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
Hi Longman,
'I'm more concerned about altruistica's pronouncements about the difference between autism and aspergers'.
I got this idea from a talk by Ros Blackburn about seven years ago. She maintained that a person with autism (by which I understand her to mean Kanner's definition) was not in the least bothered about not socialising with people. The person with Asperger's often wanted to socialise with people but didn't have the social tools to enable this. They would make social gaffs, have little empathy, talked over the person rather than listening and responding etc. It's very interesting that one respondent remarked that the term 'Asperger's' is going to be replaced by 'mild autism', thereby removing the distinction with a simple dotting of the 'i's.
'This is a sensitive area, and needs to show understanding of others (altruism)'.
Could you explain why this is sensitive as I don't understand what you mean?
'But it is interesting how some people diagnosed with aspergers are eager to dissociate from anyone who has achieved as if aspergers precluides being successful. I don't see that the distinction of when learning shows up is sufficient to argue an entire separation of the two'.
Again, I'm unsure as to what you mean.
The idea of 'the spectrum' for me now, is a fabrication. It's a very clever smokescreen to hide the inescapeable truth. Vaccinations have increased. Autism has increased. Vaccinations are no 'superfix' that has occured in late 20th century medicine. American doctors at the beginning of the century (1900's onwards) were supplying evidence of their flawed science.
www.4shared.com/.../horrors_of_vaccination_exposed.html
Let me just state my position clearly on this. This will add ammunition for readers who already think I'm dillusional for thinking that the rise in autism is associated with the increased vaccination schedule but bear with me. Most people think the collapse of the Twin Towers of 911 were caused by planes flying into the buildings and the subsequent fires weakening the steel to such an extent that they fell within their footprint at freefall velocity. Such a thing is impossible. It's not my opinion as I'm no structural engineer. But the evidence put before any reasonably open-minded person can deliver no other cause for the Towers to collapse other than controlled demolition.
video.google.com/videoplay
You do have to read the papers and watch the evidence to ascertain whether there is any truth in this. You can't simply listen to George W. Bush or President Obama and accept everything they say is the truth. Why would you?
It's taken me almost ten years (the last ten years of my life) to become interested enough in world politics to research it.
Let me pose another couple of questions that will illustrate this.
Why do we use petroleum products in most of our automobiles?
http://www.permaculture.com/
Why did the American Government introduce Prohibition in 1919 and withdraw the Act in 1934?
Why is the use of cannabis illegal?
www.youtube.com/watch
The search for thse answers leads to some very disturbing answers about how the world works. It also provides clues to how the pharmaceutical industry works and has worked for the last one hundred years.
What has this to do with autism?
Everything I think. The way that organisations work is extremely clever. The reason why I don't read certain papers (after perusing the abstracts) is because often the science is not independent. I'm quite surprised that some readers would think the costs of setting up websites and maintaining them, both the financial and human cost would make someone think that an organisation like Vac Truth or JABS was in it for the money. There are much simpler ways to make money. If you don't accpet what they're saying what about this doctor:
www.ted.com/.../ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science.html
Or this doctor:
web.mac.com/.../
There are literally tons of others if you search around. These are doctors that have done the research, not simply your local GP who says something to the effect, 'The government line is that vaccinations are safe'. Also remember that the training to become a doctor is a serious undertaking, maybe ten years of study or more. I think given the choice between being hounded out of the profession for speaking openly and candidly on a wide range of treatments, or simply toing the line for most doctors, is no choice at all. Doctors are taught the first thing they should do, 'is do no harm'. I also refute the idea that given availability to clean water and an adequate supply of food meant that our ancestral forefathers never lived beyond the age of fifty. Where's the evidence for this? This video points to our mobility well into our sixties and beyond:
www.ted.com/.../christopher_mcdougall_are_we_born_to_run.html
'Perhaps Altruistica could show some examples of learned evidence for this assertion.' (ie. difference between Aspi / Autistic)
I cannot show evidence for this assertion other than comparing Aspis that I know and Autistic people I know. Their characteristics and deviations from 'the norm' are as different from each other as they are from 'the norm'.
Can I just say at this point, my son is diagnosed as high-fuctioning autistic......whatever that means. He hasn't been seen by a clinician since he was diagnosed aged four and a bit. I love him dearly. He also tells me daily that he loves me, and does things to show that love. He teaches me daily that 'violence is not the answer' and it is a beautiful way of being, contrary to my upbringing where a fist was met with a bigger fist. He cannot see the intracies of relationships, but takes them on a simple, almost 'soul-like' way....as if he knows which souls are honest (good) and which souls are troubled (evil, if you want to use that word).
His ability to weigh up situations is limited for the time being. He has to be reminded fairly often about where he is, the appropriateness of his actions and what they might look like to others. His obsessions with cleanliness fluctuate depending on how stressed he's feeling (probably typical 'control' system reflex). His learning since puberty kicked in, for me has been an eye-opener on how the hormonal interaction between his physical make-up and his learning is linked.
I could go as any active parent of an ASD kid could. This is the Extreme Love that Louis so aptly mentions. This is the love, the worrying, the wondering about his future that I and most other parents of ASD kids have never had to think about in association with our other kids. This also is something only a parent of an ASD kid can feel, just like Louis's program on dementia. You can have all the empathy in the world for these situations, but until you've made the journey you don't really know what the landscape is like.
I hope that kind of summarises my intentions with this posting.
Scorpion and Hope.
As Aspis, I totally respect your right to have an opinion. I just want to point out that there is a lot of evidence on the internet now to support the idea that increased rates of 'neurological damage' are primarily down to increased vaccination schedules. Censorship of the internet is a real fear given the Bills that are going through Congress at the moment. If this happens, the information, the other voice that we can access at the moment, will no longer exist. Think about Bradley Manning and Wikileaks. Where are they now?
If readers think I'm comparing apples with pears (if that's the expression), fine. I think only when we have a truly independent system of medical care and research, with proper accountability, auditing and scrutinisation will we be able to authoritavely claim that vaccines present no significant danger to human health.
I think I've just about exhausted my thoughts on the subject. I'll leave you with this link: