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.

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.

NAS21846 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.

NAS21846 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.

NAS21846 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.

NAS21846 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

NAS21846 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.

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.

There is no autism 'epidemic'. In actual fact, studies have shown that the proportion of adults with autism is the same as that of children with autism. The reason why it appears that autism is becoming more common is because of increased awareness and consequently more diagnosis.

AgnoisedMummy: I am not intending to be disrespectful, but as ScorpianOx17 said of himself, I too have Aspergers, and my communication style can therefore be bluntly honest - I apologize in advance.

You seem to suggest that this is simply a disagreement between competing opinions, and that each opinion carries equal weight. This is not so. Science is about examining evidence and making logical inductions, based upon a particular method that has to be logically sound. When a particular premise has enough evidence to back it up, it becomes established Science - meaning that all Scientists worth their salt would respect the evidence. The opposite to Scientifically demonstrated truths is metaphysics, which rests upon mere speculative assertions, with no evidence to back the claims up.

If your beliefs affected no one but yourself, AgnoisedMummy, then I wouldn't care less about what you choose to believe.

But they do affect someone else, they affect your child.

Now, I'm not saying that I think you would knowingly do anything to harm your child, but that you may be unknowingly not giving him the best help you could, because the first step in providing that help is in truly understanding his (possible) condition and it's causes.

It's like in first aid, you're taught not to move someone who is unconcious unless they are in immediate danger (either because of where they are, or the position in which they are lying, say), because doing so may make any injuries worse. However, a paramedic has the knowledge to know when it is safe to move that person.

Arm yourself with knowledge, not with opinion.

Now, I can't direct you to the evidence that supports what I say for exactly the same reason I know you can not access that knowledge - I don't have access to PubMed and other academic research databases.

However, I would suggest you look up Dr Wakefield. Sorry, Andrew Wakefield, as he should now be known as he was struck off. He's the man that started the whole MMR/Autism thing. This wikipedia page should provide an interesting read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield

Also look up Ben Goldachre and what he has to say about Mr Wakefield, and the whole MMR/Autism saga.

You claim to have facts and proof to support your view but you don't share this evidence, instead you rely on the very vague idea of 'consensus'. There probably is consensus that most vaccines are safe for most people, but that is not the same as having proof that they are always safe for everyone (if it were, then massive damages would not have been awarded in the Italian and US courts).

Lack of evidence of harm is not the same as proof of safety. Scientists are as human as the rest of us, with differing opinions, biases and conflicting interests (when their funding comes from large pharmaceuticals, how can they be as neutral as we would hope). We should not expect everyone to agree whether they are lay people or scientists, on this or any other subject.

Mercury (one of the most toxic elements known to man) was injected into babies for decades without any formal studies being done to test it's safety. When it was eventually removed from the vaccination schedule in 2004 in the UK it was done very quietly indeed. Meanwhile neuro-developmental disorders have been rising at epidemic rates. I agree with you that there probably is a genetic component to all of these, including autism. But the rise is too fast to be down to genetics alone - we simply don't make babies fast enough to account for it. There are likely to be other contributing factors in the environment and I think a potential one of these is vaccinations. 

You do not agree with me about this and that is absolutely fine. I have no interest in forcing you to agree with me and yet you seem completely unable to tolerate that I don't share your view on this subject. Your need to insist that my opinion is invalid and and that your opposing view is fact, is really quite irrational. We will just have to agree to disagree on this.

AgnoisedMummy said:

I am simply saying not enough research has been done on the long term effects of vaccines to be certain there are none.

That's just it though, AgnoisedMummy. There has been enough research done for the scientific community as a whole to say with as much confidence as the scientific community ever says anything with, that there is no link between autism and vaccines. And note, it's not even just 'vaccines don't cause autism', it's 'there is no link at all'.

As far as I am aware there is no known cause of autism, so neither of us can say with certainty what the cause is, (or is not).

Whilst the precise mechanisms are not known, it is generally believed, and there is ever growing evidence for, again amongst the scientific community, that Autism is a genetic condition.

I feel we would do best to keep an open mind and we should all resist claiming our different opinions and experiences are objective truth.

Perhaps you only intended to reassure me by saying vaccines are perfectly safe? But I don't like to be told my opinions are wrong and that (because you disagree with them) they must necessarily be without foundation. This is more than blunt, it is disrespectful as well as ultimately unhelpful.

We are not claiming our opinions are objective truth, nor are we telling you that your opinions are wrong because we disagree with them. We are telling you the objective truth of science, and that your opinions are wrong because science disagrees with them.

And, please understand why I personally am telling you this - it's not to put you down, or condescend to you, it's because, as I stated before, in order to help your child you must understand the truth of his (possible) condition, not blame things that are not to blame, and not look for treatments, or cures, that are not to be found.

Autism is (most likely) a genetic condition, it is present from birth, and the developmental characteristics you describe in your original post are perfectly normal for a child with autism, whether they have been given vaccines or not.

And that is the point - what you have observed is characteristic of Autism and the developmental pathway of an Autistic child - no more needs to be said or looked for.

hi agonisedmum - gd news that you enjoyed some time together + he liked you copying him.  With someone so young it can be difficult knowing where to start, but entering his world usually strikes a chord.  I'm sure you'll know of many ways to do this which will help you to connect with each other + you can build on all that as he gets older.  bw

I tried a bit of signing with him today after reading your post. He's only one, so pictures don't mean a lot to him yet. He didn't copy me at all but I think he was interested. I think I had more success with copying some of his gestures - I think he loved it actually. He smiled anyway and seemed intrigued that he could make the 'big person' do stuff.