Published on 12, July, 2020
I don't think I've perused this site in a long time......maybe 5 or 6 years.
I watched Louis Theroux's excellent documentary last week (aired in UK on 19/4/2012) and thought there would have been at least one discussion at this site. Unless I've missed it, here's one to get the ball rolling.
These are my thoughts on the current situation. I haven't put any links to my theories but if anyone wants them I'll list them separately.My son was diagnosed ten years ago with high-functioning autism. Concerns were raised at his 3.5 year assessment as he wasn't speaking. After 6 months of tests, the CDC (Child Development Centre) made their diagnosis. My wife cried on the sofa while I hugged her. I can remember all the 'milestone' dates as if it was yesterday.Tom did vocalise from the beginning and started to talk around 9 months. By 12 months he had a few words. After his MMR (15 months) he lost those words. He didn't have much shared non-vocal communication either (ie. staring at a cup or a toy that he wanted). It was something we watched for like a hawk in his sister when she came along 4 years later.Of course, when we underwent an 'Early Bird Training Programme' for parents of newly diagnosed children after his diagnosis, the child psychologist informed us that it was a coincidence that his words should disappear around the same time as the MMR jab. To be honest in those days, I didn't think it was the jab that caused his autism as he didn't have any massive side-effects. Not like some of the parents we met on that course. Over the eight weeks it took place, we swopped stories and some of the parents noticed immediately after the jab a change in their children. Their stories of incessant crying and fits in some cases were heart-breaking even if, from a medical standpoint, they were only anecdotal. I've always wanted to go back and ask the child psychologist where she found the information that says 'autism' begins to show between fifteen and eighteen months of age. Over the years of study, I've never come across a piece of research that covers this. It's only with hindsight now, that it seems a pretty convenient way of covering up any damage that might occur through a much increased vaccination program that we now have.So there it is. My research over the last ten years has brought me to the indisputable conclusion that the increased rates of autism are down to ONE significant cause, with a myriad of possible results.That cause is of course the vaccination schedule.The myriad of possible results I stated above, is because although vaccinations are the trigger for setting the autistic brain in development, I don't think they are acting alone. I think the damage is further fuelled by the food intake of the children and their individual DNA make-up. I actually think the idea that 'autism' has a possible 'genetic' make-up (the inheritence theory), is probably only a small risk factor compared to the massive risk that vaccinations pose.My silver bullet for making such a bold statement lies in a very, very, simple fact. Take any un-vaccinated population around the world (the Amish community in the USA is a good example). The rate of autism is between 1 in 10,000 - 15,000). The reason why the rate is difficult to assess more accurately, is because the incident rate is so small and because there are not many places left where the actions of Big Pharma have not been steamrollered through (cue the image of Ewan McGregor trekking through the backs of beyond in India and Nepal last Sunday evening to deliver vaccines to a remote village. I do hope he goes back with a film crew when the first cases of 'autism' are reported in the future). Compare that rate to the New Jersey rate which I was absolutely shocked to read as being 1 in 29.You also have to do your homework where vaccinations are concerned. I am in no doubt we will look back on this period of medical history and consider the actions of some people in authority with the same feelings we have towards the clinicians who experimented on patients with mental health problems in the sixties and seventies. When I ask most people 'how many children do you think died of measles in the UK in the year preceding the introduction of the vaccine?' Most answer in the thousands. They are shocked when I say '30'. And out of those we don't know how many had such 'underlying health problems' (as the BBC News is always keen to point out) that they would have unfortunately died of something else anyway. That isn't to say that measles is a simple disease with no risks. Of course in serious cases, encephalitis can cause serious problems. But we've come a long way since the Second World War and cases of measles and their complications were dropping year on year. Mumps never killed anyone and the same for Rubella. If it sounds as if I think the MMR jab is the sole cause of autism, I don't. I think it's the combination of everything. The thimerosal (mercury) preservative in the vaccine, the use of animal tissue and other genetically modified material, make vaccines potentially fatal. You never hear about the risks, but search around and you'll find cases of death, paralysis and other debilitating disorders because of vaccines.You may ask, 'if vaccines are the cause, then why don't they affect everybody?' I think in part, they probably do. If you correlate the rises in asthma, eczema, hay-fever, mouth-ulcers and a whole host of other non-life threatening disorders (actually asthma is life-threatening) between vaccinated and un-vaccinated populations the evidence is once again there to be found. You have to disregard almost 95% of medical research because it often is funded by pharmaceutical companies for the sole purpose of demonstrating the 'safety' of their products. Any negative findings are routinely hidden from the rearch data, thus making the results meaningless.What I found quite shocking in Louis' film was the visual evidence of what I'd been reading about over the years. The rate of obesity in the States is currently running at 37% of adults and 1 in 2 of every child. The figures are mind-blowing. The States also has been Monsanto's GM playground and coupled with a massive lack of nutritional value to the food results in what I perceived on my TV yesterday. When the young man was collected from the hostel to spend the day with his mum, I was shocked to see him tucking into the fast food. His actions looked entirely like an addict trying to get a fix. I don't mean this in an offensive way, but if the 'fuel' of autism is the action of a diet upon a damaged body, as many clinicians working in the field suspect, then we need to fix these addictions.I realise my views are probably very controversial, but if anyone is feeling pangs of guilt from subjecting their children to the vaccination schedule, I would advise them to let it go. We can only do what we think is for the best, and I'm in no doubt that we all acted in what we thought was the best interests of our children. I actually think the term 'autistic' is becoming redundant now for the simple reason that I've met too wide a 'spectrum' of children and adults who are termed 'autistic' for it to be meaningful. I think of my child's 'autism' now, as a result of someone else's incompetence on the good days, and down-right evilness on the bad days. I also think we need a term that expresses exactly what these children have ended up with .....a term such as 'government damaged' but with a positive spin. Tom hasn't had any more vaccinations since the age of about 3. What I've learned about the whole process of vaccinations means I will not subject him or his sister to any further vaccinations until they are old enough to weigh up the evidence themselves and then make their own decisions. Funnily enough, the autism specific advisor who was one of the team who delivered that very first 'Early Bird Programme' I mentioned above ten years ago, told me she had had four children herself. She's since retired but guess what?..........none of her children ever had any vaccinations whatsoever.Food for thought.
As I said I haven't visited this site in a long time, but I was surprised to find how large the NAS has grown (if the size of the website is anything to go by). What further surprised me was the availability of data concerning everything to do with managing autism (from behaviour to legals, education to work etc). There is a lot of stuff on here. What I could't seem to find easily was any mention of causes of autism.
Where are the voices suggesting what the causes of this 'development disorder' are?
Where are the independent research papers outlining various inquiries into possible causes?
Surely this should be the number one priority for an organisation dealing with autism, shoudn't it?
I know only too well how difficult it is getting any help to deal with my son's autism, but if I could stop one more child and their family going through the journey that we've gone through, I would.
If, as I have claimed, the rise in 'autism' that we've seen over the last thirty years, that correlates perfectly with the increased vaccination schedule, is due to vaccinations then parents need to be informed of the risks involved. Then can they make an informed decision as to whether the risk of 'autism' and the subsequent pressure it places upon the family ( ie.the immense emotional and financial strain, the Extreme Love that Louis talks about) is worth the risk BEFORE accepting vaccinations.
I would have foregone ALL vaccinations for my children if I knew then what I know now.
I welcome your comments and debate.
Al
Altruistica,
You're clearly very eloquent, and, I would surmise, probably consider yourself a well read, and well educated member of the middle classes.
However you appear to display several classic, and sadly all too common, cognitive errors.
Firstly you appear to come with a pre-concieved idea and look at only the evidence that supports that idea.
Witness: "the abstracts make it easier to ascertain which are worth reading and which are not" - if you were really seeking the truth and not merely support for your preconceived ideas you would not be picking and choosing in this manner - not decideing which are "worth reading" based on some pre-selected criteria of value.
Secondly you use circular reasoning, of the type "the bible must be the word of God, because it says so in the bible" - I won't give quotes here as I'd essentially have to quote everything you wrote, which basically boils down to 'I believe this because I believe this', so I'll move on.
Thirdly, you use flawed logic, and there are several examples of this in what you wrote:
"why would we say the similarities, small as they may be between Asperger's and Autism, point to them being caused by the same trigger?"
