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 said: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.
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.
You're now not only drawing conclusions from generalisations, but you're also changing your criteria as you go along - previously you stated that difference between Asperger's and Autism, in you view, was down to functional differences - " (Asperger's - early speech, high functioning, no obvious learning disabilities, doesn't suffer fools gladly or children their own age, lack of tactile play: against Autism - no speech or very little until 5 or 6, no grammatical syntax, love of slapstick /rough play, can be very tactile)" and that "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", but now you're saying that it's solely to do with a difference in the desire to socialise!
Firstly, at least get your story straight - you're either drawing lines based on one of these things or the other, or your lines are so moveable as to be non-existent.
(incidently, did you realise that the desire to put things into nice neat categories, and to refuse to see a spectrum of conditions, is a very autistic trait in and of itself?)
But, secondly, sure some people at the more severe end of the autistic spectrum have no desire to socialise, but this is not a universal. Equally many at the Asperger's end of the spectrum, like myself, have the overwhelming desire to socialise, yet other's state they have no such desire, prefering to be with, and around, animals, machines, and/or inanimate objects. You also state that the person with Asperger's will "have little empathy, talked over the person rather than listening and responding etc", and again, some with Asperger's may fit that description, but I certainly do not. I have a great deal of emapthy, and I was once told by someone that they were surprised when they first heard me talk because they had thought, up until that point, after knowing me for quite some time, that I couldn't talk! You see, there is as much variation within the black-and-white divisions you wish to impose on reality as there is amongst any diverse population.
As Tony Attwood (a real expert on Asperger's and Autism, maybe you should look him up sometime) says (and whom I'm probably misquoting slightly) "When you've met one person with an ASD... You've met one person with an ASD!"
We are not all the same, even within the sub-groups of Asperger's, High-function Autism, and classic (severe) Autism.
We are individuals.
And we vary as much as any group of neurotypicals do.
altruistica said:'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?
Could you explain why this is sensitive as I don't understand what you mean?
You appear to be lacking a degree of emapthy there.
It is a sensitive issue because you're talking about real people, and the things that make them who they are.
altruistica said:'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.
Again, I'm unsure as to what you mean.
He, or she, is saying that some people with Asperger's distance themselves from those with Asperger's that have made a success of their lives, as if somehow merely having Asperger's means that one can not be succesfull, or possibly obversly, that being successfull means that such an individual can not possibly have Asperger's.
I believe he, or she, is also stating that minor differences in the way one individual's Autism presents itself, compared to another individual, are not, in and of themselves, sufficient evidence to mount a case for a seperation and sub-dividing of different conditions on the spectrum.
altruistica said: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.
Firstly as I stated before the apparent increase in Autism can easily be explained by the better understanding and detection of the condition. Not so long ago, and in fact it still occurs, there was a very high likelyhood of someone with Autism being misdiagnosed with one of several mental health conditions, and being sectioned. These misdiagnoses would never be counted in the statistics because they were misdiagnoses!
Secondly, again, until very recently Asperger's was not even recognised a real condition, let alone as a form of Autism, not to mention late diagnosis of Asperger's and Higher-functioning autistics which also has not happened until very recently. It is therefor no surprise that the numbers of people diagnosed with Autism are rising, however that doesn't imply that the underlying number of people with Autism is in fact increasing, just that they are being uncovered.
Thirdly, correlation does not imply causality. That is, just because there is an increase in the number of people diagnosed with Autism, at the same time as there is an increase in the rate vaccination, and the numbers of vaccinations given to any one individual, does not mean that there must definitely be a link between these two factors.
altruistica said: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.
I happen to agree with you, to some extent, on this point. However, again, these apparent facts may, and are probably more likely to, point to something other than the supposed willingness of the American government to attack people on their own territory, by flying planes into the twin towers, the pentagon, and possibly the White House. It is far more reasonable, and fits with all of the evidence, to surmise that the American secret services were aware of a plot to hijack planes and fly them into the twin towers, however, they also realised that they were likely powerless to stop this from happening, and so, like any good administration, took steps to ensure that any secrets or other sensitive documents/computer files held within the towers (remember that some of the secret services, as well as many large international banks, and so on, had offices there), could be easily destroyed, after the fact. And so demolition charges were pre-installed into the towers, and some of the surrounding buildings. Then, on the day, amongst the unfolding horror, the person with their finger on the demolition trigger, paniced and brought down the towers too soon. At the most all the American administration can be then be charged with, is the covering up of some of the facts.
altruistica said:Why do we use petroleum products in most of our automobiles?
Because until very recently it was the most economical fuel available.
altruistica said:Why did the American Government introduce Prohibition in 1919 and withdraw the Act in 1934?
They introduced Prohibition becuase they're deeply religious country and enough of the adminstration saw the consumption of alchohol as a sin.
They then repealed the act because they saw that prohibition caused more problems than it solved.
altruistica said:Why is the use of cannabis illegal?
The actual truth of this is even more laughable then the conspiracy theories. It had nothing to do with Big Pharma, or Big Oil, or any one of the other theories.
It was made illegal in the 1920's by the International Opium Convention, at the request of the Egyptians, and with the support of China and the United States of America, primarily because the Egyptians clamed, probably correctly, that a large proportion of the men of working age in Egypt were unproductive because they sat around all day smoking cannabis, getting stoned.
Oh, and by the way, the low THC hemp used for rope making, and so on, that the video you posted a link to is about, is not the same as the high THC hemp that is used to smoke. They are genetically related, but they are not the same.
altruistica said: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.htmlOr 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'.
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'.
So, let me get this straight, if someone agrees with your point of view, they're 'independent', if they don't they're not?
That's called bias.
altruistica said: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.
Please go back and read what I wrote. I didn't say "our ancestral forefathers never lived beyond the age of fifty", I said "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." - big difference!
I'm not saying that no one lived beyond the age of 50 past, but rather the life expectancy (that is the average age at which people died) was below fifty.
Yes, some lived beyond that, but they were not the norm. The norm was to live a short, painful, disease ridden life. This is backed up by archeological evidence.
altruistica said:'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'.
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'.
Just as the characteristics and deviations in the wider neurotypical population are as different from each other as they are from 'the norm'.
We are human beings, and just like every other human being we vary in our characterisitcs.