AUTISM CAUSAL LINK ESTABLISHED

[11MohanRedddy]

4 minutes ago, CADNMALODU said:

"Bias may" creep in doesn't mean it's a must. Second thing, Most of the animal studies data submitted to global government bodies are not blinded at all. Having the timer set early is direct attempt to fabricate the data. If you accuse data of bias, then you should point out to "data points" that you accuse of it, or the rigor of the data analysis, which selectively cherry picks on the data points. 

 

 

There a difference in data fabrication, data manipulation and bias. 

Data fabrication is inventing data, data manipulation involves altering or misrepresenting existing data, and bias is a systematic deviation from truth that can be introduced by various factors, including fabrication and manipulation. Fabrication creates data that never existed, while manipulation modifies existing data to fit a desired outcome. Bias is a broader concept, representing a tendency or prejudice, and it can result from intentional misconduct like manipulation, but also from unintentional errors in study design, sampling, or interpretation. 

[CADNMALODU]

7 minutes ago, 11MohanRedddy said:

There a difference in data fabrication, data manipulation and bias. 

Data fabrication is inventing data, data manipulation involves altering or misrepresenting existing data, and bias is a systematic deviation from truth that can be introduced by various factors, including fabrication and manipulation. Fabrication creates data that never existed, while manipulation modifies existing data to fit a desired outcome. Bias is a broader concept, representing a tendency or prejudice, and it can result from intentional misconduct like manipulation, but also from unintentional errors in study design, sampling, or interpretation. 

That's what I said right? If you start the timer earlier, that means you're deliberately altering the data that you're gathering. 

When a bias is identified, you need to point out out at the data points, and /or data analysis.

[11MohanRedddy]

25 minutes ago, CADNMALODU said:

That's what I said right? If you start the timer earlier, that means you're deliberately altering the data that you're gathering. 

When a bias is identified, you need to point out out at the data points, and /or data analysis.

That's what I said. I said the data is biased because it is not blinded. This kind of bias is called confirmation bias. It is introduced unintentionally if the experiment is not blinded. 

[CADNMALODU]

11 minutes ago, 11MohanRedddy said:

That's what I said. I said the data is biased because it is not blinded. This kind of bias is called confirmation bias. It is introduced unintentionally if the experiment is not blinded. 

When you accuse bias, you have to point out data anamolies. What particular data points are making, you think it's biased?

[11MohanRedddy]

26 minutes ago, CADNMALODU said:

When you accuse bias, you have to point out data anamolies. What particular data points are making, you think it's biased?

I have been saying that the p value of 0.04 in mice time spent on social interaction is BS. It is because of loss of weight. 

[CADNMALODU]

4 hours ago, 11MohanRedddy said:

I have been saying that the p value of 0.04 in mice time spent on social interaction is BS. It is because of loss of weight. 

Weight loss is found "only" in Aluminium treated mice. The study didn't find it in Controls. The altered social interaction is also present only in Aluminium treated mice. P value of 0.042 only tells that the observation is valid. 

The male mice had a significant weight loss noted starting from week 13. The data point for social behaviour starts at week 8. So from week 8 to week 13 there wouldn't have been much delta in social behavior at least for male mice. No such observation was noted. 

 

[11MohanRedddy]

12 minutes ago, CADNMALODU said:

Weight loss is found "only" in Aluminium treated mice. The study didn't find it in Controls. The altered social interaction is also present only in Aluminium treated mice. P value of 0.042 only tells that the observation is valid. 

The male mice had a significant weight loss noted starting from week 13. The data point for social behaviour starts at week 8. So from week 8 to week 13 there wouldn't have been much delta in social behavior at least for male mice. No such observation was noted. 

 

Ade kada va cheppindi. Social interaction difference is due to the lower weight,  not because of aluminum. Lower weight in aluminum group means that the dose that they are using is toxic. It is not a good experimental setup. 

[CADNMALODU]

6 minutes ago, 11MohanRedddy said:

Ade kada va cheppindi. Social interaction difference is due to the lower weight,  not because of aluminum. Lower weight in aluminum group means that the dose that they are using is toxic. It is not a good experimental setup. 

Vadu ala ekkada cheppadu ?  

[11MohanRedddy]

52 minutes ago, CADNMALODU said:

Vadu ala ekkada cheppadu ?  

Vadu adi cheppaledu, kani vaadi result meaning adi. If I starve mice, they won't interact socially either. It is not like autistic people have less weight. 

[CADNMALODU]

15 minutes ago, 11MohanRedddy said:

Vadu adi cheppaledu, kani vaadi result meaning adi. If I starve mice, they won't interact socially either. It is not like autistic people have less weight. 

Nah, you're assuming now. Controls and aluminum treated mice were treated exactly the same. They were not starved. Again, weight loss gurinchi kooda adhe cheppindhi week 13 dhaka male mice lo no significant weight difference. But since week  8-13 social interaction score lo difference undhi. Had that not been the case, adhi note chesevaru. 

We're not exploiting it to people straight away. That's not possible. 

[11MohanRedddy]

31 minutes ago, CADNMALODU said:

Nah, you're assuming now. Controls and aluminum treated mice were treated exactly the same. They were not starved. Again, weight loss gurinchi kooda adhe cheppindhi week 13 dhaka male mice lo no significant weight difference. But since week  8-13 social interaction score lo difference undhi. Had that not been the case, adhi note chesevaru. 

We're not exploiting it to people straight away. That's not possible. 

