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 Mumma Wilson,That's an interesting story you told. Thanks for sharing it. Do I take it that your son is about seven or eight now? After the diagnosis, in retrospect, does his prior behaviour (ie. pre 4 years) fit the pattern of an Asperger's toddler? Did you have any concerns that he might be different from other children?
Hi Mumma Wilson,
That's an interesting story you told. Thanks for sharing it. Do I take it that your son is about seven or eight now? After the diagnosis, in retrospect, does his prior behaviour (ie. pre 4 years) fit the pattern of an Asperger's toddler? Did you have any concerns that he might be different from other children?
I've no idea what Mumma Wilson will reply to this, if she does, but let me guess your reason for asking, altruistica.
Am I right in thinking you're expecting, or hoping, her to reply saying something to the effect of "no, we had no concerns what-so-ever"?
Thereby adding weight to your Vaccines cause ASDs hypothosis.
Well, I hate to pre-empt Mumma Wilson's reply like this, and to burst your bubble before it even been inflated, as it were, but, well, there being no sign of anything precisely does 'fit the pattern of an Asperger's toddler', because, well, there is no pattern! Asperger's, and all ASDs present differently in different people and at different points in development. So 'no ASD symptoms before the age of 4' is not a sign of 'no ASD before the age of 4', it's just a sign of 'no ASD symptoms before the age of 4' - or, in other words, just to make it absolutely clear what I'm saying, it doesn't mean her son didn't have Asperger's before that age it just means her son didn't show any signs of having Asperger's before that age.
altruistica said:Hey Scorpion,I think I missed your reply, sorry.
Hey Scorpion,
I think I missed your reply, sorry.
No problem.
altruistica said:All the best with sorting the Crohn's out. Is there a Western medical remedy for this, or is it something that alternative medicine has answers too? I know nothing about it.
There is no cure, either 'Western' or 'Alternative'. The medication I now take seems to be working though, so that's good. And I avoid food that trigger a flare up. That's about all I can do, or can be done for me, at the moment. There is a glimmer of hope for a cure, as it's believed to be a genetic disorder, so gene-therapy may become available at some stage - at the very least it may lead to better, more directed, medication (currently the only treatments available work on the 'damping the immune system down' principle, which works, but isn't ideal).
altruistica said:I'm sorry if you understood me to mean that I thought the MMR was responsible for the increase in autism. I think all vaccinations may be implicated, either partly or wholly, in conjuction with possible environmental triggers. Whether it's because of the adjuvents, the preservatives or the virus tissue itself I have no idea.
Ok, well, there's just as little evidence for that too.
altruistica said:There is a theory (I forget which) that kind of poo poos the idea of a 'gut feeling' about something. It says something like, just because something looks like it's linked with something else, it's only because our brains want the simplest of explanations (Is it Occum's Razor?).
Ok, couple of points about that - 1, that's not Occam's Razor (which I'll explain shortly), and 2, whilst 'gut feeling' is not a reliable source of wisdom, the idea that our brains want the simplest of explanations runs counter to evidence - quite the opposite in fact - well, it's a generalisation of course, but humans have the tendency to over complicate things, in fact - hence the pre-ponderance of conspiracy theories (and, I'm only using this as an example, by the way, see on of my previous posts for my thoughts on the matter) such as "The twin tower's could not have fallen due to weakening of the steel sub-structure (the simple explanation), so it must have been a controlled demolition, implying a conspiracy, and the planes weren't even the right type of plane, and etc, etc (the complicated explanation)".
What Occam's Razor refer's to is a principal used in science to determine which of two theorums is more likely to be true - it's the principle that the simplest theory (that is the one that involves the fewest assumptions) is the more likely. So, to take out Twin Towers example again, the given explanation that the heat from fires weakened the steel is the more likely explanation because it involves only the known facts - the controlled demolition theory assumes the presence of demolition explosives, and so is less likely (however much I agree that it most certainly did look one hell of a lot like a controlled demolition).
altruistica said:I also think the 'fear factor' over disease has been blown out of all proportion by the group who have most to gain. Didn't Obama elevate Swine Flu to 'Pandemic Status' in 2009, but it turns out that the total deaths from Swine Flu were significantly less than ordinary flu for that year? I think it was also stated that people probably had it and didn't even realise they had it, it was that un-noticeable to them. That's how I feel about disease. Some people can deal with something and others for whatever reason, it tips them over into possible fatal scenarios.
