 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / December 2005New familial autism link discovered
23/11/05 - Health news section Autism family link discovered Relatives of people with autism who do not have the disorder themselves may still display behaviours and brain differences linked to the condition, scientists have found. The discovery could make it easier to spot families at risk of having an autistic child. It could also help in the quest to identify the genetic and environmental triggers for the condition, characterised by emotional detachment and an inability to relate to others. Dr Eric Peterson, from the University of Colorado in Denver, USA, compared the brain scans of 40 parents with autistic children with those of 40 matched parents whose children were normal. The parents of autistic children shared several differences in brain structure with their offspring. These included an unexpected increase in the size of the motor cortex and basal ganglia, both areas linked to movement planning and imitation. The neighbouring somatosensory cortex, by contrast, was smaller than average. This region is important for understanding social information such as facial expressions - a skill autistic people often lack. There were also reductions in the cerebellum, important for co-ordinating movement, and a frontal region thought to play a key role in understanding the intentions of others. Another study led by Brendon Nacewicz, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison Medical School in the United States, tested for avoidance of eye contact, a common feature of autism. While parents seemed normal in this respect, brothers of autistic children avoided eye contact just as strongly as their affected siblings. Find this story at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/thehealthnews.html?in_arti cle_id=369547&in_page_id=1797 ©2005 Associated New Media Thanks for bringing this to us. This type of research has the potential to help a lot of people in the future. Jeff > 23/11/05 - Health news section > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > Find this story at > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/thehealthnews.html?in_arti cle_id=369547&in_page_id=1797 Eric D. Peterson, M.D., F.A.C.C., Associate Professor of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. Received research grants from Millenium, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Schering-Plough, and CV Therapeutics. On the speakers' bureaus for Millennium and Schering-Plough. (Circulation. 2004;110:2506-49.) *** All of these companies make vaccines. TC >>23/11/05 - Health news section >> [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > All of these companies make vaccines. So? The Dr. Peterson that the articles refers to is in *Colorado* named Eric Peter Peterson, MD, and the bullshit you posted refers to Eric David Peterson, MD, the cardiologist. Of course, the other Dr. Eric W. Peterson, the psychiatrist, also in North Carolina, may have been the one...nope...his middle intial is 'W'. If this shoots a big hole in your conspiracy theory crap, please learn to live with it. > > Eric D. Peterson, M.D., F.A.C.C., Associate Professor of Medicine, Duke > > University Medical Center, Durham, NC. Received research grants from [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Peterson, the psychiatrist, also in North Carolina, may have been the > one...nope...his middle intial is 'W'. I noticed that and was in the process of double-checking it. You are correct and I apologize to the readers in this ng and Dr Peterson from Colorado. TC >>>Eric D. Peterson, M.D., F.A.C.C., Associate Professor of Medicine, Duke >>>University Medical Center, Durham, NC. Received research grants from [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > correct and I apologize to the readers in this ng and Dr Peterson from > Colorado. When the name is common, checking is necessary. There are even multiple me's. >>>>Eric D. Peterson, M.D., F.A.C.C., Associate Professor of Medicine, Duke >>>>University Medical Center, Durham, NC. Received research grants from [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > When the name is common, checking is necessary. There are even multiple > me's. But only ONY Mark S. Probert in NY. The one that was D I S B A R R E D. >>>>>Eric D. Peterson, M.D., F.A.C.C., Associate Professor of Medicine, Duke >>>>>University Medical Center, Durham, NC. Received research grants from [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > But only ONY Mark S. Probert in NY. There are people who do not show up on databases, telephone searches, etc. Thus, you do not really know squat. >>>>>Eric D. Peterson, M.D., F.A.C.C., Associate Professor of Medicine, Duke >>>>>University Medical Center, Durham, NC. Received research grants from [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > The one that was D I S B A R R E D. Oh, and you forgot to acknowledge your error as TC did. Do you have any intellectual honesty???? ...>>> >>>When the name is common, checking is necessary. There are even multiple >>>me's. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Oh, and you forgot to acknowledge your error as TC did. Do you have any > intellectual honesty???? There seems to be an epidemic of misidentifications and attempts at cyber stalking this weekend by anti-vax folk, it is happening in blogs. It seems when the facts do not go the way they want them, they throw a hissy fit. > ...>>> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > stalking this weekend by anti-vax folk, it is happening in blogs. It seems > when the facts do not go the way they want them, they throw a hissy fit. So I have noticed. It is amazing how the anti-vacs have come up with yet another way to silence their opposition. > But only ONY Mark S. Probert in NY. > > The one that was D I S B A R R E D. Jan, you are not G-d, and only G-d knows who is guilty. >> But only ONY Mark S. Probert in NY. >> >> The one that was D I S B A R R E D. > > Jan, you are not G-d, and only G-d knows who is guilty. Umm, NO. That won't work. This is NOT a murder case. This has been PROVEN IN BLACK AND WHITE. In the Matter of Mark Probert (Admitted as Mark S. Probert), a Suspended Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Petitioner. 92-02731 SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT 183 A.D.2d 282; 590 N.Y.S.2d 747 November 9, 1992, Decided PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District. Respondent was admitted to the Bar on February 15, 1978, at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, under the name Mark S. Probert. DISPOSITION: Ordered that the petitioner's motion to impose discipline upon the respondent based upon his failure to appear or answer is granted; and it is further, HEADNOTES: Attorney and Client - Disciplinary Proceedings Respondent attorney, who is charged with 22 counts of failing to cooperate with investigations of alleged misconduct by the Grievance Committee, and who has failed to answer or appear, is disbarred. COUNSEL: Frank A. Finnerty, Jr., Westbury (Muriel L. Gennosa of counsel), for petitioner. JUDGES: Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur. Ordered that the petitioner's motion to impose discipline upon the respondent based upon his failure to appear or answer is granted; and it is further, Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, the respondent, Mark Probert, is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further, Ordered that the respondent shall continue to comply with this Court's rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended and resigned attorneys (22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further, Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary [***2] Law § 90, the respondent, Mark Probert, is commanded to continue to desist and refrain (1) from practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another, (2) from appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission or other public authority, (3) from giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) from holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law. OPINIONBY: Per Curiam. OPINION: [*282] [**747] By decision and order of this Court dated September 29, 1989, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law until the further order of this Court based upon his failure to cooperate with the Grievance Committee. By further order of this Court dated June 4, 1992, the Grievance Committee was authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding [*283] against the respondent and the Honorable Moses M. Weinstein was appointed as Special Referee. [**748] A notice of petition and petition was personally served upon the respondent on July 2, 1992. No answer was forthcoming. The petitioner now moves to hold the [***3] respondent in default. The motion was personally served upon the respondent on August 14, 1992. The respondent has failed to submit any papers in response to the default motion. The charges involve 22 counts of the respondent's failure to cooperate with the Grievance Committee in its investigations into complaints of professional misconduct. The charges, if established, would require the imposition of a disciplinary sanction against the respondent. Since the respondent has chosen not to appear or answer in these proceedings, the charges must be deemed established. The petitioner's motion to hold the respondent in default and impose discipline is, therefore, granted. Accordingly, the respondent is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective immediately >>>But only ONY Mark S. Probert in NY. >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Umm, NO. That won't work. This is NOT a murder case. Yes, Jan it is a murder case. YOU are murdering logic, truth and the American Way. > This has been PROVEN IN BLACK AND WHITE. No, Jan, it has not been proven that I am the person referred to by you and your handler. Therefore, Jan, you post this only to stalk, harrass and abuse me. > Therefore, Jan, you post this only to stalk, harass and abuse me. I saw a movie on cable, Mark, about you people called "Molly." In the movie, Mark got his head cut open. After a brief period of sanity, Mark eventually reverted back to being a vegetable. That explains a lot about you Mark. Forget to take your psychotropic medications today, Mark? Cannot make up your mind if you are autistic or have ADHD, can you? You have my condolences. >>Therefore, Jan, you post this only to stalk, harass and abuse me. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Forget to take your psychotropic medications today, Mark? Nope. I do not take such medications. I guess you are projecting. > Cannot make up your mind if you are autistic or have ADHD, can you? Unlike you, I have a mind that I can make up. > You have my condolences. Keep them. You will need them. > Unlike you, I have a mind that I can make up. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/msg/07d6a11aa8c2c6ec 22 counts of misconduct to get your a.s disbarred, Mark? No, that is right. You were too gutless to show up in court. You have my condolences, Coward. Just my opinion, but I got a good laugh out of your predicament. Ha, ... Hah, Ha! How stupid can you get? Oh, I know! As stupid as Mark Probert is. Ha, ... Hah, Ha! >>Unlike you, I have a mind that I can make up. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Just my opinion, but I got a good laugh out of your predicament. The predicament that is funny is that you exist, and Jan posts untruths like her handler tells her to. > Ha, ... Hah, Ha! > > How stupid can you get? you set the standard, and I will never try to equal that. > Oh, I know! As stupid as Mark Probert is. >>>Eric D. Peterson, M.D., F.A.C.C., Associate Professor of Medicine, Duke >>>University Medical Center, Durham, NC. Received research grants from [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > TC Kudo's to you! How often have we not seen in this/these newsgroup(s) that an error was pointed out to a poster and all we got back were cursing and insults. This reaction is most refreshing. >>>> Eric D. Peterson, M.D., F.A.C.C., Associate Professor of Medicine, Duke >>>> University Medical Center, Durham, NC. Received research grants from [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > that an error was pointed out to a poster and all we got back were > cursing and insults. This reaction is most refreshing. It is a credibility raising action. >>>23/11/05 - Health news section >>> >>>Autism family link discovered <snipped to save space> >>>Another study led by Brendon Nacewicz, from the University of >>>Wisconsin-Madison Medical School in the United States, tested for >>>avoidance of eye contact, a common feature of autism. Eye contact is a culture specific thing. Not in every country children are taught this way. In is not necessarily an indication of autistic tendencies. >>>While parents seemed normal in this respect, brothers of autistic >>>children avoided eye contact just as strongly as their affected [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > If this shoots a big hole in your conspiracy theory crap, please learn > to live with it. Does not look like a response to the comment "all these companies make vaccines". And this fact is very relevant. It is like Philip Morris financing a study on genetics of lung cancer. Would the researchers find "familial links"? Most likely, yes. When a patient comes to a doctor's office for the first time, he/she must answer questions about family history of diseases, including heart disease, cancer etc. All of them have genetic components. Autism is no exception. Of course such a hypothetical study of lung cancer genetics would be a distraction from other causes. So it is no wonder that vaccine manufacturers finance a study leading away from environmental causes of autism. And the latest increase in autism can have only environmental causes becauses the genes do not mutate that fast. > >>>23/11/05 - Health news section > >>> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > autism. And the latest increase in autism can have only environmental > causes becauses the genes do not mutate that fast. All disease is a composite of genetics and environment. It is rare to have all of one or the other. > All disease is a composite of genetics and environment. It is rare to have > all of one or the other. Of course, and I said that autism does have a genetic component. The point is, I was talking about INCREASE in autism. The incidence increased 15-fold in the last 15 years. This increase can have only environmental causes. Humans cannot just all of a sudden become more genetically predisposed to autism, or cancer for that matter. The genes do not mutate that fast. If say the number of people getting cancer sharply increases then it would be an indication of something wrong in the environment. >>All disease is a composite of genetics and environment. It is rare to have >>all of one or the other. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > increased 15-fold in the last 15 years. This increase can have only > environmental causes. We have discussed that, and you never, ever, refuted what I showed you to be the situation. Please continue to lie like that. Humans cannot just all of a sudden become more > genetically predisposed to autism, or cancer for that matter. The genes do > not mutate that fast. If say the number of people getting cancer sharply > increases then it would be an indication of something wrong in the > environment. >>>All disease is a composite of genetics and environment. It is rare to have >>>all of one or the other. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > We have discussed that, and you never, ever, refuted what I showed you > to be the situation. Please continue to lie like that. What did you show? That there is no increase? The most you could claim to show is that maybe the increase is somewhat smaller. Even then it is still by hundreds of percent. Until you find a serious study unequivocally stating that there is no increase please continue to lie like that. >>>>All disease is a composite of genetics and environment. It is rare to have >>>>all of one or the other. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > show is that maybe the increase is somewhat smaller. Even then it is still > by hundreds of percent. You have a short memory. > Until you find a serious study unequivocally stating that there is no > increase please continue to lie like that. Unequivocally? Absurd standard since anti-vacs like you will always equivocate. >>>>>All disease is a composite of genetics and environment. It is rare to have >>>>>all of one or the other. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > You have a short memory. No, I remember, it was an article by Dr.Laidler, your fellow Quackwatch.com brother-in-arms. He argued that the Dept of Education data is not reliable. He did not even claim that autism is not on the rise, only that USDE data cannot be used. Even if he were right, it would not refute anything, it would be one fewer piece of evidence. School and medical professionals who have been around for 15 years know that increased incidence is a fact. Many people who would not even hear the word autism before know it today because a relative's or friend's child has it. A question to a casual reader over 35: when did you hear about autism the first time? Did your parents hear about autism before 1990? I wonder what would be Dr.Laidler's arguments if CDC data is released. Or if the rates start to go down. >> Until you find a serious study unequivocally stating that there is no >> increase please continue to lie like that. > > Unequivocally? Absurd standard since anti-vacs like you will always > equivocate. The standard for calling somebody a liar (which you did) is to present an unequivocal proof. Yes, it is that high. Too high for professional posters, I guess. >>>>>>All disease is a composite of genetics and environment. It is rare to have >>>>>>all of one or the other. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > I wonder what would be Dr.Laidler's arguments if CDC data is released. Or > if the rates start to go down. Like I said, you do have a short memory. I never mentioned Laidler. Here is a clue: I discussed the special education process in depth. I know I can bring an anti-vac to a clue, but I cannot make them think. >>>Until you find a serious study unequivocally stating that there is no >>>increase please continue to lie like that. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > unequivocal proof. Yes, it is that high. Too high for professional > posters, I guess. Who is a professional poster? If you alleged that it is me, you should post some real facts. If not, admit you lied. > Like I said, you do have a short memory. I never mentioned Laidler. > > Here is a clue: I discussed the special education process in depth. Maybe you did it in another thread that I did not see. I am not reading this NG every day. You could post a message id. > I know I can bring an anti-vac to a clue, but I cannot make them think. Flawed logic. Should be "I cannot help them memorize" but you apparently do not know the difference. >> The standard for calling somebody a liar (which you did) is to present an >> unequivocal proof. Yes, it is that high. Too high for professional >> posters, I guess. > > Who is a professional poster? If you alleged that it is me, you should > post some real facts. If not, admit you lied. 53 postings on Nov. 18 50 postings on Nov. 19 58 postings on Nov. 20 38 postings on Nov. 21 Most of it during business hours. Looks professional to me. Who can afford making so many posts from work? Of course I cannot prove you are getting paid for that. But "professional" does not necessarily mean getting paid. Actually I see fewer posts of yours yesterday and today. Maybe you are not a professional, maybe you spent a vacation posting away. Will see. >>Like I said, you do have a short memory. I never mentioned Laidler. >> >>Here is a clue: I discussed the special education process in depth. > > Maybe you did it in another thread that I did not see. I am not reading > this NG every day. You could post a message id. You could use Google. >>I know I can bring an anti-vac to a clue, but I cannot make them think. > > Flawed logic. Should be "I cannot help them memorize" but you apparently > do not know the difference. I sure do know the difference. I memorize good poetry, and analyze facts, not vice versa. >>>The standard for calling somebody a liar (which you did) is to present an >>>unequivocal proof. Yes, it is that high. Too high for professional [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 58 postings on Nov. 20 > 38 postings on Nov. 21 I see that you have a lot of time on your hands....however, the number of posts is not determinative of any issue. > Most of it during business hours. Looks professional to me. A temporal coincidence...no, wait...I am at work doing what I get paid to do...by myself...since I own the business and am now in a period where I have some excellent staff that needs minimum oversight... Who can > afford making so many posts from work? Business owners, especially ones who make very brief posts. Your counting is irreelvant. Of course I cannot prove you are > getting paid for that. But "professional" does not necessarily mean > getting paid. Of course it does. Being a professional at anything means you are remunerated for performing that service. > Actually I see fewer posts of yours yesterday and today. Maybe you > are not a professional, maybe you spent a vacation posting away. Will see. Of course you will see...but your ability to analyze is in dire need of a tune up. Mark Probert is Obsessed, he simply could not win a case in court, was disbarred. Comes here to work out his many frustrations. Tells LIES all day long, one being he owns his own business and has the time to post here all day. Any *GOOD* business owner, takes care of business, and does NOT have the time to post here all day. He has done this for years. Not only on the newsgroup, but on MANY others. What you counted, was ONLY on this newsgroup. Mark is a PROVEN LIAR. Sadly this IS his life. >> Like I said, you do have a short memory. I never mentioned Laidler. >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Actually I see fewer posts of yours yesterday and today. Maybe you > are not a professional, maybe you spent a vacation posting away. Will see. >Mark Probert is Obsessed, he simply could not win a case in court, was >disbarred. Jan often complains when people change the subject to her saying "The subject is not Jan". Jan Drew has said it is always wrong to belittle. Jan Drew says she is a Christian. The bible says "Judge not, lest you be judged" and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Cue Jan to ignore her egregious hypocrisy and instead accuse me of cyberstalking. Aloha, Rich ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance > Mark Probert is Obsessed, he simply could not win a case in court, was > disbarred. Comes here to work out his many