Extreme Love : Autism

Hey Susie,

Stick with the music for sure......I remember filming my son humming along to Old McDonald while I played the piano . At the points where it goes 'he had a XXX' , Tom would hold up a plastic animal and say the word....it was great.

Scorpion,

If I'm trying to make a point, I'm hardly going to post a link to something that runs counter to what I believe....I think it's called debate.

Don't worry about me or my son. I know Tom will meet someone one day, he'll get married, he'll probably have kids of his own and he'll leave a productful life BECAUSE he's lucky to have me. I'm making these posts for the others out there who won't be so lucky. People like the ones in the testimonials.

If I've made up my mind, it's precisely because of things like this:

vactruth.com/.../

You didn't actually say what line of work you're in? Are you married? Kids?

Hope,

What are your parents views on your autism?

Hi Al

Thank you - we are very grateful for the help we have had with Jack, it's been extraordinary really and we know it's helped him a great deal.

His music talent is something that absolutely amazes and delights us. He only has to listen to a song (or tune) a couple of times and he starts to pick it up! He can follow a sequence of notes on a keyboard - so it's definitely something that we are going to nurture in him though at this age we're not pushing him into it, just encouraging him I guess.

At 4 years old we expected him to sing a few nursery rhymes - which he does - but we also get choruses from Snow Patrol, Labrinth, Ronan Keating and other artists he hears on our CDs or the radio - he can also hum and clap to a tune.

Thankfully, the mainstream primary school Jack will attend in September are very keen on music lessons and we've already spoken to them about his 'talent' which they are very excited about and are keen to help us nurture.

Your reply confirms that we are doing the right thing by Jack so I thank you for that.

Sue

PS: I liked the youtube clip and am also going to research more about his work.

altruistica said:

I read about Donald T, one of Kanner's original subjects about a year ago when a TV team tracked him down. I've just done a search for him now and uncovered this:

mickiesprogress.blogspot.co.uk/.../first-boy-diagnosed-with-autism-by-dr.html

Any thoughts?

Yeah, did you actually bother to watch the video?!

Actually, don't bother to answer that, because I know that even if you did you only saw and heard the "something went right there" bits, not the "he's autistic" bits.

And, I'm not going to bother responding to you any further. You've clearly made up your mind, and no amount of good solid evidence, is going to change that. No instead you'll cherry pick the bits that back up your beliefs, and you present straw men to incorrectly falseify anything that you disagree with.

Your mind is closed. And discussing an issue with a closed mind is pointless.

I feel sorry for you, and for your son.

And I hope you open your mind some day.

Are you also a climate change denier? These people are also mighty cynical to the point of farce, and seem to believe that all of Government and society is corrupt. Again, a matter of degree. Corruption does exist, and some scepticism is no bad thing, but to disbelieve almost everything by thinking that all health campaigns are 'bad' is surely as nonsensical as believing everything.

With regard to profit: might not the anti-vaccination 'experts' also be in it for profit? The doctors who make profit off desperate parent's backs.... Profit, it is true, permeates almost everything in our society, but our NHS is (at least at present) relatively free of the profit motive. Vaccination is to do with public health, it is socialized medicine, at least in the UK. Do you live in the UK or the USA? I am confused, because you keep on referring to the USA

Those children who appeared to be developing okay but then regressed  are precisely the kinds of children who were described as psychotic by pyschoanalysts, including Freud, prior to the awareness of autism. I have read the information, but through want of time am not going to relate it all here as you can find the evidence for yourself - it is probably better that way.

