You're asking me technical questions, most of which are cut-and-paste jobs from intricate research papers that I have not read. I am not claiming to be an expert in autism, although you seem to be claiming you are, because all you want to talk about it this paper you read online. How about all of the genetic-based papers -- you mind me grilling you about those? Didn't think so.

Again, you are looking to trap me, and I don't appreciate it. I haven't read those papers in detail, but I know that from what you've given us about them, they don't state that autism comes from infant formula ingredients, which is the conclusion YOU are drawing, which is incorrect. You want to ask technical questions to trip us up? I won't play that game. I would love to hear your explanation as to why it couldn't be genetic, though. You have refused to answer any questions about genetic cause, other than to say your son did not get autism from his genes, which is a statement you just cannot make.

Let me get this straight, you admit that you don't understand what I have examined, as in the Nrf2/ARE pathway, or how it may be implicated with dysregulation of redox status, but you feel you are well enough informed on the subject to discredit any merit. That's a very scientific approach. Dismiss science that you are ignorant in.

Couldn't the same be said for your dismissal of genetic components in the development of autism in your son?

You're misinterpreting my point, though. I didn't say I'm dismissing it. I said based on what you've presented so far, there is no link from your online findings of dysregulation to autism. Period. You gave us research that said "brain changes when DHA/ARA are introduced". That does not yield autism. Sorry. That is what I said. You're under the allusion that it does. That ain't my fault. Could it be? Sure! But you have yet to show the linkage.

If it is, though, wouldn't we be seeing many more autistic children that were formula-fed than were breast-fed? Also, you said you "know for a fact" that this was the reason your child developed autism. Why do you say this? Where's the proof that it wasn't something else? That is why I'm questioning you -- not the idea that it could be, but your absolute assertion that it is the cause.

You could have just said that you don't understand the science that I have presented and therefore cannot discredit its merit.

So before you go calling other people's theories irrelevant, first understand what they are talking about.

I never said that the sole cause of my son's autism was butchered LCPUFAs added to infant formula. I said that I believe that they played a role/contributed to causation. Never said autism doesn't have a genetic component. In fact, I've been examining the expression of genes that control antioxidant protection. I tried to share this info many times but you are unwilling to learn about it.

I asked Dbhelix if he had examined this pathway. Did I in any way suggest that he doesn't understand genetics? No, I asked an honest question looking for input. Don't twist things. Be honest.

All I get from you is genetics cause autism. Explain what genes may be involved and what pathways may be adversely affected. I suggest an important pathway that controls gene expression vital for proper cellular redox status. I suggest that LCPUFA triacylglycerol positioning may adversely affect redox status. It may not seem important to you, but since we are feeding it to our infants these days, somebody has to question the safety. Afterall, the Institute of Medicine had warned of unknown biological triggering effects on brain and eye development when incorporating these novel oils into formulas.

You could have just said that you don't understand the science that I have presented and therefore cannot discredit its merit

This is exactly what I predicted. You say since I don't understand everything about it and can't go toe to toe with you in cut-and-pasting from someone else's paper I am unqualified to discuss it.

What I said was that the conclusion you were drawing from it (namely that formula causes autism) was NOT part of the paper you're discussing. That I AM qualified to discuss. THAT is why your argument is irrelevant...you don't have any proof that what this paper discusses leads to autism, per se. You have your THEORY but have yet to provide EVIDENCE linking this paper with your son's autism. The same exact conclusion each of the two judges came to.

So before you go calling other people's theories irrelevant, first understand what they are talking about.

You don't need a PhD or even have to understand the topic at hand to know that the paper's conclusion mentioned NOTHING about this brain functionality causing autism. Period. You can read the paper in-depth all you want, it's still not going to say this brain issue that was found equals autism.

I never said that the sole cause of my son's autism was butchered LCPUFAs added to infant formula

Actually, that's what your lawsuits allege. You NEVER claimed in the lawsuits or your "research" online that genetics had anything to do with it. Otherwise, you'd be SOL because the defense lawyer would've jumped all over that loophole...oh, so it isn't my client's formula's fault? Dismissed.

You quickly dismissed any paper I had talking about genetic causes, saying your son was "tested for them" and "didn't have any anomalies". BS. New areas of the neurological development genes are being found all the time for copy number variants associated with autism. You couldn't have had him tested for all of them, especially those found within the past few years (after you filed your lawsuits).

I've been examining the expression of genes that control antioxidant protection. I tried to share this info many times but you are unwilling to learn about it.

Google does not equal research or an examination. You are searching for papers that back up any of your ideas, which is CONFIRMATION BIAS. Real research examines ALL possibilities, not just one.

Explain what genes may be involved and what pathways may be adversely affected.

It's not just one set of genes, as I've told you before. You get copy number variants (i.e. extra DNA code) in genes associated with brain development, and you short-circuit the child's neurological development, whether it creates more neurons, incorrect wiring for emotional areas of the brain, etc.

It may not seem important to you, but since we are feeding it to our infants these days, somebody has to question the safety.

Yeah, except that since it's in all formulas now, we'd see an increase in autism incidence after it became used in all formulas...no increase occurred, Mike.

Afterall, the Institute of Medicine had warned of unknown biological triggering effects on brain and eye development

I'm sorry, I missed the part where they said it created autism. Again, this is the major flaw in your logic. Were these "unknown effects" always negative? You don't say! Did these "unknown effects" trigger autism? No! They're unknown! Questioning safety is fine, using "unknown effects" as "causes autism" is NOT fine. This is where I questioned you, and you've been unable (or unwilling) to show the link between these "unknown effecs" and "causation of autism". Show me the science behind these chemicals and the causation of autism...not "unknown effects", but "causes autism".

You think you have it nailed down, but you hardly have anything. I could give you a paper that says too much Vitamin D causes "unknown effects" in humans. But does that mean it causes autism? NOPE.

Again, your lawsuit alleged the formula caused your son's autism. It was thrown out twice for failure to provide evidence, and the judgment specifically stated that you failed to provide a link between the research you presented and your son's condition. Sorry, but from all this Googling you've done, you still haven't found one paper that links this chemical to an increased incidence of autism, and (though I've asked many times) have yet to provide the biological mechanism for autism resulting from the ingestion of these chemicals.

For all this talk of "explain this pathway", etc...YOU are the one who cannot explain how "this pathway" creates the autistic condition in humans. You allege it, but provide no mechanism. Without mechanism of action, you have a THEORY, and nothing more.

I have posted publications that reveal peroxidation of DHA and ARA being causative of oxidative damage found exclusively in the autistic brain. Not that you bothered to read them or could understand what they represent.

You don't understand the science that I have presented so far. You pretend that you do in order to continue with your debate. At the end of the day, all you have done is made an argument about what you don't understand. At least understand the science that I have presented. It wouldn't hurt to ask intelligent questions about the Nrf2 pathway and how it may or maynot contribute to autism or neurological impairments.

Not that you bothered to read them or could understand what they represent.

Where again? Last I checked those studies were not just associated with autistic brains. But feel free to post it and I'll eat crow.

You don't understand the science that I have presented so far

You mean the science you misrepresented as your own research? Seems like YOU are the one who doesn't get the fact that changes in the brain from DHA/ARA does not equal autism. When you get a judge to accept it, then I'll believe you. So far, you're 2 outs in the bottom of the ninth. The judges have thrown a no-hitter, not even allowing you to proceed because you're wasting everyone's time with lack of evidence. That's straight outta your judgment, Mike. It said "wasting time and resources".

It wouldn't hurt to ask intelligent questions about the Nrf2 pathway and how it may or maynot contribute to autism or neurological impairments.

It wouldn't hurt to understand that genetics are likely to blame as well. So you want me to accept your research but you're unwilling to accept mine. I got it now. Okay. Hypocrite. You stated genetics couldn't possibly be the cause for your son's autism. Got news for you, buddy...no familial history for my wife's family until her brother was born, and they thought he was deaf right off the bat. Turns out he was autistic from the get-go. No formula, no nothing...just a few genetic anomalies in the neurological development areas of the genome.

You state you want others to believe your "research", but you're unwilling to accept others' work! How hypocritical!

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-182082586.html

Home » Publications » Science and Technology journals » Biology journals » American Journal of Biochemistry and Biotechnology »
Recently viewed: Article: The autistic phenotype exhibits a remarkably localized modification of...

• Save
• Export
• Email
• Print
• Cite
• Permalink

The autistic phenotype exhibits a remarkably localized modification of brain protein by products of free radical-induced lipid oxidation.(Clinical report)

American Journal of Biochemistry and Biotechnology
March 22, 2008 | Evans, Teresa A.; Siedlak, Sandra L.; Lu, Liang; Fu, Xiaoming; Wang, Zeneng; McGinnis, Woody R.; Fakhoury, Evelyn; Castellani, Rudy J.; Hazen, Stanley L.; Walsh, William J.; Lewis, Allen T.; Salomon, Robert G.; Smith, Mark A.; Perry, George; Zhu, Xiongwei | Copyright

Abstract: Oxidative damage has been documented in the peripheral tissues of autism patients. In this study, we sought evidence of oxidative injury in autistic brain. Carboxyethyl pyrrole (CEP) and iso[4]levuglandin (iso[4]LG)[E.sub.2]-protein adducts, that are uniquely generated through peroxidation of docosahexaenoate and arachidonate-containing lipids respectively, and heme oxygenase-1 were detected immunocytochemically in cortical brain tissues and by ELISA in blood plasma. Significant immunoreactivity toward all three of these markers of oxidative damage in the white matter and often extending well into the grey matter of axons was found in every case of autism examined. This striking threadlike pattern appears to be a hallmark of the autistic brain as it was not seen in any control brain, young or aged, used as controls for the oxidative assays. Western blot and immunoprecipitation analysis confirmed neurofilament heavy chain to be a major target of CEP-modification. In contrast, in plasma from 27 autism spectrum disorder patients and 11 age-matched healthy controls we found similar levels of plasma CEP (124.5 [+ or -] 57.9 versus 110.4 [+ or -] 30.3 pmol/mL), iso[4][LGE.sub.2] protein adducts (16.7 [+ or -] 5.8 versus 13.4 [+ or -] 3.4 nmol/mL), anti-CEP (1.2 [+ or -] 0.7 versus 1.2 [+ or -] 0.3) and anti-iso[4][LGE.sub.2] autoantibody titre (1.3 [+ or -] 1.6 versus 1.0 [+ or -] 0.9), and no differences between the ratio of N[O.sub.2]Tyr/Tyr (7.81 E-06 [+ or -] 3.29 E-06 versus 7.87 E-06 [+ or -] 1.62 E-06). These findings provide the first direct evidence of increased oxidative stress in the autistic brain. It seems likely that oxidative injury of proteins in the brain would be associated with neurological abnormalities and provide a cellular basis at the root of autism spectrum disorders.