frustrations. Tells LIES all day [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > newsgroup, but on MANY others. What you counted, was ONLY on this newsgroup. > Mark is a PROVEN LIAR. Sadly this IS his life. Once again Jan gratuitously trashes and harasses me to demonstrate her obsessions. >>>Like I said, you do have a short memory. I never mentioned Laidler. >>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >>Actually I see fewer posts of yours yesterday and today. Maybe you >>are not a professional, maybe you spent a vacation posting away. Will see. I think the next Star Trek movie should involve the Borg again. Only this time, the Federation will have the final solution. Jean-Luc will take the Enterprise back to 2005 where they'll kidnap Jan, put her in a cell with a level 10 force field, and bring her back to their time. They will then lock her in a shuttle craft with no transporter and send the ship out to meet the Borg all by herself. When she gets to them they'll assimilate her and within seconds the entire Borg Collective will disintegrate. > I think the next Star Trek movie should involve the Borg again. Only > this time, the Federation will have the final solution. Jean-Luc will [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > they'll assimilate her and within seconds the entire Borg Collective > will disintegrate. What a disgusting thing to do to the Borg. >> Mark Probert is Obsessed, he simply could not win a case in court, was >> disbarred. Comes here to work out his many frustrations. Tells LIES all [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Once again Jan gratuitously trashes and harasses me to demonstrate her > obsessions. Once again, Mark CONTINUES to blame others for HIS failures, his OBSESSIONS. >>>>Like I said, you do have a short memory. I never mentioned Laidler. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >>>are not a professional, maybe you spent a vacation posting away. Will >>>see. >>>Mark Probert is Obsessed, he simply could not win a case in court, was >>>disbarred. Comes here to work out his many frustrations. Tells LIES all [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Once again, Mark CONTINUES to blame others for HIS failures, his OBSESSIONS. Yes, Jan, I confess. I have failed, and failed miserably. I thought I could help you learn to be a decent person and how to understand facts. I even suggested books for you to obtain and study. Could I send you slightly used Chemistry review books for Christmas? >>>>>Like I said, you do have a short memory. I never mentioned Laidler. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >>>>are not a professional, maybe you spent a vacation posting away. Will >>>>see. > Mark Probert is Obsessed, he simply could not win a case in court, was > disbarred. Comes here to work out his many frustrations. Tells LIES all day > long, one being he owns his own business and has the time to post here all > day. Any *GOOD* business owner, takes care of business, and does NOT have > the time to post here all day. He has done this for years. Not only on the > newsgroup, but on MANY others. What you counted, was ONLY on this newsgroup. Jan ignores crossposting, just to trash me. > Mark is a PROVEN LIAR. Sadly this IS his life. Nope, dope, I have a fine one in addition to this. BTW, are you ever going to tell anyone about whether you ever contacted anyone about Mark Lowry outside of usenet? >>>Like I said, you do have a short memory. I never mentioned Laidler. >>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >>Actually I see fewer posts of yours yesterday and today. Maybe you >>are not a professional, maybe you spent a vacation posting away. Will see. > JanD wrote: >> Mark Probert is Obsessed, he simply could not win a case in court, was [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Jan ignores crossposting, just to trash me. Poor Mark. >> Mark is a PROVEN LIAR. Sadly this IS his life. > > Nope, dope, I have a fine one in addition to this. You CONTINUE to lie. A partial list of claims that YOU lied about. http://tinyurl.com/ago8r You knew you LIED, then you showed you had NO morals and Proved it, by posting this http://tinyurl.com/7dy79 > BTW, are you ever going to tell anyone about whether you ever contacted > anyone about Mark Lowry outside of usenet? http://tinyurl.com/drvdy Another mess YOU started A MHA Pool >>>>Like I said, you do have a short memory. I never mentioned Laidler. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >>>are not a professional, maybe you spent a vacation posting away. Will >>>see. >>>Mark Probert is Obsessed, he simply could not win a case in court, was >>>disbarred. Comes here to work out his many frustrations. Tells LIES all [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Poor Mark. Why "Poor Mark" when it was pathetic Jan who blatered without thought? >>>Mark is a PROVEN LIAR. Sadly this IS his life. >> >>Nope, dope, I have a fine one in addition to this. > > You CONTINUE to lie. Jan, I have a wonderful life, enjoy every minute. Just last weekend I attended the delightful Broadway show "Sweet Charity" and had a lovely dinner afterwards with several friends. On Sunday, I went back to NYC to be with my older son who was the recipient of a fairly prestigious award at his graduate program. This weekend I will have some old friends over for dinner and otherwise do some work around the house. The following weekend my younger son is competing in a regional wheelchair basketball tournament. I will also take him to the NJ Meadowlands on Sunday to see the NY Jets play. I know that they have a losing record, but, alas, we do support them in spite of it. I guess it is my Don Quixote spirit where I even try to educate you that keeps me at it. Later this month we are going to see Fiddler, one of my favorite musicals, with other friends who will be visiting NYC for the first time in years. Just to prove it to you, I have just held the ticket stub from Sweet Charity in front of my monitor. > A partial list of claims that YOU lied about. Actually, they would be better characterized as statements that I made as part of discussions where you selectively called me a liar because you are obsessed with that. > http://tinyurl.com/ago8r > > You knew you LIED, then you showed you had NO morals and Proved it, > by posting this > > http://tinyurl.com/7dy79 A part of the human anatomy cannot be immoral. >>BTW, are you ever going to tell anyone about whether you ever contacted >>anyone about Mark Lowry outside of usenet? > > http://tinyurl.com/drvdy Jan, that is not a diversion but the question that you will not answer. You are too much of an intellectual coward to admit what you did. You want honesty in others, and you will not own up to your Satanic actions. > Another mess YOU started > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >>>>are not a professional, maybe you spent a vacation posting away. Will >>>>see. >>>>Mark Probert is Obsessed, he simply could not win a case in court, was >>>>disbarred. Comes here to work out his many frustrations. Tells LIES all [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > but, alas, we do support them in spite of it. I guess it is my Don Quixote > spirit where I even try to educate you that keeps me at it. Good luck. The line is Denver -13. ;o) Rich > Later this month we are going to see Fiddler, one of my favorite musicals, > with other friends who will be visiting NYC for the first time in years. A friend of mine saw it last week. She says Rosie doe her role well. > Just to prove it to you, I have just held the ticket stub from Sweet > Charity in front of my monitor. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > A part of the human anatomy cannot be immoral. But parts of the anatomy can be used for immoral purposes, as Jan demonstrates every time she uses her fingers on the keyboard. >>>BTW, are you ever going to tell anyone about whether you ever contacted >>>anyone about Mark Lowry outside of usenet? [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >>>>>are not a professional, maybe you spent a vacation posting away. Will >>>>>see. >>>>>Mark Probert is Obsessed, he simply could not win a case in court, was >>>>>disbarred. Comes here to work out his many frustrations. Tells LIES all [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Good luck. The line is Denver -13. ;o) Rich I know. However, the time spent with my son is worth it. We take mass transit to the Meadowlands, since I refuse to deal with a parking lot that is the worst design in the world. It could take me just as long to get out of the parking lot as it could take me to get home by mass transit. >>Later this month we are going to see Fiddler, one of my favorite musicals, >>with other friends who will be visiting NYC for the first time in years. > > A friend of mine saw it last week. She says Rosie doe her role well. The show is one where if the performers have a decent voice, the production is pretty good. >>Just to prove it to you, I have just held the ticket stub from Sweet >>Charity in front of my monitor. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > But parts of the anatomy can be used for immoral purposes, as Jan > demonstrates every time she uses her fingers on the keyboard. Agreed. >>>>BTW, are you ever going to tell anyone about whether you ever contacted >>>>anyone about Mark Lowry outside of usenet? [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >>>>>>are not a professional, maybe you spent a vacation posting away. Will >>>>>>see. > JanD wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >>>>Mark is a PROVEN LIAR. Sadly this IS his life. [snip drivel, poor Mark] >> You CONTINUE to lie. >> A partial list of claims that YOU lied about > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> http://tinyurl.com/7dy79 >>>BTW, are you ever going to tell anyone about whether you ever contacted >>>anyone about Mark Lowry outside of usenet? [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >>>>>are not a professional, maybe you spent a vacation posting away. Will >>>>>see. >>>>>Mark Probert is Obsessed, he simply could not win a case in court, was >>>>>disbarred. Comes here to work out his many frustrations. Tells LIES all [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > [snip drivel, poor Mark] Yet another snip due to your OCSD caused by your sever case of fact-o-phobia. You really should get help for that. Perhaps enrolling in an adult ed program, where they teach you how to act like an adult would help. >>>You CONTINUE to lie. which is followed by several snppings by Jan that she unfortunately forgot to mention. >>>A partial list of claims that YOU lied about >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>> >>>http://tinyurl.com/7dy79 Jan does not like to see what others think of her. >>>>BTW, are you ever going to tell anyone about whether you ever contacted >>>>anyone about Mark Lowry outside of usenet? >>> >>>http://tinyurl.com/drvdy Jan, that is not a diversion but the question that you will not answer. You are too much of an intellectual coward to admit what you did. You want honesty in others, and you will not own up to your Satanic actions. C'mon, Jan, fess up....it is a cleansing of your soul before Satan comes to take his due. >>>Another mess YOU started >>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >>>>>>are not a professional, maybe you spent a vacation posting away. Will >>>>>>see. > Mark Probert wrote: >>>Who is a professional poster? If you alleged that it is me, you should >>>post some real facts. If not, admit you lied. >> 53 postings on Nov. 18 >> 50 postings on Nov. 19 >> 58 postings on Nov. 20 >> 38 postings on Nov. 21 >I see that you have a lot of time on your hands No, I don't. Unlike you. I did not count your postings. Google did for me. I spent about 3 minutes to find out. >....however, the number >of posts is not determinative of any issue. >> Most of it during business hours. Looks professional to me. > A temporal coincidence...no, wait...I am at work doing what I get paid > to do...by myself...since I own the business and am now in a period > where I have some excellent staff that needs minimum oversight... I have hard time believing that. All your posts come from the same IP address whether it is business hours or weekend. Your alleged business is at your home. You do not have any staff, excellent or not, unless you refer to your wife that needs minimum oversight. >> Who can >> afford making so many posts from work? > Business owners, especially ones who make very brief posts. Your > counting is irreelvant. I guess business owners who indulge in such distractions risk losing their businesses. >> Of course I cannot prove you are >> getting paid for that. But "professional" does not necessarily mean >> getting paid. >Of course it does. Being a professional at anything means you are >remunerated for performing that service. You could consult a dictionary. Being remunerated is just one meaning. It probably comes first in most dictionaries. Not sure if you are able to read past that. >> Actually I see fewer posts of yours yesterday and today. Maybe you >> are not a professional, maybe you spent a vacation posting away. Will >> see. >Of course you will see...but your ability to analyze is in dire need of >a tune up. My ability to analyze is sufficient to distinguish crap that you sometimes post, like a suggestion that intramarriage kept Amish from getting any autistic children amongst them. I wonder whether your analytical skills are impaired or whether you are doing it deliberately, and the latter seems more likely. >>Mark Probert wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > No, I don't. Unlike you. I did not count your postings. Google did for me. > I spent about 3 minutes to find out. Three wasted minutes, where you could have been re-arranging your sock drawer and be more productive. >>....however, the number >>of posts is not determinative of any issue. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I have hard time believing that. Yes, Mikey, I am aware of your comprehension difficulties. Try: http://tinyurl.com/ddos7 All your posts come from the same IP > address whether it is business hours or weekend. Could you just for a moment think that I use my home computer to access my office network so that I can take advantage of the security improvements I made in my office. Hmmm??? Your alleged business is > at your home. You do not have any staff, excellent or not, unless you > refer to your wife that needs minimum oversight. Wow...you sure do have a vivid imagination. Further, you surely do spend a lot of time looking for personal information to discredit those people who do not blindly accept your pronouncements. >>>Who can >>>afford making so many posts from work? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I guess business owners who indulge in such distractions risk losing their > businesses. You can guess what you would like. My billing for 2005 exceeds all prior years. >>>Of course I cannot prove you are >>>getting paid for that. But "professional" does not necessarily mean [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You could consult a dictionary. Great idea... pro·fes·sion·al ADJECTIVE: 1. 1. Of, relating to, engaged in, or suitable for a profession: lawyers, doctors, and other professional people. 2. Conforming to the standards of a profession: professional behavior. 