To put it simply, a disease doesn't have to kill lots of people for it to be a pandemic - it just has to infect lots of people - which swine flu most certainly did. The worry with all animal flus that cross into humans is that they might mutate and become deadly, when that happens in something that infects lots of people then you end up with lots of dead people, which is generally considered 'not a good thing'.
altruistica said:I've read a lot of Baron-Cohen's work. I remember actually watching an OU Programme around 1985 (this is when OU programmes used to be on BBC2 at the end of the night, or first thing in the morning) which I think Baron-Cohen was putting forward an experiment to show the age at which children usually acquire Theory Of Mind using a couple of dolls. We actually tried this out on Tom when he was about six and a half. His sister, who was about two, was talking pretty well and we thought he would get it wrong and she might get it right. It totally surprised us that he got it right, and she got it wrong, especially since he didn't understand language as well as her. I suppose he could have just guessed right.....
Or deduced. One of the biggest differences between Asperger's (and High-functioning Autsism) and ASDs 'lower' on the spectrum is IQ, and that makes all the difference - you see, and I'm guessing here about the thing with the dolls, whilst we struggle to intuit anothers point of view, we can logically deduce things like "the person that left the room won't look in the box for the object becuase it wasn't in the box when they left the room". Or in other words, it's a really bad way to demonstrate poor theory of mind in someone with a high IQ!
altruistica said:From your paragraph, does this mean that you get 'tounge-tied' (or however you would describe the feeling) when conversing in person with someone you know well or did you mean just with strangers?
It happens in all conversation to a degree, but there's a gradient to it - I get it when speaking with my immediate family at times, more often with friends, and almost all the time with strangers.
Basically the longer I've known a person the more chance I've had to build up my internal model of that person so the less resources my brain has to use to process things like thinking about what the other person might be thinking about.
Also, I wouldn't describe it as being 'tongue tied' - it's not so much not knowing what to say, more there being no words to say. If that makes sense.
altruistica said:Also, would you (still) find it difficult to know what another person was thinking by the tone of their voice? I used the word '(still)' to mean, has this 'skill' got better with age or with exposure to more people?
Yes, I do still find that difficult.
altruistica said:If someone started shouting (ie. their voice was louder) would you know when this was because of excitement (say the telling of a punch-line to a joke) or possible anger?
Sometimes, but not all the time.
Again, having high IQ means I can logically deduce such things.
altruistica said:I'm asking this because Tom has always recognised when we're angry, although he can't pre-empt this anger. An incident recently happened at school with a girl that Tom 'fancied' (and I'm sure still does). She told him over a year ago that she had a boyfriend and Tom was fine with that. They agreed thay could still be friends. One day recently, he saw this girl talking to a teacher on the corridor. He went to ask her what they were talking about, and she said 'Mind your own business' and stormed off. He didn't understand why she did this. As far as he was concerned, he was asking out of concern for her. I explained that maybe she was being told off by the teacher (probably something he'd never thought about) and she may have been embarrassed. I said you should say that you're sorry to her the next time you see her and explain that you were worried that she was alright. He did this and everything was fine again.
That's exactly the kind of thing I still find difficult. If there's no logical way to deduce the reason for something then I can't read it from body language. He probably had the same problem there - she was probably giving off all sorts of "don't ask!" signals that he just didn't see!
altruistica said:Actually, I mentioned jokes above.....as most jokes are built upon an element of surprise, do you now 'get jokes'.Most jokes use a form of metaphor. Either they're saying something is like something else:'When is a door, not a door? When it's ajar' (a jar)or it's a play on words or phrases:(PATIENT) 'Doctor, doctor. I feel like a pair of curtains'.(DOCTOR) 'Oh, pull yourself together'.
Most jokes use a form of metaphor. Either they're saying something is like something else:
'When is a door, not a door? When it's ajar' (a jar)
or it's a play on words or phrases:
(PATIENT) 'Doctor, doctor. I feel like a pair of curtains'.
(DOCTOR) 'Oh, pull yourself together'.
Let me answer that this way - my favourite joke is:
Q: What's brown and sticky?
A: A stick!
:D
With jokes such as those you gave as examples I tend to find the fact that people find them funny funnier than the jokes themselves. And, I often don't 'get' new jokes immediately - again, I have to process them logically to figure what the joke is. But that means something like the joke I quoted above works really well - because it doesn't actually matter what you think of when asked "What's brown and sticky?" (unless you think "A stick") because "A stick" isn't the answer you'd thought of, and so it's funny (and of course the brown and sticky substance that usually comes to mind helps with the funnyness of it).
altruistica said:Do the majority of Aspies like slapstick? I ask because the children / young adults I know who have a diagnosis of 'high functioning autism' LOVE slapstick.
I wouldn't want to talk for the majority of Aspies, but, I certainly do. In fact, I find it very difficult (and usually fail) to not laugh in situations where I know I really shouldn't laugh (when people hurt themselves, for example) because I find it so funny.