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 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.
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.
Ok, I take your word for it, even if I don't entirely believe you.
altruistica said: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?
'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?
Again, I can't speak for others, but, in my own case is what not so much a case of 'never had significant difficulties' as 'there was never obvious enough outward signs of the significant difficults I was having'.
Or in other words, the difficulties were there, I just never made it apparent enough that I was experiencing those difficulties.
altruistica said: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).
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).
It's even more subtle than that.
Neurotypicals have a fully developed Theory Of Mind, meaning that they instictively know things like 'they won't look in the box because THEY think it's still in the box' - it doesn't require any kind of cognitive processing, it's just built-in.
Autistics however have impared Theory Of Mind, meaning that though they do have some instinctive understanding that people have their own points of view and so see the world differently to others, it's not as well developed, and not as instinctive, so certain things, such as 'they won't look in the box because THEY think it's still in the box' don't come as naturally, and require a certain amount of cognitive processing to fully understand. And, the further down the Autistic Spectrum the more impared T.O.M. is. However, if a situation or scenario can been cognitively processed (and here high IQ helps, so it's easier for those of us at the Asperger's/HFA end to do this) it can be learnt, so, over time, aspects of T.O.M. that may initially have presented a challenge can become automated - just like any learnt skill.
altruistica said: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)?
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)?
Nothing comes immediately to mind - if I think of anything I'll post it up.
altruistica said: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?
From what I understand of stuttering, no I don't think it is at all the same. And it's not so much that I worry about what the other person is thinking, more that, on top of taking in the words they're saying, processing the meanings of those words (which again, for me is not an enitrely sub-concious or automatic process), I'm also having to consciously think about what what they're saying might imply about what they might be thinking (and that generally involves lots of chains, and branches, of logical possibilites, as well as all the potential illogical possibilites (because more often than not, it seems to me at least, neurotypical thought processes appear utterly illogical)) - so there simply isn't the cognitive processing power availble to either think about, or to fetch from the language centers, the words I want to say in response.
altruistica said: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)
In terms of the difficulties we've been discussing, well, with T.O.M. issues one can learn kind of 'scripts' for various scenarios, that not only include what to say, but also what the parties involved are likely to be thinking and feeling in that situation, and with the 'no words' issue, well, if you can think of some kind of strategy to ease that then I'd love to know what it is!
altruistica said: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?
It's a little like when you know what you want to say, but you can't find the word, but worse, becuase you don't even know what you want to say, and once you start thinking about that it then becomes difficult, if not impossible to hold what the other person said in your mind.
altruistica said: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.
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.
That is something I don't really understand - if you're in the same place at the same time you're 'sharing a moment' anyway, so the joke is unnecessary.
Small-talk is similar - I know for neurotypicals it has some kind of functional role, but I'm always thinking "what?! why would you even want to talk about this?! if we here to discuss X, or to do Y, let's just do that!"
altruistica said: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.
This is a generalisation, but, most people on the spectrum are primarily visual and/or kinesthetic (feeling-based) thinkers, so auditory input, such as speech, require additional processing, and going back to what I was saying about having to conciously process things like T.O.M. means that this additional processing just adds yet more of a burden on the cognitive processes.
altruistica said: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.
Yeah, to me a dog is a mammal, with 4 ambulatory limbs. Whereas a table is a item of furniture with X, where X is often 4, linear, or near linear, vertical, or near vertical supports, and a flat, or near flat, top.
altruistica said: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?
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?
No, I have not seen anyone run over, in real life, however, the closest thing I can think of to that is in one of the Derren Brown programmes that were on last year.
(*SPOILER ALERT* for anyone who hasn't seen it and may wish to see it in the future)
In the programme he got a studio audience, who were given masks to 'anonymise' themselves, to vote on various good or bad things to happen (they had the option of one good thing and one bad thing each time and voted on which would happen) to an unsuspecting memeber of the public - the point of the programme being to examine how we behave en-masse in situations where we become de-individualised - and throughout the audience unfailingly chose the bad option - this culminated with them being presented with the choose "should he be allowed to return to his flat where he will receive a cash prize and brand new TV, or, should he be kidnapped by a gang of thugs on the street outside his flat?" - they of course chose the latter - so as he was approaching his flat this van comes screeching round the corner, stops, half a dozen people wearing balaclava bundle out, pounce on him, and try to get him into the van - he manages to struggle free, and runs up the road, to a junction, where, as he's running across the road, a car suddenly appears and smashes into him.
Now, I'd been chuckling along, all through the programme, as worse and worse things have been happening to him, but as soon that happened I literally said "OH F***!" and even now as I write this it's bringing a lump to throat to think about it.
So, there is a matter of degree to it - I of course don't find life-threatening situations at all funny, but if someone trips when walking down the street, but then gets up, clearly not too badly hurt, then I can't help but laugh.
OH, and, in case you're wondering - the ending of the Derren Brown programme was a set up - he'd got a stunt man dressed up in the same clothes as the person who'd been victim all through out the programme, the car appearing was part of the stunt, nobody was harmed - and the victim had in fact found a cash prize and brand new TV when he returned to his flat.