Also, I find your discussion of the autism questionnaire to be quite distasteful and offensive. This is a serious questionnaire that is answered by people who are already facing great problems in their life. The questionnaire is not just based on one question, like do you like parties. Some people with AS, probably a minority, do like parties, but they would probably come across as autistic enough of the time on the questionnaire for it to be valid. In any case, this questionnaire is only used in screening, not in diagnosis, in order to avoid any possible pitfalls. Asperger is not a trivial condition - I should know for I have it. Years of exclusion, low self esteem, phobias, anxieties, stress and lack of friendship have taken their toll, although thankfully I have avoided depression. Others have not even avoided that. Aspergers has got NOTHING to do with what you describe. Many NTs don't like parties or socializing, but that does NOT mean they have asperger's

I've just read the testimonials. Very touching and sad I thought. I couldn't help thinking that we are talking of a different set of individuals than the 'neurologically damaged' that I'm talking about as a result of vaccination damage. But leaving that aside, enforced loneliness is difficult especially if you want to share your life with others. It sounds obvious, but are there any online dating agencies for people who proudly declare their diagnosis and want to meet others?

Al

Jim,

You do know who Paul Offit is.....read right at the bottom:

Potential conflicts of interest.P.A.O. is a coinventor and patent coholder of the rotavirus vaccine Rotateq and has served on a scientific advisory board to Merck. J.S.G.: no conflicts.

Voting Himself Rich: CDC Vaccine Adviser Made $29 Million Or More After Using Role to Create Market

CHOP’s 30% policy for inventor share is consistent with the current practices of other children’s hospitals. But depending on what standard was in effect when the patents were filed and how it was applied to Offit’s proceeds, the amount could be lower. For example, the $29 million difference between the payment made by Royalty Pharma and the proceeds received by CHOP comprises 15.9% of the Royalty Pharma payment (15% is the lowest inventor share percentage we uncovered in our investigation) and could reflect the distribution to Offit, 

So although it is clear that Offit’s personal share of CHOP’s royalty transaction was large, the exact amount could range from as little as $29 million to as much as $55 million. Age of Autism chose to feature the smaller amounts in this report.

CHOP spokeswoman Rachel Salis-Silverman, contacted by Age of Autism about Offit’s income from the vaccine, first said, “I don’t even know. That’s not public information.” She initially refused to provide an e-mail to which Age of Autism could send a detailed account of how it determined Offit’s income, but subsequently sent an e-mail saying she was expecting the information.

 “We are declining comment to your questions,” she then replied after receiving our inquiry. Offit did not respond to an e-mail sent to his Children’s Hospital address.
 
While refusing to disclose his personal profit from this transaction, Offit told Newsweek reporter Claudia Kalb last year that he got a “small percentage” of the payment and confessed that “it’s like winning the lottery.”

The $29 million-$55 million range is consistent not only with CHOP’s published royalty arrangements but with typical medical patent standards:
 
-- At Boston Children’s Hospital, inventors get 25% of “net lifetime revenues” for all income over $500,000. For royalty amounts smaller than $500,000 inventors receive 45-100% of revenues.

-- At Arkansas Children’s Hospital, inventors get 35% of “net royalties” after the first $200K and 50% before that.

-- At the University of Virginia, inventors get 15% of “total royalty income” over $1 million and a sliding scale of 25-50%for amounts smaller than that.

-- At the University of California, inventors get 35% of “net royalties.”

  Offit’s claim to a share of the profits from Merck’s Rotateq revenues is based on his role as a listed inventor on the cluster of patents that protect Merck’s vaccine. These patents share the title “Rotavirus Reassortant Vaccine” and include four granted US patents -- US5626851, US5750109, US6113910 and US6290968 — and two granted European patents — EP323708 and EP493575.

  All of the patents are jointly owned by CHOP and the Wistar Institute. Offit is one of the three listed inventors on the vaccine patents but holds 100% of CHOP’s inventor rights. The other two inventors, Fred Clark and Stanley Plotkin, are both affiliated with the Wistar Institute (in a December 2005 transaction that was similar to CHOP’s deal with Royalty Pharma, the Wistar Institute sold its royalty interest in Rotateq to Paul Capital for $45 million).