2. Engaging in a given activity as a source of livelihood or as a career: a professional writer. 3. Performed by persons receiving pay: professional football. 4. Having or showing great skill; expert: a professional repair job. Sure sounds like being paid is an important part of being a professional. Being remunerated is just one meaning. It > probably comes first in most dictionaries. Not sure if you are able to > read past that. Oh, rest assured that I can read rings around you. In fact, I could read rings around you in the first grade. >>>Actually I see fewer posts of yours yesterday and today. Maybe you >>>are not a professional, maybe you spent a vacation posting away. Will [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > post, like a suggestion that intramarriage kept Amish from getting any > autistic children amongst them. Darn...I thought you got that clue. Of course, I am not a special education teacher, and I can only bring you to a clue. I cannot make you understand. I wonder whether your analytical skills > are impaired or whether you are doing it deliberately, and the latter > seems more likely. Actually, the most likely is that I analyze far better than you, and, you are incapable of understanding reality. >> No, I don't. Unlike you. I did not count your postings. Google did for me. >> I spent about 3 minutes to find out. > > Three wasted minutes, where you could have been re-arranging your sock > drawer and be more productive. Now when we I know you are an ex-lawyer I see where it comes from. How much did you bill then for 3 minutes, 10 bucks? >>>....however, the number >>>of posts is not determinative of any issue. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > my office network so that I can take advantage of the security > improvements I made in my office. Hmmm??? Made it up on the fly, right? Like a attorney trying to exonerate his client. > Your alleged business is >> at your home. You do not have any staff, excellent or not, unless you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a lot of time looking for personal information to discredit those people > who do not blindly accept your pronouncements. Vivid imagination? No. A lot of people are running one-man (or one-woman) businesses from their homes. Sometimes more than one business. If they have stuff, it is members of their families. No looking for personal information, IP address is not personal information. >>>>Who can >>>>afford making so many posts from work? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You can guess what you would like. My billing for 2005 exceeds all prior > years. I suspect it is about as true as that you have never been a lawyer. >>>>Of course I cannot prove you are >>>>getting paid for that. But "professional" does not necessarily mean [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Sure sounds like being paid is an important part of being a > professional. Not always. A "professional liar" (I do not refer to you in this sentence) is a valid phrase. It does not necessarily mean somebody paid to lie. >> My ability to analyze is sufficient to distinguish crap that you >> sometimes post, like a suggestion that intramarriage kept Amish from >> getting any autistic children amongst them. > > Darn...I thought you got that clue. What clue? You pretend you do not understand it is garbage. Professional attitude? (meaning #2, above) >>>No, I don't. Unlike you. I did not count your postings. Google did for me. >>>I spent about 3 minutes to find out. >> >>Three wasted minutes, where you could have been re-arranging your sock >>drawer and be more productive. > Now when we I know you are an ex-lawyer I see where it comes from. > How much did you bill then for 3 minutes, 10 bucks? oh, I am so hurt by that. Sorry, Mr. VacLiar, but you just proved, again, that you are a moron. >>>>....however, the number >>>>of posts is not determinative of any issue. [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > What clue? You pretend you do not understand it is garbage. Professional > attitude? (meaning #2, above) >>>>23/11/05 - Health news section >>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Eye contact is a culture specific thing. Controlled for by using subjects from one culture. Not in every country children > are taught this way. In is not necessarily an indication of autistic > tendencies. "Individuals with autism have difficulties with many forms of social communication, and their gaze processing is impaired at various levels, such as eye contact, gaze following, joint attention, and understanding gaze within a mentalistic framework..." http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/14/9602 Scholar Results 1 - 20 of about 5,150 for eye contact autism. (0.18 seconds) >>>>While parents seemed normal in this respect, brothers of autistic >>>>children avoided eye contact just as strongly as their affected [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Does not look like a response to the comment "all these companies make > vaccines". And this fact is very relevant. It may be, if the person that was referenced was the right one. However, the person who was paid by the companies is a cardiologist in North Carolina, and the physician who did the research is in Colorado. I'll delete the rest of your paranoid conspiracy crap. Of course, if you still want to maintaint that there is a relevancy feel free to do so. You do have the absolute right to be wrong. >>>>>23/11/05 - Health news section >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > still want to maintaint that there is a relevancy feel free to do so. You > do have the absolute right to be wrong. *In your opinion* Your opinion could be ABSOLUTELY WRONG. What YOU call *paranoid conspiracy crap* is most likely the TRUTH. Restored: It is like Philip Morris financing a study on genetics of lung cancer. Would the researchers find "familial links"? Most likely, yes. When a patient comes to a doctor's office for the first time, he/she must answer questions about family history of diseases, including heart disease, cancer etc. All of them have genetic components. Autism is no exception. Of course such a hypothetical study of lung cancer genetics would be a distraction from other causes. So it is no wonder that vaccine manufacturers finance a study leading away from environmental causes of autism. And the latest increase in autism can have only environmental causes because the genes do not mutate that fast. >>>>>>23/11/05 - Health news section >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > *In your opinion* Yes, my opinion based on facts. In fact (a word that scares you), the original person who commented on the doctor being paid by vaccine comapnies, acknowledged that he was incorrect, as I showed him, using F A C T S that the doctor Eric Peterson referenced in the original article was in Colorado, and the cardiologist who was paid by the pharmaceutical companies is a cardiologist in North Carolina. Does the fact that they are in two different states, and are separated by approximately 1700 miles confuse you? > Your opinion could be ABSOLUTELY WRONG. Yes, my opinion could be absolutely wrong. No question. I would give the probability of that happening the same probability of the sun rising in the west. > What YOU call *paranoid conspiracy crap* is most likely the TRUTH. You would not know the truth if it were surgically implanted. > Restored: That was not the issue that was being address, moron. That is why I removed it, as it was irrelevant. None of my past comments pertain to this, and none of my current ones do. I'll leave it in for the causal reader who wants to be amused. > It is like Philip Morris > financing a study on genetics of lung cancer. Would the researchers find [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > autism. And the latest increase in autism can have only environmental > causes because the genes do not mutate that fast. >>>>>>> 23/11/05 - Health news section >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > removed it, as it was irrelevant. None of my past comments pertain to > this, and none of my current ones do. BTW, the reason that it does not apply is that the researchers finding a familial link appear to have no ties to the vaccine manufacturers. Jan does not like facts like this, as she cannot refute them with knowledge and logic. > I'll leave it in for the causal reader who wants to be amused. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> autism. And the latest increase in autism can have only environmental >> causes because the genes do not mutate that fast. >>>>>23/11/05 - Health news section >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Scholar Results 1 - 20 of about 5,150 for eye contact autism. (0.18 > seconds) "Facial avoidance is not, as previously believed, a central cause of the social impairments observed in autism" http://web.sfn.org/content/AboutSFN1/NewsReleases/am2005_autism.html >>>>>While parents seemed normal in this respect, brothers of autistic >>>>>children avoided eye contact just as strongly as their affected [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > the person who was paid by the companies is a cardiologist in North > Carolina, and the physician who did the research is in Colorado. Oops. My apologies. Not being a professional Usenet poster I initially misread a post. I thought that the article was signed by prof. Peterson and that the list of the companies was given at the end and that someone commented on these companies. In fact the Daily Mail article was not signed at all. By the way the findings are perfectly compatible with thimerosal hypothesis. Namely, that some people are genetically less tolerant to mercury, get thimerosal exposure and acquire some autistic traits. They pass the genes to their offspring who got significantly more thimerosal and full-blown autism. >>>>>>23/11/05 - Health news section >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > social impairments observed in autism" > http://web.sfn.org/content/AboutSFN1/NewsReleases/am2005_autism.html So? No one claimed it did. Do you ever read anything for content when it is posted by a person who disagrees with you? You may "think" that you responded and refuted the point, but, you think wrong. The issue is NOT what the central cause of the social impairments observed in autism are. The issue is whether gaze problems are a useful marker for the study. So far, I have shown that they are. Now, go back upthread, re-read what was posted, read the link I provided, and try again. >>>>>>While parents seemed normal in this respect, brothers of autistic >>>>>>children avoided eye contact just as strongly as their affected [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Oops. My apologies. Not being a professional Usenet poster I initially > misread a post. You misread a lot of posts. Being a professional is a bullshit line, sort of like an ad hominem. However, you did not even get that right. I thought that the article was signed by prof. Peterson > and that the list of the companies was given at the end and that someone > commented on these companies. In fact the Daily Mail article was not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > pass the genes to their offspring who got significantly more thimerosal > and full-blown autism. The claim that mercury toxicity causes autistic traits has been shown to be bogus. There is little, if any, similarity. <snip. Posts are growing so long... Pls refer to originals > >>>"Individuals with autism have difficulties with many forms of social >>>communication, and their gaze processing is impaired at various levels, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > observed in autism are. The issue is whether gaze problems are a useful > marker for the study. So far, I have shown that they are. The issue was that one researcher studied eye contact alone, according to the article. And the real issue is that the Daily Mail article did not report the researcher's findings. From the full article: --------------------------------- One theory laid to rest by these findings, says Nacewicz, is the idea that autism somehow falls on the far end of a shyness spectrum. The siblings showed no signs of autism or shyness, despite avoiding eye contact with others. --------------------------------- You did not show anything, only a scientist could. You just posted a link to a study performed in 2002. I posted a quote from an article reporting the same study as the Daily Mail article. I will leave the interpretation to the researchers whether avoiding eye contact can still be considered a good marker. <snip> >> Oops. My apologies. Not being a professional Usenet poster I initially >> misread a post. > > You misread a lot of posts. Being a professional is a bullshit line, > sort of like an ad hominem. However, you did not even get that right. Did not get it right? Meaning you are not a professional poster? 50 posts a day mostly during working hours looks professional for me. But I would not ask personal questions. >> By the way the findings are perfectly compatible with thimerosal >> hypothesis. Namely, that some people are genetically less tolerant to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The claim that mercury toxicity causes autistic traits has been shown to > be bogus. There is little, if any, similarity. There is little similarity between alcohol intoxication and mental retardation. But fetal alcohol syndrome is well known. As for the claim of autism-thimerosal connection it will be shown to be bogus only if autism rates do not decline drastically in the next 2-3 years. I suspect they will. And I suspect in this case we will hear some tortured explanations. Even some from you. > <snip. Posts are growing so long... Pls refer to originals > > [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > There is little similarity between alcohol intoxication and mental > retardation. But fetal alcohol syndrome is well known. Specious analogy. > As for the claim of autism-thimerosal connection it will be shown to be > bogus only if autism rates do not decline drastically in the next 2-3 > years. I suspect they will. And I suspect in this case we will hear some > tortured explanations. Even some from you. They may decline, somewhat, because the "backlog" of undiagnosed autistics has been exhausted. However, I do not expect a drastic reduction. I hope you are around when you eat your words. > The claim that mercury toxicity causes autistic traits has been shown to > be bogus. There is little, if any, similarity. What is bogus is a claim "there is little if any similarity". Try to google mercury poisoning and autism. The question is not whether there is any similarity but how much there is. It might be exaggerated but definitely not concocted. ----------- copied from another message ---------- >> As for the claim of autism-thimerosal connection it will be shown to be >> bogus only if autism rates do not decline drastically in the next 2-3 >> years. I suspect they will. And I suspect in this case we will hear >> some tortured explanations. Even some from you. >They may decline, somewhat, because the "backlog" of undiagnosed >autistics has been exhausted. However, I do not expect a drastic >reduction. -------------------------------------------------- The reduction is anticipated among 3-4 years old children because their thimerosal exposure was reduced (AFAIK it is still present in flu vaccine). It will be impossible to attribute such reduction to an alleged backlog because children of this age were not in the backlog. You will have to prepare better talking points. >>The claim that mercury toxicity causes autistic traits has been shown to >>be bogus. There is little, if any, similarity. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > there is any similarity but how much there is. It might be exaggerated but > definitely not concocted. From what I have read, mainly from neurologists and toxicologist, I disagree. > ----------- copied from another message ---------- > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > alleged backlog because children of this age were not in the backlog. > You will have to prepare better talking points. SInce much of the increase was due to backlog, I have all the information I need. You had better get to your homework. >>>The claim that mercury toxicity causes autistic traits has been shown to >>>be bogus. There is little, if any, similarity. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > SInce much of the increase was due to backlog, I have all the > information I need. You had better get to your homework. The best argument is obviously to repeat the previous argument and pretend nothing had been said against it. Repeating: even if the alleged backlog existed the younger children would not be in that backlog. Only those children would be there that were evaluated for the first time in the old days before allegedly improved diagnosing. It is roughly speaking about new autism diagnoses in 2006 among kids born in 2002 vs. diagnoses in 2004 among kids born in 2000. Backlog is irrelevant, real or imagined. Do not pretend to be a moron. Or maybe looking like a moron is preferrable to looking like a liar? >>>>The claim that mercury toxicity causes autistic traits has been shown to >>>>be bogus. There is little, if any, similarity. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > The best argument is obviously to repeat the previous argument and pretend > nothing had been said against it. That has been the anti-vac tactic since day 1. Thank you for finally acknowledging what you do. Repeating: even if the alleged backlog > existed the younger children would not be in that backlog. Only those > children would be there that were evaluated for the first time in the old > days before allegedly improved diagnosing. Not necessarily. You are assuming 100% accuracy in diagnosing, and are forgetting the reason that the researcher said that using educational statistics is unreliable. There are milder cases which would begin to show up as the child aged. They could handle the simpler work of the K-3 classrooms, but, as the work got harder, their problems would be manifest. Like I said, I am a parent advocate for special education families, a job recently made much harder by SCOTUS, and many of the more difficult cases are that of older children since the schools claim that they would have spotted a problem in the early grades if it had existed. It is roughly speaking about > new autism diagnoses in 2006 among kids born in 2002 vs. diagnoses in 2004 > among kids born in 2000. Backlog is irrelevant, real or imagined. Do not > pretend to be a moron. Or maybe looking like a moron is preferrable to > looking like a liar? WOW! When the facts run out..... >>23/11/05 - Health news section >> [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > All of these companies make vaccines. One more point...the second study referred to in the article is confirmatory of the Peterson study. Replication and confirmation beats conspiracy theories hands down. OH, Just a slight thing, Vaccine man overlooked. Uh huh,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Thanks, TC >> 23/11/05 - Health news section >> [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > TC > OH, Just a slight thing, Vaccine man overlooked. > > Uh huh,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, > > Thanks, TC Well, TC, when I showed the error, was intellectually honest and acknowledged that there was a mistake of identity since the article referred to a different Dr. Peterson. You posted your nonsense more than a half-hour after TC acknowledge the error. Now, Jan Drew, do you have enough intellectual honesty to acknowledge yours? Hmmm??? >>>23/11/05 - Health news section >>> [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] >> >>TC >> OH, Just a slight thing, Vaccine man overlooked. >> [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] >>> >>> TC "Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in > Now, Jan Drew, do you have enough intellectual honesty to acknowledge yours? I guess not. One can be sure that they will misrepresent anything in pushing their agenda. > "Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I guess not. One can be sure that they will misrepresent anything in pushing > their agenda. These days, Jan will never admit to me that she was wrong after she trashed me. Thanks, interesting read. UM MOM Susan 23/11/05 - Health news section Autism family link discovered Relatives of people with autism who do not have the disorder themselves may still display behaviours and brain differences linked to the condition, scientists have found. The discovery could make it easier to spot families at risk of having an autistic child. It could also help in the quest to identify the genetic and environmental triggers for the condition, characterised by emotional detachment and an inability to relate to others. Dr Eric Peterson, from the University of Colorado in Denver, USA, compared the brain scans of 40 parents with autistic children with those of 40 matched parents whose children were normal. The parents of autistic children shared several differences in brain structure with their offspring. These included an unexpected increase in the size of the motor cortex and basal ganglia, both areas linked to movement planning and imitation. The neighbouring somatosensory cortex, by contrast, was smaller than average. This region is important for understanding social information such as facial expressions - a skill autistic people often lack. There were also reductions in the cerebellum, important for co-ordinating movement, and a frontal region thought to play a key role in understanding the intentions of others. Another study led by Brendon Nacewicz, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison Medical School in the United States, tested for avoidance of eye contact, a common feature of autism. While parents seemed normal in this respect, brothers of autistic children avoided eye contact just as strongly as their affected siblings. Find this story at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/thehealthnews.html?in_arti cle_id=369547&in_page_id=1797 ©2005 Associated New Media > 23/11/05 - Health news section > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > may still display behaviours and brain differences linked to the > condition, scientists have found. <snip> > Find this story at > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/thehealthnews.html?in_arti cle_id=369547&in_page_id=1797 For those who are interested: the Daily Mail article is the beginning of an article in New Scientist, cutoff in mid-paragraph. The original can be found at http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg18825275.100-families-share-traits- of-autistic-children.html The full version contains a discussion of possible environmental factors. >>23/11/05 - Health news section >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > The full version contains a discussion of possible environmental factors. Operative word: P O S S I B L E. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.