"Where again? Last I checked those studies were not just associated with autistic brains. But feel free to post it and I'll eat crow."

I think it says exclusively found in the autistic brain. Time to weasel out of the debate? I think this protein modification and damage was caused by peroxidation of DHA and ARA. Well that's what the researchers had determined. I'm sure you understand more than they do on this subject.

Exactly as I predicted. What was the conclusion? That oxidative damage was found. NOT that the chemicals caused it, just that damage was found. I could say that brain damage was found in car accident victims, but the CAUSE of the injury could not be determined (e.g. was it blunt force trauma to the head, loss of blood in other parts of the body, arterial blockage, etc.?).

So you have evidence of damage, NOT THE CAUSE OF THE DAMAGE. Again, you have identified a marker, NOT the cause.

I think this protein modification and damage was caused by peroxidation of DHA and ARA.

Key word is "think". What if I said I think it was caused by altered genetic material during embryonic development? A simple DNA test could prove this quite easily. If this oxidative damage is found in every cell in the body, then it's not DHA/ARA. What chemical changes all cells of the body in the exact same manner? None. So if it's just localized, then you might have a case.

Again, not trying to completely contradict your theory, but I'm asking you for specifics...why does it HAVE to be this chemical and not something else that causes this damage? Why couldn't it be resultant from genetics? After all, what sends the instructions to make proteins? DNA.

Oxidative damage has been documented in the peripheral tissues of autism patients. In this study, we sought evidence of oxidative injury in autistic brain. Carboxyethyl pyrrole (CEP) and iso[4]levuglandin (iso[4]LG)E2-protein adducts, that are uniquely generated through peroxidation of docosahexaenoate and arachidonate-containing lipids respectively, and heme oxygenase-1 were detected immunocytochemically in cortical brain tissues and by ELISA in blood plasma. Significant immunoreactivity toward all three of these markers of oxidative damage in the white matter and often extending well into the grey matter of axons was found in every case of autism examined. This striking threadlike pattern appears to be a hallmark of the autistic brain as it was not seen in any control brain, young or aged, used as controls for the oxidative assays.

The oxidative damage was caused by Carboxyethyl pyrrole (CEP) and iso[4]levuglandin (iso[4]LG)E2-protein adducts, that are uniquely generated through peroxidation of docosahexaenoate and arachidonate-containing lipids respectively.

This is exactly what you had predicted as a person who doesn't understand peroxidation of DHA and ARA and its effects on proteins and DNA.

These lipids may cause DNA damage when peroxidized. Damage to normal DNA.

How can you predict something without understanding it?

Regurgitation of langaage in the paper doesn't mean you understand it. Please tell us why this would explain that boys are 4 times more likely than girls to get autism. Please tell us why this would negate any talk of genetic cause for your son.

Those that have only researched one potential cause are caught with their pants down when confronted with evidence to the contrary. As I explained in my initial response to your "research", you're focused only on this one paper and POTENTIAL cause, and have dismissed all other research when discussing your son. Those that thought the Earth was flat had all this evidence telling them it was, until confronted with evidence to the contrary which they couldn't explain.

I'm asking you why you continue to press only one theory, when in reality, you could have found only a trigger, not the root cause.

At least I may have found something. You have found nothing. At least I have sat with a professor and discussed the science involved. I have discussed it with many well known researchers. I have had discussions with a pediatric ICU physician/director and former chemist. I have had discussions with individuals at the FDA,NIH,AAP, and IOM. I have spent years searching for many answers to many questions.

That's the difference between us. I look for answers to important questions. You already have all the answers and feel you know everything.

Why should I waste the time to explain something to someone who already knows everything? You claim you're a biochemist. You should be very familiar with the Nrf2/ARE pathway and its control of antioxidant protection.

Penguin, I thought you said that the publication did not state the DHA and ARA peroxidation was causative of protein damage found in the autistic brain.

Time to back peddle and change the subject. I know, go on about genetics again.

At least I may have found something. You have found nothing.

Mike, you cutting and pasting from SOMEONE ELSE'S PAPER is not YOU finding anything. With all the genetic research out there, you're just going to deny it all? SERIOUSLY???

At least I have sat with a professor and discussed the science involved

Oh, so that MUST mean it's true. Again, you're seriously going to use "well I talked to one guy who thinks it MAY be true, so it's true" concept? I talked to an actual scientist who thinks it's all genetic...so I guess one of those guys has to be wrong. Don't give me the BS...actually prove it or stop.

I have spent years searching for many answers to many questions

Thousands of scientists have spent the last 100 years researching cancer...that doesn't mean they found the cure yet.

I have had discussions with individuals at the FDA,NIH,AAP, and IOM.

And yet in your 2 lawsuits, you can't find JUST ONE expert witness to testify...that says something pretty remarkable that you just can't comprehend...it says no matter how much you want to believe in something, it just can't come true by wishing upon a star...the science actually has to be there, and you don't have it.

You claim you're a biochemist. You should be very familiar with the Nrf2/ARE pathway and its control of antioxidant protection

Oh yeah, because all biochemists learn every single biological pathway in the body. You know, that's what they test us on -- the final exam is "list all biochemical pathways in the body" and if you get any less than an "A", you fail. Gimme a break.

Penguin, I thought you said that the publication did not state the DHA and ARA peroxidation was causative of protein damage found in the autistic brain.

The paper did not state that the DHA/ARA caused a normal gene/protein to transform into a defective one, and it did not state that the DHA/ARA was the cause of autism. It said that protein damage was found in the autistic brain, period, not that the protein damage caused the autism. That's where your unfounded leap of faith is...you took this out of context and applied your own spin.

What is necessary to prove causation, Mike, is to apply the hypothesis to NON-autistic brains. Does DHA/ARA modify "normal" genetic material, or does it only modify susceptible DNA? That's where i argue with your logic. You cannot tell with this study whether or not there were genetic predispositions to autism. What if all of these autistic brains studied had some of the genetic anomalies I referred to? Then you couldn't make the case that it was the formula. It could have been the DHA/ARA triggering the genetic modifications to produce altered proteins. Again, this is where you and I differ...you cannot fathom the idea that your child may have been autistic from the get-go. I, at least, examine all options and try to piece together an explanation from ALL research done, not just only the pieces that fit my pre-determined theory. You know, like a real researcher.

Mike,

If Down syndrome brains were scanned, and this protein damage was found, would you therefore conclude that the DHA/ARA made the kids Down syndrome occur? No, you wouldn't. So how can you conclude the same with autism? Did you ever consider the fact that this damage could be a symptom, not the cause, of autism? Similar to large facial features, especially the head size and tongue, for Down children?

What if this study found that there was high serotonin in the brain of autistic children, in addition to the protein damage? Would you therefore conclude that the DHA/ARA elevated the serotonin levels, or could it be possible that the serotonin levels caused the autism? The study didn't even prove correlation between the protein damage and autism, since it didn't consider non-autistic brains. What if we ALL have this protein damage at some level if we took these chemicals? These are things you haven't considered at all.

Seriously, this is my point. You fail to consider other alternative explanations for what you're seeing. You just conclude that the DHA/ARA is a causative agent, rather than seeing that this protein damage could simply be due to other agents, genetic or otherwise. I'm not saying it's not possible...what I'm saying is that you haven't proven your case simply on this study alone. There are many reasons for why these two things could occur together, as I've indicated above. What if something else entirely is causing the autism, and the autistic symptoms & protein alterations are a symptom of this bigger thing?

Again, consider (not discount) other alternatives just for a second. Is it possible that your theory may not work as you had intended? Or is what you're saying that you Googled a topic and discovered the cause of autism almost immediately, when it's been studied for decades with no one else discovering this simple explanation? Why wouldn't the authors of this study have gone further to test this theory of autism if they actually believed they found the cause? Why would this explain the 4:1 ratio of boys to girls in autism?

Again, when you come up with a cohesive hypothesis for this, please let me know. Don't simply cut and paste language from one singular paper and claim that you know for a fact that formula creates autism. Don't go basing multiple lawsuits on this one study that you're spinning out-of-context. Don't go on a crusade against a company just because of the thoughts in your head.

If you've really studied this topic in depth, you'll be able to answer the unresolved questions I've asked above. If all you've done is read this one paper and call it "your research", you'll call me a "moron" and refuse to answer even one of the issues I discussed above. Ball's in your court, Mike.

"Does DHA/ARA modify "normal" genetic material, or does it only modify susceptible DNA? That's where i argue with your logic."

Peroxidation of DHA and ARA may cause any DNA damage. There is actually a marker for it with a real name. But I wouldn't expect you to know that either. Ever hear of acrolein? How about 4 HNE? Do you know anything about lipid metabolism or did they not teach that as a biochemist student?

Again, you debate science that is well known because you don't understand it.

Here Penguin, read some science, try to understand it, and then ask intelligent questions.-

There is considerable evidence indicating that DHA is a natural ligand for PPARs, which bind to PPREs and regulate expression of several genes (Desvergne and Wahli, 1999). Additional transcription factors that might be implicated in regulation of SOD-1 expression by DHA are HIF and NF-κB, which have DNA binding elements present in the human SOD-1 gene promoter (Rojo et al., 2004). Our recent results indicate that DHA down-regulates expression of the SOD-1 gene, thereby enhancing oxidative stress and more effectively killing cancer cells (Ding et al., 2004). The down-regulation of SOD-1 gene expression by DHA was observed several human cancer lines (Ding and Lind, 2007). This indicates that not only could DHA initiate lipid peroxidation due to its possessing multiple double bonds, which increases its oxidation potential, but also that DHA could suppress the antioxidant enzyme system, thereby enhancing oxidative stress.

