Help! Is my baby is showing signs of autism?

Hi all,

This conversation has gone off topic, so we'll be locking the thread. You're welcome to start new threads.

This is getting very off topic, Altrusitica, but, to answer your question, I think it demonstrates why it is so important to think critically and to not rely on anyone other than independent scientists when seeking answers to fundamentally scientific questions.

Hey Scorpion,

What do you think of this video:

www.ted.com/.../margaret_heffernan_the_dangers_of_willful_blindness.html

Al

The thing you get Altruistica, is that I don't put my faith in people that merely claim to be experts.

Rather, I look to real science to give me the answers to scientific questions like "what is Austism?", "what causes Autism?", and "why is the apparent incidence rate of Autism increasing?"

I have yet to find an actuall real scientistific concensus that states "Autism is caused by vaccines", rather the scientific concensus is that vaccinations play no role in Autism.

I have also yet to find an actuall real scientific concensus that states "the incidence rate of Autism in the wider population is increasing dramatically", rather the scientific concensus is that we are simply becoming better at diagnosing the condition.

And, by "real science" and "real scientific concensus" I mean independendant scientific study done by independant scientists that are not being paid to do it by big pharma, big industry, or big government.

You see, I agree with you that one can not trust the word of a medical community that is in the pockets of big pharma.

But, it is wrong to turn away from one biased opinion and then simply accept another.

The amount of money behind that bias is irrelevent, bias is bias.

Hence, my little "rant" as you put it.

So, just as one shouldn't look to the modern medical and pharmacuetical industry for scientific truth, one should also not look to the politicians for it either, because politicians are in the pay of one interest group or another as well.

Money, no matter how large, or small, corrupts.

Oh, and all these things happen on a much wider scale, and to a much greater degree, in America than they do here, so American politicians, and the American medical profession, is the last place I'd go looking for any kind of scientific truth.

They wouldn't know scientific truth if they tripped over it on the walk up their oppulent driveways.

Hey Scorpion, my name is Al....I sign my posts as Al....I don't need to be called Altruistica.

Thanks for the reply.

Stalin once said (I'm probably paraphrasing......), 'I don't care who has the vote, what matters is WHO counts the vote'.

If you don't understand the analogy it is this.

It doesn't matter who does the research to either exhonerate or call into question the efficacy and safety of vaccines.......what matters is who funds it and by implication, who has editorial control and authorship of the research.

How you can question the motives of these people is beyond me....maybe that's because you're an Aspi and have difficulty what seems to me to be so obvious. I don't know what the rant about global warming, terrorists etc. have to do with this. I don't remember the congressman or doctor ranting on about either of these so why you would try to implicate the specific videos links I placed to global warming or terrorism is unfathomable. 

To think the multi-billion dollar business of vaccinations is called into doubt by a professional because she hopes to sell a few books really is pathetic. I don't use that word often, but if she makes even $10,000 from the sale of her book/s, it's probably chicken feed compared to what she could make as a GP being sponsored by Big Pharma. Can you not see that? Can you not see if the central tenet of your argument is that the naysayers are in it 'for the money' your argument falls down at the first hurdle.

As I've said before, I only post on this site for the parents of 'vaccine damaged children'. I don't even recognise the term 'autistic' anymore because of the smokescreen that has been invented by psychiatrists linked to Big Pharma, whereby they have termed anything that is 'out of the ordinary' as 'autistic spectrum disorder /condition'(take your pick if political correctness is your thang).

I seriously wonder whether this forum should have different sub-sections for parents of children, for people diagnosed with Aspergers and for people diagnosed with autism. It seems as if the moment a parent asks about the safety of vaccines an onslaught of pro Government line lobbyists appears. If I had my conspiracy theorist hat on, I'd suspect that maybe Government trolls are afoot on this site. This would also fit in with the comment I made about a year ago when I came to this site after many years of not viiting it, I was surprised at how large it had grown.

It's all about control.

Signed: Al

altruistica said:

On the same issue, what do you think of this doctor?.......surely no axe to grind other than wanting to find out the truth.

www.youtube.com/watch

Your comments welcomed.

Al

No axe to grind other than wanting to sell her book, perhaps.

Oh, and what is her background? Let us see what it says on her own website. Maybe she has some expertise in vaccines.

Dr. Nancy Banks is a graduate of Hunter College and Harvard Medical School. As a senior medical student she was awarded a scholarship from the American College of Surgeons to study surgery and tropical medicine at the Benin Medical College in Benin, Nigeria. She completed her internship and residency in general surgery and obstetrics and gynecology at St. Luke’s and Mt. Sinai Hospital and Medical Center. She was a Galloway Fellow in gynecological oncology at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Dr. Banks has a master’s degree in finance from Pace University.

Dr. Banks spent twenty-five years practicing general obstetrics and gynecology during which she was also the director of outpatient gynecology at The North General Hospital in Harlem, New York and served as an attending physician at not only North General, but Nyack Hospital in Nyack, New York, the Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center and the Mt. Sinai Hospital and Medical Center

Oh, look, no she doesn't.

Seriously, Altruistica, you need to switch your critical thinking circuits on and start looking behind the curtain of their polished presentation to see the true Wizards of Oz that these people are.

altruistica said:

I'm convinced the truth will out someday..........and I suspect when it does it will not be pretty.

I agree.

However, I don't think the truth is what you think it is.

I think the truth is that these people you put your trust in are lying to you for their own gain.

That they are corrupt.

And that science and politics have very little in common.

These types of people are the same types of people that refute anthropogenic (man made) global warming, despite the overwhelming and ever growing evidence in it's favour.

They are the same types of people that label muslims as terrorists whilst turning a blind eye to the thousands of innocent lives lost in their phony wars.

They are the career politicians who think of nothing more than how they can gain more power, and more influence, irrespective of what harm and damage their actions do to the world.

They are the career politicians who are bank rolled by big banks, big business, big gas, big oil, and big weaponry.

They care for nothing but furthering their own careers and lining their own pockets.

But, you are correct, one day, some day, the truth will out, and their ivory mansion houses will come crumbling down around their ears.

On the same issue, what do you think of this doctor?.......surely no axe to grind other than wanting to find out the truth.

www.youtube.com/watch

Your comments welcomed.

Al

To all those who still persist to bury their heads in the sand, I'd like your comments on this film please:

www.youtube.com/watch

Are the Congressmen simply wrong?

I'm convinced the truth will out someday..........and I suspect when it does it will not be pretty.

Al

altruistica said:

I'm posting this reply for the likes of the initial poster that asked,

'Is it possible that my child.......my child, no-one else's....MY CHILD.....this small vulnerable person who I am fully responsible for now....is it possible that this child could now be experiencing what we call autism because of injecting a sackful of foreign and life-threatening material straight across the blood / brain barrier?' ANSWER - YES

Is it likely? ANSWER - NO

How likely is it? ANSWER - WE DON'T KNOW because of fraudulent reporting of rejection incidence and fraudulent reporting during testing.

The problem is that your first 'answer' is incorrect, altruistica.

The independent scientific evidence shows little to no link between vaccines and autism (or even autism-like conditions).

Basically, if there were a link, the incidence rate of autism (or autism-like conditions) would be significantly higher amongst people who have been vaccinated and those who have not.

And that simply is not the case.

Hi Scorpion,

I Haven't time to cross swords with you, but hope you're well.

I'm posting this reply for the likes of the initial poster that asked,

'Is it possible that my child.......my child, no-one else's....MY CHILD.....this small vulnerable person who I am fully responsible for now....is it possible that this child could now be experiencing what we call autism because of injecting a sackful of foreign and life-threatening material straight across the blood / brain barrier?' ANSWER - YES

Is it likely? ANSWER - NO

How likely is it? ANSWER - WE DON'T KNOW because of fraudulent reporting of rejection incidence and fraudulent reporting during testing.

As for Alex R's comments about the 'greater good', I'll start believing in the greater good when all commerce is removed from health matters. Until that time, please don't insult my intelligence by trying to make out Big Pharma is on some greater philanthropic drive all for the betterment of the human race. Investigate the history of vaccination programs and it's the same reason that we still put petroleum products into our cars, the same reason we use vast amounts of gas to power our heating systems and the real reason why Al Qaeda had absolutely nothing to do with 911. MONEY!

altruistica said:

FACT 1 - Over 95% of research into whether vaccinations cause autism has been undertaken by pharmaceuticals companies themselves. They are under no obligation whatsoever to provide information on negative aspects of their findings.

I do not know the figures, and though I very much doubt that 95% figure, I am willing to accept that it may indeed be fact.

However, what I do know to be fact is that studies have been done by wholy independant scientists and those studies found there to be no causal link between vaccines and autism.

It should also be noted that in all cases I have seen of people claiming a link between the two, the people making that claim have some kind of financial interest in the claim being true.

So if you disregard the however many studies by big pharma, and the claims of those who have a financial interest in there being a causal link between vaccines and autism, the vast majority of what you are left with is those studies by independent scientists who pretty much all state that there is little to no evidence to support even the weakest causal links.

altruistica said:

FACT 2 - No research has ever been undertaken listing the accumulative result of the whole vaccination program. If vaccines have proved to be 'safe', they have been tested in isolation to one another.

This is just plain wrong.

altruistica said:

FACT 3 - If someone receives a vaccination, who was otherwise healthy when they received the vaccination and ends up dead less than 48 hours later (other than being hit by a bus or similar), then in my own mind the circumstantial evidence points to the vaccine as being the cause of death. It doesn't matter whether the same vaccine given to 100,000 other people didn't cause death, in this individual it caused death. You won't however find any medical practitioner coming out directly and saying that....not because they don't believe it, but simply because they would be professionally crucified.

Rubbish. Any medical practitioner who didn't report the death of a person within 48 hours of them taking a vaccine would be prefessionally crucified. Not the other way round.

altruistica said:

If anyone responds to my posting please don't bother saying my FACTS are incorrect. I have studied the papers and irrespective of what you've been told, or read or come to the conclusion about, you will not change my mind about these things. When I say FACTS by the way, I mean them to be FACTS as I want to believe them as we all construct our world based on belief systems. Angelina Jolie has just had a double masectomy because she believes she has a gene make-up that will give her cancer. I've no idea if she follows a healthy diet of brocolli, turmeric, ginger, garlic and other anti-cancer type foods, but she is of the belief that no matter what other lifestyle changes she could make, a double masectomy was her best option in avoiding cancer. I wonder if she side-steps the scanner machines when she's globe-trotting around the world, or if she has routine mammograms.....you see, I believe you're much more likely to develop *** cancer if you're *** are subjected even to the tiniest of exposure if you're already inclined that way.....much like the vaccination program.

The problem here, altrusitica, is that "FACTS as I want to believe them" are not facts they are beliefs. The two should not be confused.

Angelina Jolie is of the belief that having a mastectomy is the best thing for her. And that's fine. Her decision affects no one but her.

However, when a decision affects others it is far be for it to be based on true, scientific, facts, than on mere belief.

altruistica said:

FACT 4 - Spring onions repeat on me whenever I eat them, sometimes for days on end. They don't affect 99.9% of the population in the same way, so spring onions cannot possibly cause me the gastronomical distress....it must all be in my mind.

Well, actually, it could all be in your mind (the mind can affect the body so if you believe spring onions repeat on you and you knowingly eat spring onions then they are more likely to repeat on you than not, even if they would not have if you didn't know had eaten them).

But, that aside, once again, your decision to eat spring onions, or not, affects no one, greatly, other than yourself.

So, this decision belongs, like Angelina Jolie's, in the realm of personal choice.

If your eating spring onions, however, affected a large population of people, then it would not belong in the realm of personal choice.

altruistica said:

FACT 5 - My sister (53) has been severly allergic to eggs ever since I've known her. She only has to touch something that has egg in it to come out in a rash and feel unwell. She now carries a solution around with her in case of anaphylaxis. Is it so unthinkable that a subset of the population has difficulty in dealing with all the different ingredients in a vaccine?

Once again, your sister's allergic reaction to eggs affects no one but herself.

Would it be right to suggest that no-one eat eggs simply because some people have an allegic reaction to them?

No it would not.

altruistica said:

FACT 6 - The whole vaccine program would fall down tomorrow if the population were given true figures over reactions to vaccines. Even if a figure was given that said MMR can cause a condition similar to autism in 1 in 100,000 (a very conservertive number), people would stop accepting the vaccine. Any rational thinking person given what I've just said about spring onion, eggs, disease in general (why do some people develop something and others don't.....look up figures of Swine Flu for example). This is the crux of the matter. For the vaccination program to keep going, health professionals have to carry on with the lie that vaccines are safe in all the population. If they don't?.....well ask Andrew Wakefield what happens.