Well, for a start that word 'trigger' is very loaded, implying that before some event person X didn't have autism, and then all of a sudden, because of this 'trigger' person X does have autism, or whatever you wish to call it.
However, being a developmental disorder, autism is often not detected in the early months, or years, of a childs life, and in the case of Asperger's, often not diagnosed until well into adulthood - I for example am 39 this year and was diagnosed less than three years ago, I also know of a gentleman that wasn't diagnosed until he was 72!
But, oh, I hear you cry, Asperger's is not the same! Right?! No, wrong. Autism is a spectrum disorder, and just like any spectrum the two ends of it are not identical, but they do share similarities.
Anyway, back to 'triggers', and flawed logic, the flaw in your statement centeres around this word 'trigger', one does not develop autism, one is born with it, there simply is no 'trigger', well, unless you want to consider conception a 'trigger'.
OK, on to the next item of flawed logic:
"I've heard the hypothesis that the increased rates may be down to better detection and it just doesn't wash for this simple reason. I'm almost 50 now, and I know quite a few retired primary school teachers. Their anecdotal evidence is priceless no matter who tells you it's not. When they started their teaching careers, there was no autism in mainstream schools. There were special schools that catered for disabled children. Most teachers that retired in the last five years, report that there was at least one child with a diagnosis of ASD and several others with reduced ailments (ADHD etc)."
There were no autistic children in mainstream school precisely because they got put straight into special schools!
However now, the default position is to put children into mainstream eductation and only to move them out, into special eduction if they're unable to cope, or the mainstream system is unable to cope with the child's needs.
So, of course primary school teachers will see more children with autism now, not because there neccesarily are more children with autism, but rather as a function of the change in the way the education system works!
And then, in you response to Hope you state:
"You say vaccinations protect from awful diseases indeveloping countries. How do you know this? Where is the data to support this? Remember, homo-sapiens have been on this earth for around 100,000 years in an almost identical gene-makeup that we presently have. If we had not acquired a good, strong healthy immune system, we would have gone the way of the Dodo many years ago"
Well, for the vast majority of those 100,000 years you almost certainly wouldn't have reached the grand old age of 50! Life expectancy has, iirc, almost doubled in the short time since the start of the 20th century. Why is that? Could perhaps be something to do with modern standards of hygene, and modern medical technology? I think it might. It certainly has more to do with those things than our 'strong healthy immune system'!
Fourthly misquoting:
"I don't understand why you think my argument against vaccination for measles is laughable?"
I didn't say that I find you argument against vaccination laughable, I said that I find your "how many people died of measles the year before" question laughable.
The question itself is yet another example of your faulty logic - the MMR vaccine was not the first vaccine against measles, it was the first combined Measles, Mumps, and Rubella vaccine, so the question is completely moot.
Fifthly, you misvalue the opinions of self appointed 'experts', namely the founder of the vactruth website, whom you seem to think gets no financial gain from his stated position, however it is notable that the site carries paid ads, and a quick google search will reveal that Jeffry John Aufderheide (the founder of vactruth) certainly gets around doing interviews, and media appearances, alot, and I find it hard to imagine he can even afford to do that if he wasn't in some way financially rewarded for at least some of those appearences.
Finally, you've repeatedly stated that Asperger's and Autism are somehow very different, however the next version of the American diagnostic criteria purportedly will drop the term Asperger's altogether. Why? Because it will be termed 'Mild Autism'. So even the diagnostic experts consider Asperger's and Autism to be very closely related.
And, you say, in one of your responses to Hope "Start trying to think Asperger's has nothing to do with a child still being in nappies at age ten, or unable to speak age fifteen, or being cared for for the rest of their lives at age twenty", well, maybe you need to start thinking that Asperger's is just a milder form of the condition that causes a child still being in nappies at age ten, or unable to speak age fifteen, or being cared for for the rest of their lives at age twenty!
Just as you yourself state, health and wellbeing is not often a case of black and white, either or, conditions, and, as I've already stated Autism is a spectrum condition, there are those unfortunate enough to be at the end that you describe, those of us fortunate enough to be at the Asperger's end, and many that lie somewhere in between.
You may, as I said right back at the beginning of this post, be eloquent, well read, and relatively well educated, but that does not make your misguided opinion fact!