Does it state that DHA may only affect succeptable DNA?

It proves that you don't understand what you are talking about. What else is new? Penguin, excessive DHA/ARA peroxidation may cause damage to normal DNA. So as a dietary component, it should heed some concern when altered triacylglycerols are added to infant formulas.

"The paper did not state that the DHA/ARA caused a normal gene/protein to transform into a defective one, and it did not state that the DHA/ARA was the cause of autism. It said that protein damage was found in the autistic brain, period, not that the protein damage caused the autism. That's where your unfounded leap of faith is...you took this out of context and applied your own spin."

I said protein damage was found in autistic brains from adducts formed from peroxidation of DHA and ARA. What spin did I put on this info?

Is it my exclusive theory that oxidative damage may contribute to autism causation? No, that is shared among thousands of researchers.

Could infant formula supplements contribute to oxidative damage if they were structured to be more vulnerable to oxidation? Yes.

Your genes only theory to autism causation is wrong. If DNA damage can be caused by exogenous insults, how would you determine that these insults did not happen as a result of chronic exposure to these insults?

Oh,BTW, thousands of genes have been shown to be differentially expressed by DHA supplementation in a dose dependent manner. Have you examined all of these genes? Here, I'll post it for you. Get busy determining what genes are adversely affected by supplementation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1847718/

"In our study increased amount of DHA reduced the expression of glutathione-related proteins GSR and GSTA3."

You don't know what GSTA3 is, do you. Look up what it is and does Einstein.

Peroxidation of DHA and ARA may cause any DNA damage. There is actually a marker for it with a real name.

That doesn't mean it turns someone autistic, Mike.

Again, you debate science that is well known because you don't understand it.

Says the guy who read one study and all the sudden he's a biochemistry expert. Seriously, have you read any other paper besides one that fits your theory?

Does it state that DHA may only affect succeptable DNA?

Here's what's funny about all of the papers you cited: None of them involve the creation of autism! In fact, they're involved in the killing of cancer cells (a positive response)! Where in there does it say that it induces normal genes to create autism?

It proves that you don't understand what you are talking about.

So you're using regulation of a gene that kills cancer cells as proof that it produces autism? No wonder the judge threw you out twice!

I said protein damage was found in autistic brains from adducts formed from peroxidation of DHA and ARA. What spin did I put on this info?

You associated the protein damage with the autism, when they could be two separate things! You said yourself that DHA and ARA regulate other genes in "normal" people and produce oxidative stress -- so why is it news that it happens in autistic people as well? How does this prove that it causes autism if the stress occurs in both "normal" and autistic people?!!!

Is it my exclusive theory that oxidative damage may contribute to autism causation? No, that is shared among thousands of researchers

That's my whole point -- it's not! That's YOUR leap of faith! They just said that protein damage exists in autistic brains -- YOU are making the (unsupported) leap that this damage is CAUSING the autism...no one else has made that claim.

Your genes only theory to autism causation is wrong.

That's your opinion, not supported by fact. Btw, if all of these environmental triggers cause the mutated autism genes to express, the cause is still only the genes. Without the altered genes, no amount of environmental triggers are going to make the autism express. That's root cause, a concept you know nothing about, apparently. Are there possibly other means to trigger it, surely. But the root cause is the thing that if you remove it, the condition ceases to exist. And that thing is the copy number variants in the genes. Research has shown that over 20% of autism is linked exclusively to gene variants, with more linkages (and a higher percentage) found each week. Soon, we'll show that all autism has the genetic component as the root cause, even if other things like formula are creating the expression of them.

Oh,BTW, thousands of genes have been shown to be differentially expressed by DHA supplementation in a dose dependent manner.

That's the point! Everyone that gets DHA supplementation doesn't turn autistic! So how can the oxidative stress in these "thousands of genes" not turn us autistic if the DHA is the cause? Could it be true that only in cases where there are genetic errors that the DHA triggers the expression of autism? Yup.

You don't know what GSTA3 is, do you. Look up what it is and does Einstein.

You've yet to tell me why your son's case cannot be genetic, or why your theory accounts for 4 times more boys with autism than girls...yet you promised this to me a year ago! You're so focused and blinded by your formula theory that you can't even fathom a genetic cause for your son.

Again, why can't your son's case be genetic?

Newsflash- DBhelix thinks it awesome to ridicule parents with disabled children. His exact words- That's awesome.

Is that wrong?

We may be at odds Penguin, but I don't think you would even stoop so low.

you're lamenting to someone whom you told "obviously has asperger's" then called a moron.

random fact: moron and idiot were originally technical psychological terms for people with mental capacities of 8-12 year olds.

therefore: Newsflash- mike thinks it's fun to make light of major neurological impairments such as down syndrome! mike, that's just cruel skipping over the parents and going after the kids. how dare you just throw those words out and ridicule the seriousness of disorders such as trisomy 21.

don't you just love lateral moves like that?

Mike, instead of calling others names and trying to discredit them, how about we actually discuss the topic at hand? Namely, why can't your son's case be genetic? How does your theory take into account the 4:1 boy to girl ratio for autism?

And those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Calling me an Asperger's case or a moron or idiot? I mean, c'mon. Especially when your son has ASD, and you make fun of that very condition? Seriously, I thought you were better than that.

Now stop with the personal attacks and answer some of the serious flaws in your theory.

Penguin, I haven't been the only one who thought you may have Aspergers. You stated many times that ASD runs in your family. Where did I say any neurological disease was funny? That's right, I didn't.

Do only individuals with a genetic predisposition towards developing lung cancer, actually succumb to this disease? That's your take on autism huh?

For instance, isn't there environmental insults that may cause a person to get lung cancer, like smoking? Are there not environmental toxins that will cause serious harm towards an individual that doesn't have a genetic predisposition.

That's your view. One cannot become autistic unless their faulty genes determined that outcome.

Tell me something Penguin,and jump in too DBhelix, If autism were to result from excessive oxidative damage in the brain, how could faulty DNA be solely responsible. Do products of lipid peroxidation cause damage to normal proteins and DNA? Yes it does. Does this damage only occur in faulty DNA? NO. So it is possible to not have an underlying genetic predisposition, yet have damage caused to normally expressing DNA from environmental insults that cause oxidative damage.

Sure, some individuals may have mitochondrial abnormalities, or even other inherited genetic predispositions towards dysregulation of cellular redox homeostasis.

So again, can lipid peroxidation products cause damage to normal DNA?

lipid peroxidation products are going to devolve into reactive oxygen species. free radicals will go after anything they can including membrane and DNA. the cool thing is that when that happens the cell is programmed to commit suicide or all of it might just lead to right out necrosis. if that doesn't happen and a few other kooky things do happen then bam, cancer. free radicals behave like bowling balls, they're gonna blow through the membrane or cause DNA damage or kill the cell outright or cause enough DNA damage to make the cell kill itself. don't just expect everyone to jump on the free radical band wagon as the primary cause of autism.

since we don't even know what the hell goes on in an autistic brain or all the variables that may or may not be linked to development, have you ever even considered multifactorial? maybe polygenic? maybe a genetic underlyer with an exogenous trigger? you can't just count out genetics if it leaves a bad taste in your mouth. if it's a genetic mitochondrial problem, it's gonna be the mom's side's fault. if it isn't a mitochondrial genome problem, you're both suspects. nature sucks, welcome to the world.

my question to you is why should it just be localized to the brain? it's hard to get into the brain if you're not meant to be in there. free radicals don't just pick a spot and attack, so chances are there's gonna be damage elsewhere. if there is, where would it be? what other tissues are you looking at?

Since you two are far more knowledgeable than I am in the area of genetics, help me out with something. If the NRF2/ARE pathway serves as the master switch for antioxidant protection via regulation of hundreds of genes, could an environmental insult cause dysregulation of this control and result in alterations in expression of these genes?

http://www.jbc.org/content/282/4/2529.full

Think about this. Clearly oxidation of cysteine residues on Keap-1 is required to provide disassociation from Nrf2 and its activation of antioxidant gene expression. The question becomes- In an effort to control excessive oxidation, oxidation is actually neccesary and required to activate Nrf2. What would happen if Excessive oxidation chronically activated Nrf2 antioxidant gene expression?

Penguin, I have posted a publication that reveals peroxidation of DHA as beneficial in killing cancer cells. Chronic Nrf2 activation has been shown to promote cancer growth. Administration of antioxidants inhibits DHA peroxidation and its beneficial effect on cancer cells that are resistant to treatment.

So excessive oxidation or antioxidant protection may result in disease progression. Now, apply that to what has been found in neurological diseases.

Penguin, I haven't been the only one who thought you may have Aspergers

Yeah, the other (Robert something) was a nutjob who still thought vaccines made you autistic and called everyone names...you really want to be lumped in with him, or do you want to be viewed as a legit "researcher". If so, it would serve you best to stop with the name-calling and focus on the issues.

You stated many times that ASD runs in your family.

No, I've stated my wife's brother has ASD. Don't see how that would affect my genetic lineage. Runs in my own family? Nope.

Where did I say any neurological disease was funny?

When you try to discredit other people by claiming that they have Asperger's as if it's something to be made fun of.

Do only individuals with a genetic predisposition towards developing lung cancer, actually succumb to this disease? That's your take on autism huh?

While lung cancers are many times clearly caused by smoking, autism has no clear environmental cause like this. Until proven otherwise, this is the truth.

For instance, isn't there environmental insults that may cause a person to get lung cancer, like smoking?

Do you not understand how cancer works? It changes one or two body cells' DNA, which then rapidly reproduces into a cancerous tumor. Are you claiming that autism is like a tumor? How do environmental insults change the DNA of the whole body? I.e. if you took the blood, brain, skin, and liver cells of an autistic person, they'd all show the same genetic make-up, in that there were copy number variants associated with the neurological genes within our 23 sets of chromosomes. You take a lung cancer patient, and only his lungs (and maybe his esophogeal cells too) show up with the cancerous mutation, NOT every cell in the body. That's the difference between a change that was induced AFTER birth via the environment (cancer) and one that was present from the start (autism).