Rubbish. Look at the recent events in Wales to see what actually happens when people learned the truth about vaccines. They rushed to get their children vaccinated because they saw it was the right thing to do.

Oh, and by the way, a 25 year old man died because of that measles outbreak.

And why did he die?

Because Andrew Wakefield incorrectly told people not to immunise their children, based on his belief, not on fact.

That's what happens when you ignore scientific fact.

People die.

altruistica said:

If my son Thomas was newly born tomorrow, knowing what I know now, he wouldn't receive any vaccinations. As older parents at the time, we were told that there was a chance of 1 in 2000 that he would be born with Down's Syndrome  (because of my wife's age, 37 at the time). If we had an amniocentesis test we could find out if the embryo was Down's but with a risk that the baby could be damaged. We opted not to have the test. With my daughter born 4 years later, the risk was now 1 in 100. We once again played the numbers game and it turned out that she didn't have Down's. We were prepared to risk Down's at a chance of 1 in 100 because without it there wouldn't have been life. I'm pretty sure other people wouldn't risk having a vaccine that purportedly stopped the risk of say measles, if the risk was autism even if the rate was 1 in 10,000.

Those were personal choices.

And it was fine for you to make that choices as it affected no one but yourselves and your unborn children.

It would not have been fine for you make those choices if it had affected a large population of people.

altruistica said:

OK.....I now need to stop delivering stuff about vaccines....there are some great websites out there where you can find this stuff out.

And most, if not all, of those websites that state that there is a causal link between vaccines and autism have a financial reason to do so.

You can believe whatever you want to believe, that is your right as an individual.

What you do not have the right to do, however, is present your beliefes as fact without having those beliefs challenged.

And people in the former Dr Wakefield's position certainly don't have the right to scare people into doing things that put large populations of both children and adults at risk based on their unfounded beliefs.

altruistica said:

I have outlined in bold a really important distinction that this professional believes and which I do not believe. He or she thinks it ok for some children to be damaged for the greater good.....you won't see this opinion being broadcast as most people would tell him/her to take a running jump.

I think you should re-examine the bit about herd immunity. In short, the odds of your child suffering because they don't get vaccinated are greater than the odds of your child suffering if they do - because vaccination confers immunity to potentially fatal disease. I've lost a close family member to preventable childhood disease. But the odds get much worse if lots of people avoid immunisation - because then the odds of encountering the disease are much higher, as well as the risks to individual non-vaccinated children. Without herd immunity, diseases travel very rapidly through the population.

And what's so terrible about the greater good? Is it something you'd be able to put a figure on - how many other people's children is it OK to endanger, in order to have your own way with regard to your own?

And let's never forget that there is no reliable evidence - none whatsoever - that autism or any related condition is among the risks you run when getting vaccinated.

Alex R

(Posting for myself, not for NAS.)

So, are you never going to agree to any medical procedure, or any medication, or anything like that, altruistica?

Because all medical interventions carry some risk of harm to the individual.

However, this is why all medical procedures are trialled - to work out whether the benefits, on average, outweigh the risks.

Those procedures in which the risks outweigh the benefits I don't make it past the trials.

As for your 'FACTS' post - I'll address that when I'm not on my iPod.

I just read a reply to an article on Ben Goldacre's site where he discussed the Andrew Wakefield incident which I thought was worth reproducing here because it sums up how professionals assume vaccines are meant to work:

'Immunisation does work on individuals. But it isn’t 100% effective. Giving your child a vaccination means only that they’re less likely to get the associated disease, and in some cases that they’re likely to be less sick if they do contract it. We cannot be certain that a child given MMR won’t later die of Measles, we can only say that it’s hugely less likely. Thus just immunising your child isn’t enough to be “safe” we have to do more.

But there is an individual reason to choose vaccination, it does make individual children safer to be vaccinated, and our research shows that the price (in terms of the unforeseeable adverse outcomes for a small minority of children who are vaccinated, which in very rare cases could include death) is worth risking for this benefit.

However the primary Public Health reason for MMR in early childhood is indeed the herd immunity. This is the same individual immunity seen from a population level. Herd immunity means that if you have Measles (for example) most people you meet won’t catch Measles. Without herd immunity, disease races through the population, one sick person quickly becomes hundreds, thousands, even millions. This really used to happen, right here in Britain, and before vaccination no-one could do a thing about it besides wring their hands.

