"This is a quote from it:- 'People with autism are also known to suffer from gastrointestinal disorders.'
Oh really?? Then why were Wakefield et al vilified by the UK medical establishment and struck off by the GMC for first noticing this link? Professor's Murch and Walker Smith were only doing their jobs in attempting to help and treat those Lancet and other children, including my grandson."
-----I show in my previous post that Yap et al. relied heavily on research either by Wakefield and on other research that relied heavily on Wakefield's while ignoring more recent research disconfirming the gut-autism connection.
"hey certainly seem to know what is going on. Hard to square this paper with the notion that "science has spoken" and we're just a bunch of whack-jobs."
--Not once you look at the discredited science the paper is based on.
"I’m grateful the truth is getting out, but also angry as I’m sure the hard work of ARI, Dr. Wakefield, and our DAN doctors will be swept completely under the rug."
--There's precious little truth here. Yap et al. relied on science that they had to know was shaky at best, then appear to have chosen a sample that confirmed their theory. And then one researcher went out and spoke to the media and went far beyond the scope of the study in his comments.
"Um. I think I've just entered the twighlight zone!
So Dr. Wakefield looked at autistic children and saw GI disorders, got his article retracted and stripped of his medical license.
OK ..... So the Imperial College London says, "They have found that children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) also suffer from disorders in their gut."
OK ...... So Dr. Wakefield said that, gee we should study this further, and then Imperial College London says "We recognize that more work needs to be carried out in this area."
I feel really weird right now, do you?"
Yap et al. relied on Wakefield's studies or studies that relied on Wakefield's studies.
"The GMC will have to be eating their words in a matter of weeks. I can't believe the crap they put him through and yet garbage autism prevalence studies such as Fombonnes' and Thorsens' get the green light. It is infuriating and such a double standard!! What a joke."
Here's why attempting to comment definitively on a study based on a media report about a study without looking at the study itself is a bad idea. It makes you offer up comments like the above. Also, the media report in the Telegraph shows why science reporters ought to take a couple hours out of their time to read the study and look at the studies it uses as backup; you know, what I spent my afternoon doing.