One cannot become autistic unless their faulty genes determined that outcome

No, what I'm saying is that you cannot become autistic unless you have certain genetic predispositions. Not all predispositions turn into the condition, Mike. You may have the predisposition for more arterial plaque, but you're not going to be at that same increased risk of heart attack if you keep your diet in check, for instance. What I'm saying is that these triggers (whatever they end up being) do not trigger autism unless the genetic anomalies are present. That's not saying that your faulty genes determine outcome...it's saying it's a prerequisite, not the end-all-be-all.

Do products of lipid peroxidation cause damage to normal proteins and DNA? Yes it does.

So why isn't everyone autistic? Because it's the starting material (i.e. DNA) that's different. The DHA works in the same fashion in each person, so it must be what it's acting upon (DNA) that's the reason for the autistic condition.

Does this damage only occur in faulty DNA? NO.

Once again, we're not arguing that changes occur, we're arguing that these changes induce autism.

Sure, some individuals may have mitochondrial abnormalities, or even other inherited genetic predispositions towards dysregulation of cellular redox homeostasis.

Just not YOUR kid. Rrrrriiiiight.

So again, can lipid peroxidation products cause damage to normal DNA?

So again, why does this induce autism in less than 1% of us if this damage occurs in all of us? That's the question you haven't answered!

Tell me something Penguin,and jump in too DBhelix, If autism were to result from excessive oxidative damage in the brain, how could faulty DNA be solely responsible.

Because what you're saying is that we all get this "oxidative damage", yet only 1% of us get autism...are they just unlucky, or is this because they're DNA may have slight errors that cause the DHA (or something else entirely) to work differently in their brains? In this case, it's not the DHA that's the cause!

So it is possible to not have an underlying genetic predisposition, yet have damage caused to normally expressing DNA from environmental insults that cause oxidative damage

We all agree that changes occur. BUT...You're whole argument is that this damage causes autism. You have shown that changes occur, but you have NOT shown that autism results from these changes. Especially since you've shown that we ALL get the changes from DHA, but only a select few develop autism...why, Mike? You can't answer the most important question!

Again, can you fathom that we all get this "oxidative damage", but only those with a genetic predisposition to autism actually develop the condition? How is it so hard to think that there could be a prerequisite to the disorder?

"No, I've stated my wife's brother has ASD. Don't see how that would affect my genetic lineage. Runs in my own family? Nope."

I thought you said your family could have a genetic predisposition towards autism without a family history of it?

Then I say there are genetic predispositons that may contribute to oxidative damage-Sure, some individuals may have mitochondrial abnormalities, or even other inherited genetic predispositions towards dysregulation of cellular redox homeostasis.

"Just not YOUR kid. Rrrrriiiiight."

"No, I've stated my wife's brother has ASD. Don't see how that would affect my genetic lineage. Runs in my own family? Nope."

I see, you don't see how that would affect your genetic lineage, but I refuse to accept that it affects my genetic lineage. Like you, its doesn't run in my family or my wife's. Contradict yourself much?

pesky are you sitting on a completed gene map with full descriptions of every gene product and regulatory mechanism? if you are, i wouldn't mind taking a peek at that.

"We all agree that changes occur. BUT...You're whole argument is that this damage causes autism. You have shown that changes occur, but you have NOT shown that autism results from these changes. Especially since you've shown that we ALL get the changes from DHA, but only a select few develop autism...why, Mike? You can't answer the most important question!"

Uh, because we ALL are not the same. Every individuals' body is biologically different.

"So why isn't everyone autistic? Because it's the starting material (i.e. DNA) that's different. The DHA works in the same fashion in each person, so it must be what it's acting upon (DNA) that's the reason for the autistic condition."

No, DHA doesn't work in the same fashion in each person. Does it work the same in an individual with mitochondrial abnormalities? Would it work the same in someone with ALD? How about in an infant, or elderly person?

DHA may act directly on DNA. DHA may oxidize and damage DNA.

Do you even read the publications that I post?

I thought you said your family could have a genetic predisposition towards autism without a family history of it?

You really have trouble with reading comprehension, don't you? What I said was that genetic anomalies can pop up in subsequent generations without having a "family history" of it. I.e. some people obtain these anomalies via spot mutations while others have them passed down, so it's not an "it can't be genetic because no one else in my family has it" issue. Look at Down...you think all people that get it have a family history of it? Nope.

I see, you don't see how that would affect your genetic lineage, but I refuse to accept that it affects my genetic lineage. Like you, its doesn't run in my family or my wife's. Contradict yourself much?

Again with the comprehension! I said that my WIFE'S family history of autism does not affect MY family history, in which there is no autism. You, on the other hand, refuse to believe that autism can be genetic cause without having a family history, which is flat-out boneheaded.

Errors in DNA replication occur every time we reproduce (how do you think evolution occurs, btw?). When you pass them on to your offspring from your own DNA, they're inherited. When they occur as spot mutations, or are just the result of two different sets of DNA cross-pollenating, you have offspring whose genetic traits do not match that of their parents (i.e. the mutation could have popped up during embryonic formation, and therefore wouldn't have been in your family history). Example: Two brown-eyed people have a baby with blue eyes. Brown eyes are dominant, so the parents must have either A) had one dominant (brown) and one recessive allele, and when the two recessive ones were combined into the child's DNA, the result was a child whose eyes matched neither of the parents, or B) a spot mutation occurred turning a dominant gene into a recessive one, leading to a blue-eyed child. Why couldn't your child have been the unfortunate recipient of either a DNA combination that reflected neither of the parents' genes or a mutation? The point was, it does not have to be inherited to be genetic cause. Again, reading comprehension.

Uh, because we ALL are not the same. Every individuals' body is biologically different.

Why? DNA.

No, DHA doesn't work in the same fashion in each person. Does it work the same in an individual with mitochondrial abnormalities?

EXACTLY MY POINT! DNA discrepancies cause substances to work differently in some cases. Now you're catching my drift! In the instances where you have a genetic prerequisite to autism, you might have a trigger to develop the disorder, but without that prerequisite, it doesn't develop with the trigger present. I.e. genetic root cause.

Do you even read the publications that I post?

Since you're developing conclusions out of context from these publications, I could ask you the same thing.

Again, why the 4:1 ratio? Can you answer any of the questions I posed, or are you just going to argue semantics?

Read up on DHA and lipid peroxidation. It's pointless to try to discuss areas of science that you don't understand.

Read up on genetic causes of autism, then tell me which came first, the chemical or the genes.

Also, look up the terms "root cause" and "correlation". If this really was a root cause, you'd expect a giant spike in autism in recent years as DHA/ARA were added to all formulas...you don't...wonder why? Because it all comes down to genetic prerequisites...you have them, and you might develop autism...you don't, and you don't.

You just can't fathom the idea that your Adonis DNA might have produced a disabled child. Get off your pedestal and realize that developmental disorders don't just affect other families, they also affect "perfect" families such as yours, and it doesn't have to be the fault of someone else for your child's disorder.

One more thing: Did you know that the risk of autism increases dramatically as the age of the father increases? Hmm, wonder why? Could it be...genetics! The older you are, the more susceptible your gamete DNA is to mutation. Look it up if you don't believe me. So you may stare at the person responsible for your son's condition every single day when you brush your teeth. It's pointless to discuss this area of science with you if you clearly don't understand it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/health/09autism.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/04/AR2006090400513.html

Since you're no spring chicken and have a 21-year old, I assume you're in your 40s at leats. So these studies are right up your alley. It doesn't happen in your family? Yeah right. It just did. You now have a family history. And it's not someone else's fault, no matter how many studies you take out-of-context.

Penguin, debating areas of science that you do not understand is a waste of time. When you understand how DHA may directly affect Gene transcription or cause damage to normal DNA, then you will begin to understand what I am talking about. Again, read up on it, then come back and we'll have a discussion.

Here, start with this-

http://needswellness.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/omega-3-fatty-acids-alter-gene-expression-and-disease/

"We can no longer blame DNA as the primary cause of disease. That is the extraordinary implication of emerging research. It is not DNA itself that determines how or what genes will be expressed. The real story is what we expose to our DNA, through diet and lifestyle. In a nutshell, what we eat and what we are exposed to in our environment directly affects our DNA and its expression.

The growing field of epigenetics studies how diet, lifestyle, environment,and even thoughts determine our health, rather than DNA alone. Nutrigenomics studies how food and nutrients in particular modulate(turn on and off) gene function. Together, they are among the most interesting areas of research into how EPA and DHA—the omega-3 essential fatty acids found in fish oil—work in the body.

The discovery that epigenetic factors (literally: “beyond the control of the gene”) are the primary factors in determining how or what genes will be expressed. This discovery may open a new dietary approach to a wide variety of common diseases, as it indicates that nutrition is even more important than once thought. We cannot change our genes, but we may be able to change their actions through nutrition in general and through fish oil in particular."

So, for the gazzillionth time, read some new research and learn what it represents. Then come back and we'll have a discussion-otherwise it is a waste of time.

didn't i also tell you earlier that hardwired epigenetic patterns are inherited through the generations?

Again, Mike, applying the same chemical to different people's DNA and getting different results, 99% normal, 1% autistic...wouldn't the smart thing be to examine the variable characteristics (DNA) and not think that a constant (DHA/ARA) would produce variable results?

You can't explain the 4:1 ratio with your theory...why can't you just admit that? You can't rule out genetics for your son's condition...why can't you just admit that?

No one denies that there are adverse events from vaccines. No one. The major issue you and other anti-vaxxers keep pressing is a link to autism from vaccines, which has been shown not even to be correlated, much less causative.

Do people get injured occassionally from vaccines? Yes. Do vaccines cause autism? No.

More people would die from preventable illnesses without vaccines. You cannot compare injuries from vaccines to a utopian number of zero harmed without vaccines, because that doesn't take into consideration the proper alternative consequence (i.e. that preventable illnesses would harm, and kill, more people than vaccine usage would).

The funny thing about this country is that you DO NOT have forced vaccinations. Do as you wish, but don't for a minute believe you're forced into these vaccinations or that they cause more harm than good. Because it's simply not supported by facts.

Do you realise that what I worded is not what you steered your opinion to?

Forced perspective is coming from authoritarians that separate the reality with their desired information surrounding reality and outright deny any other explanation to anything other then their hypothesis/consensus.

In no way was I referring to any forced vaccination, it was in relation the steered intellectual information that is used to supersede reality of others.

One example, the theory of man made global warming.

Another one, creationism vs. evolution.

Yet another one, the theory that anything man creates in a lab is better nutritionally then what is grown in nature. (GMO's)

How many more examples do you need that mental slavery dished out or down to subordinates is being injected as life is determinate on automatic acceptance where independent thought or just an ignorance to the collective mantra?

I was responding to your previous comment too...the one about "secretly testing" the vaccines, etc.

You make the claim that there's an "outright denial" of vaccine injuries. Nothing could be further from the truth. We all know that NO medicine is 100% safe and effective. The problem for you is that you live in a dream world where no one ever gets injured by anything. This utopia is not based in the reality you speak of. Some people will get injured by vaccines. But more importantly, more people would get injured without them!

Forced perspective is coming from authoritarians that separate the reality with their desired information surrounding reality and outright deny any other explanation to anything other then their hypothesis/consensus.

Forced perspective ALSO comes from lunatics that will do anything in their power to convince others that things like vaccines are inherently evil and offer no other explanation for things like autism, etc. without having vaccines be an integral part of it. For instance, some people believe that things like autism are tied only to vaccines, and not to genetics, because they themselves don't have autism, so it can't be genetic. So they go about promoting ONLY this theory, and try to poke holes in whatever they disagree with.

So it goes both ways. While you think that it's just scientists and doctors forcing their opinions on others, the reverse is true as well, with fringe activists trying to convince others that the entirety of medical science is flawed and that their opinion is the correct ones, fighting to avoid vaccinations, etc.

Yet another one, the theory that anything man creates in a lab is better nutritionally then what is grown in nature. (GMO's)

Again, taken in the converse, you are of the belief that the stuff man creates in a lab is inherently worse than what is grown in nature. So YOU also have a forced perspective, which you're using this pulpit to spread to us out here. Again, it goes both ways, but you don't see it that way.

How many more examples do you need that mental slavery dished out or down to subordinates is being injected as life is determinate on automatic acceptance where independent thought or just an ignorance to the collective mantra?

So we're mental slaves if we don't disagree with what science tells us is true? I don't get it. So we have to question everything we're ever told or else be "ignorant"? Science tells us the Earth is round. Do I have to question that in order to free myself from ignorance? Or do we accept that some things are just plain fact?

I'm just showing you that the "forced perspective" you claim exists goes both ways. You claim that everything we're told is a lie, or otherwise is just automatically accepted because we're too lazy or ignorant to apparently think for ourselves. I'm telling you that we believe what we believe not because we're told to, but because it makes sense. I believe the Earth's round because I've seen the evidence, not because I'm told that. You claim a bully pulpit from science...I say that it goes both ways...you're trying to bully people into not believing anything from science.

If we're "mental slaves" for listening to experts, then aren't you "mental slaves" by believing the opposite of experts? It's like the contradiction room in Monty Python's Flying Circus...you're wanting argument, but all you do is contradict. That's not free will or thinking, that's just contradiction of the current mantra.

Go take your meds penguin. you are stooopid. Was Einstein your dad?

So we have to reject vaccines and medicine, and follow your agenda only, in order to have "free will"? Otherwise we're slaves? We have to go against everything science tells us or we're ignorant of the "facts"? You, sir, scare me. You obviously have no grip on reality or the scientific method.

I agree with Al. Penguin, take your meds.

Mike, it's amazing to me that you take the time out of your "busy" schedule of "researching the causes of autism" with your professor to stalk me and try to discredit me. This is a clear attempt at an ad hominem attack -- you can't debate the facts in a logical manner, so you try to discredit the messenger.

I'd love for you to respond to my question, though -- in order to have "free will" and think logically, do we have to reject everything that scientists tell us? I mean, we're being told here to reject what scientists have to say, but to believe everything you guys have to say on blind faith??? C'mon man.

Go back to that "research" you supposedly are doing. Oh, and Googling a topic does not constitute "research" that holds up in court, as you've now seen TWICE.

I love, love, love the fact that you tell me to "take my meds", when for over 3 years you've been harassing people on message boards attempting to smear an infant formula company (Mead Johnson) for some biased opinion that you have that they wrecked your child's life. In these posts you claim to have quit your job and done years of "research", yet the judge in 2 lawsuits you've filed has told you that you have no evidence to support your case.

So you have your false accusations and smear campaign online, and I challenged you to produce your evidence, and I'M the one who has to take my meds? Rrrrrrrriiiiiiight. Go back to your padded cell, Mike.

I'm glad you took the time out of the weekend where you could have been playing with your autistic child to try to smear me online and comment on my parenting. Like that's helping his condition. Get a life.

I'm not the one who for (literally) years has lied online as to his "research" (even having someone write an article about this supposed research -- care to explain how you duped that writer?), only to reveal now that you not only haven't done any research, you've been thrown out of court TWICE for not having any evidence to support your claim (having the judge warn you that you will be barred forever from filing another lawsuit should you come back a third time without any evidence).

One only has to Google "Mike Pescatore autism" to come up with numerous discussion board websites in which you angrily spout your nonsensical theory about how Mead Johnson "made" your son autistic, and that "you know" what caused your son's autism. Any mention of genetic anomalies is angrily shouted down by you (even though there are hundreds of peer-reviewed studies showing these linkages).

And I'M the one with anger issues? I simply asked you to prove your case with evidence (just as the judge did both times). Seeing that others online have pointed out that you have no evidence, I'm not the first to show that your theory holds no water and that the emperor has no clothes.

It all comes back to this -- what's your end game? It seems to me that you want to pin blame on someone (just not you) for your son's condition to get a financial settlement. I understand that it does take a lot of hard work to raise a special needs child. But you can't seriously try to sue the pants off of a corporation because you THINK something occurred. No judge would give you money based on your beliefs alone. You quickly dismiss the answers with actual research behind them (genetic cause) while sticking to the belief that something with no research behind it (your theory) is the "real" cause for your son's condition.

You admit that genetics could be the cause...just not for your son. How short-sighted. And sad.

So for years you've angrily posted online about your son...and so I'm the angry one? Rrrrrriiiiight. As I said before, get a life. Find some evidence to support your statement and don't post until you have a judgment in your behalf. Until that happens, you've got ZERO evidence to support your assumptions. You've had years now to prove your case, and you don't even have a shred of evidence to your name yet. Put up or shut up.

You love to hear yourself talk.

Says the guy who had someone duped into writing an article about his "research" here: http://karendesoto.newsvine(dot)com/_news/2010/11/07/5425939-could-infant-formula-cause-autism

Says the guy who screamed from the rooftops about his "research" here: http://www.wrongplanet(dot)net/postx106419-45-0.html&sid=576e10a21503d7b8c64080bd4b1f9bf7

Says the guy who posted as both Michael and Mark Pescatore on this site, agreeing with his own posts to bolster his "research": http://www.causes(dot)com/causes/336049-autism-and-infant-formula

Says the guy who created his own website (autisminfantformula(dot)com) decrying his theory (website eventually shut down), and posted it everywhere to slander a corporation he hasn't proven did anything wrong.

Says the guy who continues to stalk others online and post personal attacks to somehow bolster his nonsensical argument. Posting lies about me (e.g. I'm not a parent, I don't have family members with autism, I don't work in pharma research -- all lies spouted by you) just to try and discredit me.

Yeah, and I'm the one who loves to hear myself talk? You've been on discussion boards for YEARS posting the same nonsense. And for what? Only to have two judges dismiss your lawsuit because of NO EVIDENCE: http://pacer.mad.uscourts(dot)gov/dc/cgi-bin/recentops.pl?filename=otoole/pdf/pescatore%20v%20mead%20johnson%20%20order.pdf

Must be difficult for you to see your lawsuit dismissed after all the talking you've done. And I'm the one who loves to talk? As if...

I rest my case

You've screamed from the mountaintops for years across all of these forums and now you're clamming up to try to, what, discredit me? I've posted all of your rants, and you have the gall to say that I'm the one who's wordy? I challenged you to present your evidence after the Karen Desoto article was written about your "research". All I asked was that you back up your talk. You have yet to do so, and the court judgments (throwing you out of court TWICE) back up my assertion that you're basing your allegations on nonsense. I asked you to present evidence. You failed to do so. You have for YEARS alleged that Mead Johnson harmed your kid without so much as a shred of evidence in order to get money, and try to discredit anyone who challenges your assertions. You're a bully who resorts to personal attacks to try to get people to believe you. No evidence. PERIOD. I rest my case.

Didn't you learn in the 2 times you got kicked out of court that when you say "I rest my case" you don't get to speak again?

You lie too much. You claimed you had concrete evidence that your son's autism was caused by infant formula, even devoting a website to it and duping a writer into devoting an article to it. But when I ask you to show the evidence, you clam up. When the judge asks you in two separate lawsuits to show the evidence, you fail to produce anything.

It's ironic that for (literally) years you have no problem boasting online about how you found the cause of your son's autism, yet when challenged to prove it, you are speechless. Mr. Emperor, sir, you have no clothes!

So I guess the judge didn't understand it either? TWICE??? I asked you to show that formula caused autism. You gave me someone else's research that showed that infant formula did something in the brain. Does that prove it's linked to autism? NOPE. You didn't even prove that the change was adverse. Could that change have been POSITIVE (you know, like all of the studies showing the positive effects of supplementing a child's diet with DHA/ARA in formula)? You'll never know...all you showed is that something changed...not proving formula caused autism. And so it continues, even though you "rested your case". You know what else causes "changes" in the brain? Vitamins, Zoloft, sunlight, positive thoughts...but yet you cling to the belief that THIS change that you found online is the sole reason for your son's autism, and want to get money from Mead Johnson. Yikes. You quickly dismiss all those peer-reviewed studies showing genetic linkages...not in YOUR kid, no way, right? Get over yourself. Lots of things cause changes in the brain...that doesn't mean they're causing autism!!!