You might think of the individual and herd immunity factors as being like the difference between stopping smoking, and banning smoking in restaurants. If you stop smoking, you almost immediately begin to see health benefits. But if we ban everyone from smoking in the restaurant then the whole population benefits. But just because we ban smoking in restaurants doesn’t mean you’re fine to keep smoking at home – it’s still bad for you there.

People who don’t immunise their kids out of irrational fear caused by media hysteria are simultaneously putting the kids at risk as individuals (a small but non-zero increased chance they’ll die of or be permanently disabled by an easily preventable childhood ailment) and being selfish by reducing the local herd immunity, putting kids who can’t be vaccinated (e.g. those too sick from cancer treatment) at risk.

We need to create a situation where the modern journalist “bullshit” approach to health and science news is openly scorned. I want to see a journalist fired for doing this, and not in a “next week you’ll have a job that pays even better in another newspaper” way, I mean send them back to write articles about the 10km fun run in a Dorset town’s local paper. If journalists want to be a “profession” they need to start acting professionally.'

I have outlined in bold a really important distinction that this professional believes and which I do not believe. He or she thinks it ok for some children to be damaged for the greater good.....you won't see this opinion being broadcast as most people would tell him/her to take a running jump.

Al

Agnoised mummy,

I'm really sorry to hear you're having these fears. I haven't visited this site in over a year as I've been extremely busy with my own life which revolves around my 11 year old daughter (neuroytypical) and 15 year old son (ASC).

I'll say hi to Scorpion and Hope who I see have contributed to this discussion. I have studied various papers on vaccinations and theories of autism over the 11 years since my own son was diagnosed. You have to be strong against the backlash you will receive from people who tell you the world is such a way.

FACT 1 - Over 95% of research into whether vaccinations cause autism has been undertaken by pharmaceuticals companies themselves. They are under no obligation whatsoever to provide information on negative aspects of their findings.

FACT 2 - No research has ever been undertaken listing the accumulative result of the whole vaccination program. If vaccines have proved to be 'safe', they have been tested in isolation to one another.

FACT 3 - If someone receives a vaccination, who was otherwise healthy when they received the vaccination and ends up dead less than 48 hours later (other than being hit by a bus or similar), then in my own mind the circumstantial evidence points to the vaccine as being the cause of death. It doesn't matter whether the same vaccine given to 100,000 other people didn't cause death, in this individual it caused death. You won't however find any medical practitioner coming out directly and saying that....not because they don't believe it, but simply because they would be professionally crucified.

If anyone responds to my posting please don't bother saying my FACTS are incorrect. I have studied the papers and irrespective of what you've been told, or read or come to the conclusion about, you will not change my mind about these things. When I say FACTS by the way, I mean them to be FACTS as I want to believe them as we all construct our world based on belief systems. Angelina Jolie has just had a double masectomy because she believes she has a gene make-up that will give her cancer. I've no idea if she follows a healthy diet of brocolli, turmeric, ginger, garlic and other anti-cancer type foods, but she is of the belief that no matter what other lifestyle changes she could make, a double masectomy was her best option in avoiding cancer. I wonder if she side-steps the scanner machines when she's globe-trotting around the world, or if she has routine mammograms.....you see, I believe you're much more likely to develop *** cancer if you're *** are subjected even to the tiniest of exposure if you're already inclined that way.....much like the vaccination program.

FACT 4 - Spring onions repeat on me whenever I eat them, sometimes for days on end. They don't affect 99.9% of the population in the same way, so spring onions cannot possibly cause me the gastronomical distress....it must all be in my mind.

FACT 5 - My sister (53) has been severly allergic to eggs ever since I've known her. She only has to touch something that has egg in it to come out in a rash and feel unwell. She now carries a solution around with her in case of anaphylaxis. Is it so unthinkable that a subset of the population has difficulty in dealing with all the different ingredients in a vaccine?

FACT 6 - The whole vaccine program would fall down tomorrow if the population were given true figures over reactions to vaccines. Even if a figure was given that said MMR can cause a condition similar to autism in 1 in 100,000 (a very conservertive number), people would stop accepting the vaccine. Any rational thinking person given what I've just said about spring onion, eggs, disease in general (why do some people develop something and others don't.....look up figures of Swine Flu for example). This is the crux of the matter. For the vaccination program to keep going, health professionals have to carry on with the lie that vaccines are safe in all the population. If they don't?.....well ask Andrew Wakefield what happens.

