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 Scorpion,
Thanks for those replies. I feel like I'm learning a whole lot more about ASC.
I started typing this sentence
'I wasn't asking Mumma about info about the jabs to reinforce my own beliefs, honestly'.
And it suddenly struck me:
If I typed that sentence, how would you interpret it?
Have a think about how you felt when you read that sentence.
Here's what I meant by it:
I meant, I wasn't asking Mumma about info about the jabs to reinforce my own beliefs, honestly (as in, 'please believe me'). If I had not explained what I meant, you could have read the word 'honestly' as if I'd typed it in an exasperated fashion, sarcastically even.
I asked her to show empathy with her situation. To show that I cared about what she thought and that I praised her courage for sharing those thoughts with the group.
I just wanted to ask you more about this thought:
'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.'
Does this mean that certain Asperger's individuals have been diagnosed much later in life because they never had significant difficulties to warrant their parents, teachers and other guardians being overly concerned about their development?
This statement had me really intrigued:
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"
That to me sounds like a Theory Of Mind.....what's the difference? Is it because you're missing the words 'knowing they won't look in the box because THEY think it's still in the box'. It's a really fine distinction that I can't quite grasp (again possibly because of text).
Or in other words, it's a really bad way to demonstrate poor theory of mind in someone with a high IQ!
Can you point me to something else that might illustrate this (or is my story about the girl at Tom's school a classic example)?
Your observations about conversations I found interesting. I wonder if the symptoms of difficulty in conversation (worried what the other party is thinking, no words to say) is akin to 'stuttering'? I always found it fascinating that Gareth 'whats his name' who became famous through X Factor, could sing without a stutter, but had one when he spoke. I always wondered what he might be like after having a drink (alcohol) or smoking some cannabis?
Do you practise any kind of strategies to ease (if that's the right word) these difficulties? (I've tried counting to ten before I blow my top these days, but only ever seem to get to three.....LOL)
When you say 'there are no words'....do you mean there are no words because you have nothing you want to share with that person?
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.
This statement also I found really interesting. The first sentence I think speaks more of people wanting to share things between each other. If a friend tells one a joke, they're hoping that you'll find it funny too. I think it is a way in which two people can share a moment. What's really interesting is when someone tells you a joke that isn't PC these days. They know because you're a friend, that you're not going to report them to the 'Thought Police', so now there's an element of danger of going against the grain. In this, the sharing of the moment seems more important than the joke itself.
The second sentence possibly points to two difficulties people with ASC have. First, the processing speed of language (the more complex, the more time taken to process) is something Tom has always struggled with. His current Speech & Language work that he does in school is however paying off, because he is without doubt getting much better at this. Secondly, the ability to think of the shared commonalities between objects and meanings and their differences too. ie. Although a dog has four legs and a table has four legs, a table is not a dog BUT could be in a joke.....admittedly a very bad joke.
Just while mentioning humour, Tom loves 'You've Been Framed', 'TV Burp' and also Lee Evans.
Just a final quick question (and I'm in no way being judgemental in asking this, just curious).
If you have ever seen anyone run over by a car, what was your initial reaction?
If you've never witnessed anything like this, what do you think your first thought might be?
I've really enjoyed our exchanges.