You obviously have Aspergers. I apologize. Good luck Penguin. I wish you well.

really mike? that's where you're taking this now? he challenges and you clam up and call him an asperger's case?

science is meant to face ridicule. it's how things are done. it's how things move forward, and how people who are full of crap and have no place in the field are weeded out. if you have something tangible that can be replicated in the lab, (i'll repeat that - replicated in the lab), defend it with objective facts to back up your observations that the lab work produced. otherwise, it's just rhetoric spewed out while standing on a soap box.

Mike, you have a son with ASD, and you're making fun of that condition by telling me I have Asperger's, which is a subset of ASD? How do you live with yourself?

As dblhelix stated, all we're looking for from you is tangible evidence to support your assertion that your son got autism exclusively from infant formula. Remember, YOU were the one who suggested this link. You have yet to show evidence, but have no problem with online bluster pronouncing this as "fact".

I don't have Asperger's, but do hold a Bachelor's in biochemistry and an MBA, and my wife's only sibling is an autistic adult. It's really close to my heart, and for you to make fun of the condition, with total disregard for your son's affliction, is careless and heartless. You have needled other people, and chastised anyone who comes close to a personal attack against you. I have never attacked your medical history or that of your son, so why do you attack my background? Because you've got no evidence to support your position. Instead of debating facts, you resort to ad hominem attacks to discredit anyone who disagrees with you.

Your son is autistic and you make fun of the disorder. Have you no shame?

Stating that "you obviously have Asperger's" is making light of a serious neurological impairment that afflicts 1% of Americans, including your own son. The only other person who has "recognized" this is someone who's devoted his posts to personal attacks, just like your recent ones have been. It's sad that a father of a special needs child has to resort to this name-calling and making fun of the very condition his son has in order to what, feel better about yourself? Sad, sad little man you are.

I said I was sorry

You should apologize to your son for making fun of his condition, not me.

You display characteristics of someone with Aspergers.

Oh, I'm sorry, did we forget that Asperger's is not posting on discussion boards about autism but is actually a behavioral affliction? You've been posting on autism discussion boards for YEARS, yet I don't associate your rants with that of an Asperger's patient (maybe because I can distinguish between someone who cares about the disorder and someone who has it). It makes me sick that you will post all over these discussion boards your lunatic theories, then make fun of your son's condition while disparaging other members on this board. I'm sure your son must feel proud of his dad.

My son is severely autistic, not aspie. Big difference moron. You do not have Aspergers but fall under the idiot moron spectrum.

Severely autistic and Asperger's all fall under the same diagnosis: autism spectrum disorder. So now I don't have Asperger's? Which is it?

I thought idiots were people who repeated the same thing over and over again expecting different results. Like that guy, I forget his name, who claimed to have done all that research on autism, lied about it doing it, created a website devoted to this loony theory, filed multiple lawsuits with no evidence, expecting a new judge to grant him money from an infant formula company, and was miffed about being kicked out of court multiple times for lack of evidence, yet continued to write on Newsvine and other forums that formula caused his son's autism, and attacked anyone who challenged his viewpoint, even going so far (and cruel) as to suggest they had the same affliction as his son...what was his name again? It's on the tip of my tongue, but I can't seem to recall. Can you?

Penguin, explain something to me. You are clearly pro-vaccinations. You defend how vital they are towards protecting children from communicable diseases. You defend this tooth and nail, yet have no problem exposing your 3.5 month old daughter to a room full of other children at daycare. You have already stated that the immune system isn't fully developed until the age of 6 months. Any reasonable pediatrician would recommend limiting an infant's exposure to other children, especially those whom may be sick, until their immune system has developed. So you understand at 3.5 months that your daughter is very vulnerable towards disease, yet choose to increase the level of exposure daily at daycare. Is that why you put so much faith in vaccination protection? It appears that you need such a heightened level of protection because you have chosen to increase the level of exposure. Please explain.

You defend this tooth and nail, yet have no problem exposing your 3.5 month old daughter to a room full of other children at daycare.

Wow. Just wow. Do you not understand the concept of vaccinations, Mike? It's not like I'm putting her in a hospital ward unprotected. By the time she goes, she'll have more vaccinations (next Monday, in fact). She'll be protected by the population in which most ARE vaccinated, and shield the un- or partially-vaccinated from disease. A disease needs a population in which to breed and move on...notice that most diseases (plague, measles, etc.) popped up more often in population centers...they need enough of an unprotected host population to proliferate. A center of 100 kids with most vaccinated is not a large enough population to spread those nasty germs. Colds, sniffles, yes, because the viruses for these are numerous and are rapidly changing, and have no vaccine. But the nasty ones have vaccines, and cannot spread without enough hosts. I recommend you to read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond...Pulitzer Prize winning book...it explains all this.

Any reasonable pediatrician would recommend limiting an infant's exposure to other children, especially those whom may be sick, until their immune system has developed.

You act as if a switch is turned at the 6-month mark and that they're not developing all along, which is certainly not the case at all. Your lack of knowledge about infant development is quite scary for a parent of 4. You want working mothers to quit their careers to raise babies because you fear disease running rampant in daycare centers...wonder why outbreaks of measles, etc. are NOT present in daycare centers? Vaccines. Not just for the kids but for the adults too. The environment has to have human hosts to transmit the disease to my child...that doesn't happen in this small population.

Stick to what you know (which isn't much), and quit the comments on parenting...you are obviously over your head. It speaks volumes that daycare centers accept kids at 6 weeks and you want kids sheltered at home for 4 years or more.

You display characteristics of someone with Aspergers.

I think many people could say the same about you.

We disagree. I don't think a 3.5 month old infant should be dropped at a daycare. Just seems like common sense.

Too bad you're not a childcare expert. Those experts say daycare is perfectly safe at 6 weeks and beyond. Good thing you don't run the country, or women would spend years stuck in their houses cooking, cleaning, and raising babies. Might want to invest in a DeLorean to go back to your real home in the 19th century. Get it to 88 mph and you're golden!

Again, your right Penguin.

On this example of day care, yes I am. Experts say it's safe, I believe them. But NOOOOO!!! Mike says you need to stay home with your kids to 4 years of age! So forget about your careers, working women! Back to the 1800's you go! Reading, 'riting, and 'rithmitic are better left to the boys, right Mike!?

And it's "you're", not "your". And you call ME a moron?

Didn't you say before that I wasn't qualified to give parenting advice to you? Why do you feel okay about giving it to me? You raised your kids 20 years ago...times have changed since then. Women work. If it wasn't safe for 6-week-olds, then women would be required to get 6 months off via FLMA. No wonder you're not a childcare expert.

Again, it speaks volumes that daycare centers accept kids at 6 weeks and you want kids sheltered at home for 4 years or more.

I don't think a 3.5 month old infant should be dropped at a daycare. Just seems like common sense.

Why not? They'll be exposed to small sniffles and cough germs and each exposure actually builds the immune system stronger. So, technically, penguin is building his child's immune system at a better rate then someone who stays at home.

Should also hang in doctor's offices.

So keep the women and children home til they're in 5th grade! OMG! Are you serious!?

A 3.5 month old infant with an undeveloped immune system

Earth to Mike: 3.5 month olds don't have "undeveloped" systems...they have systems that are not fully developed just yet. i.e. it's not 100%, but it sure ain't 0%. You know what helps? Not sheltering them.

Do you seriously expect new mothers to stay at home until their children are in school? Have you not heard of single mothers? What do you suppose they do for income, food stamps and welfare? Yeah, that'll be much better than daycare and a working income. Geez, how 19th century are you?

Does this make sense Penguin, or are you not smarter that a fifth grader?

4.0 in my MBA, smarter than a 5th grader. You know who's not smarter than a 5th grader? Someone who types "that" instead of "than".

It's hard enough for a fifth grader to keep from getting sick in school.

You know the difference here? There's no vaccine for those colds they get in 5th grade. So no matter what age they are, there's no stopping that cold. You know what they have at daycare? Lots of hand sanitizer and adults that follow cleanliness procedures and keep infants in a clean, separate environment with dedicated adult resources.

But yeah, we should keep kids in a bubble til school age and make the women stay home! You scare the hell outta me with your out-of-date ideas.

If it weren't safe for infants, guess what? They wouldn't be allowed. Except, too bad for you, they accept 6-WEEK olds. Certainly my 16-week old daughter (will survive). And she was over 9 lbs and left the hospital early...she's ahead of the curve. OUT OF TOUCH, Mike. Get over yourself. It's safe, no matter how much you think it isn't. Much better to see the world than live in a bubble. Much better for social development too...4-year olds that are babied aren't socially adept.

Yeah, you're right. 3.5 month old infants are not more vulnerable to become ill when exposed to other children at daycare because there is hand sanitizer there.

3.5 month old infants are not more vulnerable to become ill

More vulnerable than whom? Even 6-month olds, 6-year olds, and 60-year olds will get the common cold, etc. It's as if you're saying that they're not exposed to germs unless they're at daycare! I bring home germs all the time from work. Every time I kiss her I expose her to all the germs I had encountered in my travels. Add to it all the nasty bacteria and viruses floating around your own house. It's as if you think you're in a sanitary environment outside of daycare.

You've yet to answer my question...why would a daycare facility accept the risk of taking in 6-week olds if it wasn't safe to do so, from a liability standpoint (since you stepped in as your own lawyer on several occasions)? Why wouldn't the gov't mandate holding women out of work until your 4-year mandate passes after childbirth if it wasn't safe to do so? Because you're not living in reality. Just because you made your kids stay home because of your fear of disease doesn't mean it's not safe to put them in daycare.

Mike, it's been shown that sheltered children living at home are less likely to adjust to social settings once school begins. They also have LESS-DEVELOPED immune systems because they haven't been outside of their home environment for extended periods of time. So for you to say that it's better is incorrect both mentally and physically for the child. But continue to treat your children like bubble boys. Do you still coddle your college-age child(ren)?