If my son Thomas was newly born tomorrow, knowing what I know now, he wouldn't receive any vaccinations. As older parents at the time, we were told that there was a chance of 1 in 2000 that he would be born with Down's Syndrome  (because of my wife's age, 37 at the time). If we had an amniocentesis test we could find out if the embryo was Down's but with a risk that the baby could be damaged. We opted not to have the test. With my daughter born 4 years later, the risk was now 1 in 100. We once again played the numbers game and it turned out that she didn't have Down's. We were prepared to risk Down's at a chance of 1 in 100 because without it there wouldn't have been life. I'm pretty sure other people wouldn't risk having a vaccine that purportedly stopped the risk of say measles, if the risk was autism even if the rate was 1 in 10,000.

OK.....I now need to stop delivering stuff about vaccines....there are some great websites out there where you can find this stuff out.

As for your son, stop beating yourself up over whether he has autism or not. Get clued up over different forms of communicating with him other than speech (look up speech and language therapies online or get in touch with your local education / health authority. As a musician myself, keep singing to your child.......any of the nursery rhymes that you can pause over......'One man went to mow, went to mow a meadow....might be a good one'. We went on an NAS initiative when my son was diagnosed at 4 and still non-verbal called 'Early Bird Training' . I still have the materials and will post them to you if you want them.

Do you have other children? I think my experience talking with other parents is that if the ASC child is a second or third child, their developmental delay is spotted more quickly than a first child because of the parents' prior experience with a 'neurotypical' child.

On a positive note, my son is one of the most loving, most caring individuals I know. He won't lie, cheat, manipulate, scheme or do any of the other horrible things that other people may do. I'll try to upload some videos of him to give you hope.

Good luck,

Al

Agonised mummy - please try not to worry just yet.  There are lots of avenues to explore before you end up at the conclusion you've reached.  That said, you have to trust your instincts.  If you feel something is wrong start with your gp or health visitor and go from there.  There could be all sorts of explanations.  You're doing the right thing investigating all possibilities because whatever the problem - if there is one - the sooner it's discovered the better.  You're not on your own - there are lots of parents out there trying to do their best for their children. Don't let his age hold you back from seeking professional advice.  Best of luck.

AgnoisedMummy said:

You have made it clear you are not open to new information about vaccine safety, so I am not going to give you any here.

Funny thing is, there's only one person in this thread expressing that they're not going to listen to reason. And it's not me, nor is it Hope.

And, yeah, the amount of of irrational people in the world gets very 'boring' sometimes.

Hi AgnosiedMummy,

I think I can understand you wanting to find the truth. I am not easily convinced of any 'evidence' without actual 'proof'. But without myself doing some kind of study then I have to from my opinion based on other peoples opinions and studies. I find that its really difficult to come to a concrete conclusion because I am not always sure of peoples motives.

It would be interesting to see if any other people on this site have a similar experience. I can imagine that any chemical that put in your body can have an effect. To know what that effect is I can not tell. There are a myriad of factors that may affect your child. I think you are right to examine each one (including vacines) if only to rule them in or out.

I think Hope and Scorpion are raising some very intersting points along with your own. I see it as information and the more you have the better.

Good Luck

BTW ..........

AgnoisedMummy said:

It feels like he's turned from a typical, chatty baby into a busy, unnaturally calm robot. My heart is breaking. I don't want to wait and see, I need to know what this means. I need to know if there is anything I can do to bring him into the world of sociability. 

If he is autistic then he is. He might be a natural calm robot. His world might not be the 'world of sociability'.

You have made it clear you are not open to new information about vaccine safety, so I am not going to give you any here. I have no interest in changing your mind, although you seem excessively concerned with changing mine.

You feel any opinion you do not share must be wrong, have no basis in fact and even lead to being a bad parent. This is extraordinary arrogance. When you are so intolerant of alternative points of view, I don't see what else we can possibly have to say to each other.

The truth you find so hard to accept is you have no power to influence other people's opinions or their parenting styles. I hope you can make peace with this idea because it seems to be causing you unnecessary distress.

If you need to rant out a reply to feel like you've had the last word, I understand and I hope it brings you some relief. In the meantime I have other things to do and more positive people to respond to and frankly this is getting very boring.