Lol, I am not assuming. Mouse studies of viral titer or toxicity ki mouse weight we use chestaaru. Look it up if you don't know. If you starve mice, social interaction will be lower. Lower weight of mice means they are losing interest in social interaction because they have lower weight, not because of aluminum.

[CADNMALODU]

34 minutes ago, 11MohanRedddy said:

Lol, I am not assuming. Mouse studies of viral titer or toxicity ki mouse weight we use chestaaru. Look it up if you don't know. If you starve mice, social interaction will be lower. Lower weight of mice means they are losing interest in social interaction because they have lower weight, not because of aluminum.

Lol, you make a generic statement and you want me to look up? What should I look up? 

Then you're saying "if you starve the mice". That's the conditional part. Ikkada mice ni starve cheyyaledhu, both in aluminum treated and Controls. Asalu starvation in itself will introduce more aggressive behaviour.

[11MohanRedddy]

7 hours ago, CADNMALODU said:

Lol, you make a generic statement and you want me to look up? What should I look up? 

Then you're saying "if you starve the mice". That's the conditional part. Ikkada mice ni starve cheyyaledhu, both in aluminum treated and Controls. Asalu starvation in itself will introduce more aggressive behaviour.

Aluminum treated group dose is not right since it is toxic for the mice. The reason they are losing social interaction is because they have low weight. I asked you to look it up because you sound like you never did an experiment in your life. Starvation won't introduce aggressive behavior, where did you find that from? Mouse weight is indicative of their health. If weight drops below 25% they should be done for. So their experiment is pretty f'ed in the first place. 

[CADNMALODU]

On 11/2/2025 at 6:30 AM, 11MohanRedddy said:

Aluminum treated group dose is not right since it is toxic for the mice. The reason they are losing social interaction is because they have low weight. I asked you to look it up because you sound like you never did an experiment in your life. Starvation won't introduce aggressive behavior, where did you find that from? Mouse weight is indicative of their health. If weight drops below 25% they should be done for. So their experiment is pretty f'ed in the first place. 

Dose is not right aa? Did you even read why they chose that dose? What do you propose as the basis for dose? And why?  Aluminium has always been a neurotoxic metal across species. 

I have done a bunch of experiments when I was at University, let's see what you got. Basis for the dose cheppu poni. Your repointing at "low weight", then male mice weight didn't significantly differ from week 7-13, but their social behavior did. Had that not been the case, they would have noted it down as well. 

 

25% weight loss aa? I was trying to explain it in your terms. "Weight loss" here is not a "loss" in traditional sense. Oka predetermined weight nunchi weight taggadam kadhu. The Aluminum treated group are lighter in that sense compared to controls. That means with time, they didn't gain as much weight. This is not starvation. There is no fatality either. 

Yes, starvation introduces aggression in a sense to fight for food/survival. This is found across multiple species. I will just stick to rodents. 

Fortuna & Gandelman (1977) – Physiol Behav [DOI: 10.1016/0031-9384(77)90043-8]

PMID 608317

 

Effects of age and food deprivation on the development of muricidal behavior in rats

Jeffrey B. Malick

https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9384(75)90162-6

 

 

 

[11MohanRedddy]

3 hours ago, CADNMALODU said:

Dose is not right aa? Did you even read why they chose that dose? What do you propose as the basis for dose? And why?  Aluminium has always been a neurotoxic metal across species. 

I have done a bunch of experiments when I was at University, let's see what you got. Basis for the dose cheppu poni. Your repointing at "low weight", then male mice weight didn't significantly differ from week 7-13, but their social behavior did. Had that not been the case, they would have noted it down as well. 

 

25% weight loss aa? I was trying to explain it in your terms. "Weight loss" here is not a "loss" in traditional sense. Oka predetermined weight nunchi weight taggadam kadhu. The Aluminum treated group are lighter in that sense compared to controls. That means with time, they didn't gain as much weight. This is not starvation. There is no fatality either. 

Yes, starvation introduces aggression in a sense to fight for food/survival. This is found across multiple species. I will just stick to rodents. 

Fortuna & Gandelman (1977) – Physiol Behav [DOI: 10.1016/0031-9384(77)90043-8]

PMID 608317

 

Effects of age and food deprivation on the development of muricidal behavior in rats

Jeffrey B. Malick

https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9384(75)90162-6

 

 

 

The mice got neonatal injections of aluminum salt at doses/timing that doesn't match human schedule. In humans, total aluminum from all routine vaccines in the first 6 months is ~4.4 mg, which is way less than what infants ingest from breast milk or formula milk over the same period. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264410X11015799?via%3Dihub

In fact the CD-1 mouse study literally themselves say in conclusion that it is insufficient evidence to establish casual link to autism in the conclusion of this paper. In their story: newborn mice received 550 micrograms of aluminum hydroxide over two weeks. That's orders of magnitude higher than what an infant would get from vaccines, when adjusted for body weight. A full grown mouse would weight 25-30 grams. For a neonatal mouse, that's roughly 50-100 mg/kg dosage. Where in humans, the exposure is around 0.5 mg/kg total in the first year. That is roughly 100- to 200- fold difference. At this level, aluminum is not functioning as an adjuvant but more as a neurotoxin and metabolic stressor, which can cause growth retardation and systemic illness. 

This paper itself reports weight loss and reduced locomotion, both of which are signs of sickness. When an animal in under metabolic stress, it moves less, it explores less and it interacts less. So the reduced "social interest" can't meaningfully be interpreted as autism-like defect. It is more consistent with a sick or lethargic mouse.