Hmm, those with friends prior to school are much more likely to adjust well once they enter school: http://www.nncc.org/guidance/dc26_wo.friends1.html

Hmm, those with employed mothers are much better off: http://parenthood.library.wisc.edu/Hoffman/Hoffman.html

Daughters of employed mothers have been found to have higher academic achievement, greater career success, more nontraditional career choices, and greater occupational commitment.

Studies of children in poverty, in both two-parent and single-mother families, found higher cognitive scores for children with employed mothers as well as higher scores on socioemotional indices

Sons and daughters of employed mothers have less traditional gender-role attitudes.

So maybe daycare IS a good thing, Mike. Beats being sheltered for years in a bubble.

You've really got a lot of nerve telling others how to parent. Daycare: safe at 6 weeks. Period.

You know she is at greater risk when exposed to all the other children attending.

Really? Your opinion or fact? Don't all 3.5 month olds have the same shots (relatively speaking)? Aren't all of these children exposed to other people's germs and susceptible to the same illnesses? Oh, I forgot, you don't expose your children to anything or anyone else until they're school age. Yeah right. I'm sure your relatives held your kids (and transferred disease), you took them outside the house (and transferred disease), and you and your wife and other kids had diseases and exposed the younger ones to diseases.

Hey, if you play your cards right, the daycare will teach your daughter how to use the potty and how to walk and talk.

Yeah, she's spending more days a week at home than not, so yeah, they'll raise her for us while we're off "having fun" at work. At least she'll learn Spanish by age 4, which they teach them at daycare, so that she'll be more ready to adapt to our current environment. So you go do your potty training at home, and I'll not only do all that you do at home, but also have my daughter be more socially adjusted, physically adjusted, and have more friends when she gets to school (see post 13.3). All that and Spanish.

I wonder if your daughter is confused as to who her real mother is.

I wonder if your kids understand life outside of the four walls of your house (i.e. prison).

You started off by telling me that I couldn't judge you as a parent...then have judged every move I make. Kind of hypocritical, no?

After reading post 13.3, tell me again that your children are better off by staying at home! LMFAO!

If your daughter catches whooping cough or the measles from some other child at daycare it will be because you chose to bring her there.

As if you couldn't bring home these viruses and bacteria and transfer to your kids when they're at home. Your lack of knowledge on transfer of disease scares me.

I understand that you and your wife have more important things to do at work than at home with your child.

Itching to get back to work after 3.5 months. What a commitment and sacrifice. A whole 3.5 months drove your wife crazy.

Speaking from experience, children often get sick from other children at school. I have four children and have seen them catch what was going around in school for over twenty years. You on the other hand have a 3.5 month old daughter and relatively zero experience.

When we brought our infants to relative's houses, they were not sick with the flu or cold. Children are sent to school sick sometimes by parents like you whom are too busy in work and can't be bothered to stay home. You know, the career parents that are itching to drop their kids off and let others deal with the nuisance.

I understand that you and your wife have more important things to do at work than at home with your child.

This is just truly condescending, Mike. Did you stay at home and stop working for 4 years when any of your 4 kids were born? No, you didn't. So why do you expect myself or my wife to do so?

Itching to get back to work after 3.5 months. What a commitment and sacrifice. A whole 3.5 months drove your wife crazy.

Again, why the attitude? I didn't say she was itching to avoid our child...far from it. She broke down this weekend when she even thought about leaving her for a day in daycare. She can't even bring herself to go to drop her off that first day. What I actually said was that she is so ambitious that being a full-time babysitter for 4 years is not what she wants out of life. Sorry your wife thinks that's the end-all-be-all of human existence...my mother long ago said that she made a choice, and it was either work full-time to provide a second income and a better life or stay home and be in financial constraints for our entire childhood. What's great is that daycare provided me with A) a stronger immune system than staying in a bubble at home, B) a greater aptitude because I wasn't babied and C) a support system of friends such that I wasn't an outcast once I did enter school. That extra income allowed me to branch out into extracurricular activities, go on international trips on 4 different continents, broaden my horizons beyond only the state in which I lived, be the only person in the whole group to not call my parents on these trips because I was taught to be so self-reliant, be able to handle a credit card at age 13, become ambitious enough to apply for and get an internship at a Fortune 500 company after my freshman year, get an amazing full-time job during the last economic recession (summer post-9/11), not EVER see my parents as filling specific gender roles (i.e. dad breadwinner, mom cook & cleaner), and most importantly seek out a woman that's as ambitious as I am in order to provide the best life for our child(ren). Sorry that you have such an uninspired mate, but I LOVE the fact that we can be silly, loving parents to our child and provide for her while she naps the morning and afternoons in child care, continuing to get exclusively breast milk (that should make you happy) while at the same time growing physically and mentally instead of being trapped in a makeshift home prison system for 4 years.

Speaking from experience, children often get sick from other children at school.

Yeah, it's never the parents who have hundreds of contacts with people per day at their workplace. It's never the shopping cart at the grocery store that they put their hands all over or your home toilet/sink (two of the WORST places for germs).

When we brought our infants to relative's houses, they were not sick with the flu or cold.

Yeah, it's amazing how you can tell everyone's sickness/not sickness and how you can assess whether they can transfer germs just by looking at them. When you get the flu or cold, does it present symptoms the moment you encounter the germ? Nope. It takes a few days to proliferate to the point where outward symptoms begin to show. So you know for a fact that none of your relatives EVER were sick within days after seeing your child? How can you tell they had no dangerous microbes in them that they couldn't transfer to your infants? You don't.

Children are sent to school sick sometimes by parents like you whom are too busy in work and can't be bothered to stay home.

I love, love, LOVE generalization! So you're telling me that a stay-at-home parent never sent their kid to school sick? Get over yourself.

I have four children and have seen them catch what was going around in school for over twenty years. You on the other hand have a 3.5 month old daughter and relatively zero experience.

I have as much experience with a 3.5 month old as you had with a 3.5 month old.

You're going to debate who has more experience in parenting? That so like penguin.

You have trouble with reading comprehension? That's the problem with you, you take what I write, then spin it to fit your pre-determined viewpoint. What I said was true. You cannot debate it.

When does a mother consider taking care of her children as a babysitter position? It's called being a mother or parent-not a babysitter.

When your job is taking care of a child, no matter if it's your own or not, it's a baby-sitting job. And I suppose you're less of a mother if you work for a living and have someone else diaper your infant while you pursue your career? How 19th century is that? So I guess you NEVER had someone watch your child before they hit age 4? Gimme a break and get off your pedestal.

Geez, I thought being a mother was an important full time job.

As if you're "mothering" while the child is sleeping 18 hours a day. Gimme a break.

I guess your wife is too ambitious to be stuck in such a worthless position.

She helps the less fortunate children in our county and you're telling me that diapering a child is more important? Where are your priorities?

Wait until your daughter realizes that she can manipulate her guilty mother. You'll have a full time job with a bratty kid in no time.

It's as if you didn't even read the research I gave you (no surprise there) that stated that working parents breed more intelligent, healthy children who are more socially adjusted. You know what happens when you overburden and smother a child? They rebel. You know what happens when you baby a child beyond a reasonable age? They become entitled. It's not a "working mother" vs. "stay at home" mother issue.

So now you're an expert on: science, parenting, child psychology...is there anything you're not good at? Oh yeah, reading the CURRENT research on these topics, where it's okay to have a child in daycare, it's okay for a mother to work for a living, etc.

Get in the DeLorean and go back to the 1950s where your brain is at. Mothers have careers...just because you raised your child in one stubborn way of thinking doesn't mean it is the correct way.

hey pesky, it's dbl.

mike thinks it's scientific to be myopic to the point of obsession then pull the wounded warrior card when someone challenges his view of the universe. is that wrong?

Is it funny to provoke parents with disabled children? You said it was awesome.

You said its entertaining to watch others provoke and get a rise out of a parent with a handicapped child. To you, this is awesome entertainment. Do I have to repost again?

Then you said my son's picture was creepy. I think he is handsome. He may be handicapped, but he still is my adorable son. Maybe funny to you, but I'm not laughing.

cassivella might've been getting at that it's weird you use a picture of your kid on a PUBLIC discussion board.

i said that it was creepy your profile picture is your kid. meaning that i think you're creepy for using your kid as your profile picture. if you're going to tear my words apart at least try to get the meaning somewhat right.

and why the hell are you targeting me? i didn't say it was funny to provoke parents of disabled kids.

Mike, we've pointed out some of the flaws in your theory, and you attack us. Why the vitriol? Is it because you can't answer the questions we have without regurgitating the sentences from the one or two papers that you read? Why a 4:1 ratio of boys to girls with autism if it's due to DHA/ARA? Why is your son's case not related to genetics at all, as you stated? Why can't genetics be the cause, with DHA/ARA being a trigger only? If there are literally "thousands of genes" altered by DHA/ARA in both autistic and "normal" people, why is it causing autism in less than 1% of these cases? Isn't it possible that it only 'creates' autism if there are susceptible genes primed for a response? I'm not doubting that proteins are altered by DHA/ARA...I'm just saying that you don't have evidence that these alterations cause autism, especially if they're found in everyone, not just those that are autistic.

Again, stop the personal attacks, and shut us up with actual answers to these questions (in your own words, please, not a regurgitation of other people's studies). If you can't explain why these questions of ours are invalid, perhaps you're the one that doesn't understand the studies, not us.

Btw, I also think it's creepy that you're using your son's picture to gain some sort of public sentiment for your point of view. You may think your son is "adorable", but you're also the one who called him "diseased" because of his condition, which is flat out cruel. You've criticized our opinions on the disorder, called us names, and criticized my parenting skills, as if you're the best parent in the world (spending all your time online complaining about your son's condition instead of playing with and teaching your disabled son -- now THAT is great parenting!). Stop the attacks, and answer your critics if you truly believe in your theory. If you can't defend your position from simple science majors online, that's not our fault. No wonder a judge shot you down twice? You call them "morons" on your way out the door too?

Mike, you're calling others autistic and morons and idiots and NOW you're getting defensive? Maybe we should be calling you "hypocrite".

Instead of arguing about who called who what, maybe you should explain how you know for a fact (your words not mine) that your son only got autism from formula, how genetics were not involved, and how this theory explains the 4:1 ratio of boys to girls with this disorder.

Yeah, except that a huge portion of this theory is that genetics are involved. I.e. your genome is a prerequisite for the expression of these conditions. Too bad your theory for your son completely dismisses the notion of genetics being involved.

Again, if it's not genetic, how is a 4:1 ratio of boys to girls even possible?

It's too bad for you that this STILL involves genetics...what the theory says is that the environment affects how our genes are expressed, but if you have altered genes to begin with, disorders like autism, schizophrenia, etc. can be expressed...without those altered genes, those disorders cannot occur, no matter what our environment gives us. It's not telling you that the environment can turn a normal gene into autistic expression, Mike, it's telling you that the environment can trigger gene expression, so while you're not predestined for anything, the environment can determine whether or not these things are expressed. BUT YOU STILL HAVE TO HAVE THE PREREQUISITES FOR THE DISORDERS IN YOUR DNA!!!! The theory does not say "normal DNA will turn into autism based on the environment". It says "if you've got the prerequisites in your DNA, then your environment may determine whether or not these differences get expressed". Meaning: Genetics is STILL the root cause, with environmental triggers. Once again, thank you for not understanding the research (or again taking it out-of-context) -- you're only aiding my statements more!

Again, I'm not saying the environment may not be involved. What I'm saying is that the environment can't do $#!T to our DNA to make these neurological disorders occur unless we have the prerequisites in our DNA.

The theory is of gene expression, not gene alteration, Mike. With this theory, different genes are expressed based on the environment, but the genes for these disorders still have to be present in the first place to be expressed!!! Your lack of reading comprehension is astounding...maybe you should quit before you embarrass yourself further -- your lack of a biochemistry background is clearly evident.

which i explained that one time i asked you what you knew about epigenetics, mike.

read up on the histone code and the long term consequences of the modifications.

Oxidative damage to RNA has been reported in animal models of aging, human neurodegeneration and UV-irradiated cells. There is also growing evidence that oxidative RNA damage can lead to defects in protein synthesis, including decreased rates of protein synthesis and the production of aggregated and truncated peptides.
Under most conditions, the bulk of cellular oxidative damage is a result of reactive oxygen species (ROS) formation due to metabolic reactions. Multiple steps in the electron transport chain involve a free radical semiquinone anion (^•Q⁻) that can react with oxygen to form the superoxide radical (O₂⁻). The cell eliminates this superoxide radical through the action of superoxide dismutase to form hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂), followed by enzymatically catalyzed reduction of H₂O₂ to H₂O and O₂ (reviewed in Finkel and Holbrook, 2000). However, the reaction of H₂O₂ with intracellular iron in the form of Fe²⁺ and Fe³⁺ can lead to a cascade of radical chemistry through the Fenton and Haber-Weiss reactions and the production of ROS, including the highly reactive hydroxyl radical (^•OH) (reviewed in Halliwell and Gutteridge, 1984).
The reaction of ROS with free nucleobases, nucleosides, nucleotides or oligonucleotides can create numerous distinct modifications in RNA (Figure 2; Barciszewski et al., 1999). In studies of DNA, guanine bases have been shown to be particularly reactive, and a major product observed in vitro and in vivo is 8-oxo-7,8-dihydro-2′-deoxyguanosine (8-oxodG) (Cadet et al., 2007; Ravanat et al., 2001). In vivo studies of RNA oxidation (discussed below) have also detected 8-oxo-7,8-dihydroguanosine (8-oxoG) in RNA through the use of HPLC-MS/MS and immunocytochemistry, indicating that this common oxidative modification to DNA occurs in RNA as well. The formation of 8-oxoG occurs by reaction of guanine with the ^•OH radical followed by oxidation, or by reaction of guanine with singlet oxygen ¹O₂ followed by reduction (Cadet et al., 2007). Oxidation of other nucleobases is also possible (Cadet et al., 2007), and at least two other modifications have been identified in yeast RNA (Yanagawa et al., 1992).

yes we know that free radicals chomp down on anything they can. some of us have taken organic chem and biochem. is rehashing the same material over and over supposed to prove you have something concrete without actually investigating your hypothesis in a lab?

i honestly have no idea where you think i could have said that. did i not say that free radicals chomp down on anything they can? pretty sure i said that some of those are derived from peroxidation, too.

if that damage is too extensive, it's more likely to trigger apoptosis or necrosis of the cells exposed. you show me that ROS' are intelligent enough to attack the developing brain to cause autism and at the most some of the GI tissue, all without touching anything else, then feel free to share because that'd be an impressive finding.

exogenous triggers can cause DNA damage. DNA can also be damaged through replication mistakes that aren't fixed or cocked up genes that are just inherited down the line. epigenetic control in the context of the histone code says that the histones that follow patterns of methylation are going to pass through the generations.

i'm saying that if your genes are cocked up already because of damage to previous generations, that's strike 1. encounter some environmental damage that screws it up more, that'd be strike 2. have some hardwired epigenetic patterns that aren't all that great that's strike 3. the thing is that you can have a crapload of strikes against you before anything does or doesn't happen. you can't discount funky damaged DNA regions that already exist then say "ohhh! ohhh! free radicals cause DNA and protein damage that affects reguatory pathways! that's obviously the cause of autism!" you're the one that brought up epigenetics, feel free to apply it in the context it was meant for. epigenetic patterns are genetic. since they're genetic they're passed from parent to offspring. therefore if something funky was happening in mom or dad's gene pool, that might not be all that great for junior. if the free radicals go after some epigenetically controlled regions, they might flip the switch and turn them on or off depending on the methylation patterns. key thing there - they were already there to begin with.

i'll give you a B- for effort, but a solid C for reading comprehension.

See that is what you got to understand. The difference between Enzymatic and non-ezymatic peroxidation of DHA. Two opposing effects. Double edged sword. Neuroprotective/ Neurotoxic.

so then what are you basing your big hypothesis on? cell death or cell hyperplasia?

are the metabolites cranking up proliferation or triggering damage induced inflammation mediated necrosis?

"so then what are you basing your big hypothesis on?"

Condescending

no, legitimate curiosity to a question you've yet to answer coherently.

comment #21.1, paragraph 3, line 1 reads as follows: exogenous triggers can cause DNA damage.

same comment, paragraph 5, line 1 also reads as follows: i'll give you a B- for effort, but a solid C for reading comprehension.

Thanks professor. What college do you teach at? You're using what you wrote as peer reviewed scientific information. Please post peer reviewed science that reveals how DNA damage only occurs if it is predisposed to do so. Show where oxidation will not cause normal DNA to become damaged. From peer reviewed studies.

are you really that thick? exogenous = external, trigger = cause. exogenous triggers can cause DNA damage. rearrange that sentence and you get external causes can trigger DNA damage. mix that with what i said earlier about free radicals going after anything they can, and you get free radicals acting as exogenous triggers can cause DNA damage.

for the record, this is condescending. asking you to explain what you think is going on in one complete thought is called scientific inquiry. questioning your method isn't condescending, it's critical review.

no, he was trying to say that not everyone is born perfect with a pristine set of genes. if there was damage or a weird configuration already present, there's damage or a weird configuration present. if you have a normal genome and sit in a tanning bed for 48 hours straight or walk in front of a gamma ray gun, that's gonna cause degrees of DNA damage too. what he was getting at is that you can't discount the configurations that were already there.

I never did. Never will. I have said from day one, some autistic individuals are no doubt born autistic. There is certainly a genetic predisposition towards autism. But that in no way means that this is always the case. Penguin will argue that because we have DNA, this DNA is damaged in some way to cause autism.

Honestly, I have grown very tired on defending my position with him. I try to show him how excessive oxidative damage via dysregulation of the Nrf2/ARE pathway may cause extensive neuronal damage.

Hey man. if you fed your infant LCPUFAs that were structurally modified, and these modifications could contribute to excessive oxidation and associated damage, would you want to let others know?

okay, we're making some headway.

now the reason i think that we're all getting on your case, and i'm speaking from my own point of view, is that getting hit with quips from articles is just saying that you've read them. what i'm looking for, in a single post without any confrontations, is how you think things are happening. going from step one i'm looking for a full on pathway outline of what you think the step wise mechanism is for what you're getting at. A to B to C and so on. from the start of the radical proliferation onward. this is industry standard, i'm not trying to be rude.

before you go on and say i'm being condescending, this is me with my inquisitive hat on. i'm a curious person, i went into science to figure things out and learn since i'm smart enough to admit i don't know everything.

and yeah, if i were feeding my nonexistent kids something that had the potential to harm them i would want to know about it. but i'm also the kind of person that would want to know why and how it could harm them. don't take this the wrong way, but i'm the type of person that actually wants to see the fire before freaking out when someone screams there is one.

"and yeah, if i were feeding my nonexistent kids something that had the potential to harm them i would want to know about it. but i'm also the kind of person that would want to know why and how it could harm them. don't take this the wrong way, but i'm the type of person that actually wants to see the fire before freaking out when someone screams there is one."

That's fair. I believe, based on peer reviewed info that I have provided, that such ingredients like carrageenan, may cause some infants intestinal cell damage and symptoms of inflammatory bowel disease. I have read complaints filed through the FDA's FOIA from parents whom have seen this occur in their children.Carrageenan is widely used to promote inflammation in the lab. Also known to degrade in to poligeenan (classified as a carcinogen). How exactly an infant's digestive system may degrade carrageenan is not known.

This one ingredient should raise several red flags. Judging by the number of specialty formulas designed to alleviate symptoms of inflammatory bowel disease, there appears to be need to correct these digestive issues experienced by many infants. So we have manufacturers adding probiotics and partially digested "comfort proteins" and what not, to alleviate issues that may be caused by ingredients such as carrageenan and palm olein.

I understand the importance of not yelling fire unless one sees it. But then again, we can't disregard the smell of smoke that should warn to get out of harm's way. The system that provides safety of infant formula ingredients is broken. Much like a smoke detector with dead batteries. Some kids are being tossed into the fire.