The CHOP policy manual that delineates the distribution of income for inventions owned by CHOP can be found (HERE) (see section III B). Clearly, based on the distribution of income rights outlined in this manual, Paul Offit had a greater personal interest in Rotateq’s commercial success than any other single individual in the world. And more than other individual in the world, he found himself in a position to directly influence that success.
--

Unlike most other patented products, the market for mandated childhood vaccines is created not by consumer demand, but by the recommendation of an appointed body called the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). In a single vote, ACIP can create a commercial market for a new vaccine that is worth hundreds of millions of dollars in a matter of months. For example, after ACIP approved the addition of Merck’s (and Offit’s) Rotateq vaccine to the childhood vaccination schedule, Merck’s Rotateq revenue rose from zero in the beginning of 2006 to $655 million in fiscal year 2008. When one multiplies a price of close to $200 per three dose series of Rotateq by a mandated market of four million children per year, it’s not hard to see the commercial value to Merck of favorable ACIP votes.

From 1998 to 2003, Offit served as a member of ACIP. Before and during his ACIP term, Offit was involved in rotavirus vaccine development activities, the value of which ACIP influenced. Shortly before his term began in October 1998, Offit’s first two rotavirus patents were granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the first on May 6, 1997 and the second on May 12, 1998. During his ACIP term, Offit received two additional patents in 2000 and 2001.

Receiving a patent provides the potential but not the certainty of financial reward. In most cases, when an inventor’s employer receives a patent, the commercial value of the patent award is highly uncertain. In the case of Rotateq, the business uncertainty revolved around three factors: 1) the creation and eventual size of the rotavirus vaccine market, 2) the market share of competing products such as Wyeth’s RotaShield vaccine and 3) the success of Merck’s clinical trial for Rotateq and subsequent FDA approval. For the first two of these three factors, Offit’s ACIP membership gave him a direct opportunity to favorably influence his personal financial stake in Rotateq.

Four months before Offit was appointed to ACIP in October 1998, the committee had voted to give the rotavirus category a “Routine Vaccination” status, in anticipation of an FDA approval of RotaShield (oddly, ACIP made this vote before the FDA approved Wyeth’s RotaShield vaccine on October 1, 1998). Shortly after Offit’s term began, there were several additional votes involved in establishing the rotavirus vaccine market and Offit voted yes in every case. In May of 1999, the CDC published its revised childhood vaccination schedule and rotavirus vaccine was included. This series of favorable votes clearly enhanced the monetary value of Offit’s stake in Merck’s rotavirus vaccine, which was five years into clinical trials.

Nevertheless, Merck’s Rotateq vaccine was several years behind Wyeth’s RotaShield, which stood to be the market leader based on its lead in making its way through clinical trials. But when the widespread administration of RotaShield to infants started producing a high incidence of intussusception reports, including numerous fatalities, ACIP was forced to reverse itself. On October 22, 1999, ACIP voted to rescind its recommendation of the RotaShield vaccine.

Offit recused himself from this vote, although he participated in the discussion. In the meeting in which ACIP discussed RotaShield, Offit remarked, "I'm not conflicted with Wyeth, but because I consult with Merck on the development of rotavirus vaccine, I would still prefer to abstain because it creates a perception of conflict.” CDC records make it clear that Offit was not silent on RotaShield. By 2001, he was actively advancing a “unique strain” hypothesis, an argument that RotaShield was formulated in a way that did increase intussusception risk whereas other formulations (e.g. Rotateq) would not.

In commercial terms, Offit had a clear stake in the earlier RotaShield decision. As a competitor to Rotateq, RotaShield’s withdrawal provided a financial opportunity for Offit’s partner, Merck. Not only did RotaShield’s withdrawal give Rotateq an opportunity to gain 100% of the rotavirus vaccine market Offit had voted to create (until April 2008, when GlaxoSmithKline’s Rotarix vaccine was approved, Merck held a monopoly on the rotavirus vaccine market), but the absence of competition enabled Merck to charge a premium price for its vaccine, significantly more than Wyeth had charged for RotaShield.

With RotaShield out of the market and the favorable rotavirus policy precedent established, when the FDA approved Rotateq on February 3, 2006, the path to profitability for Merck was set. And for CHOP, which had licensed its patent rights to Merck, the valuation of its patent portfolio soared. Faced with this newly valuable asset, CHOP chose not to take their profits in the form of a series of smaller royalty checks. Instead, they opted to sell off their rights to the income stream and receive a lump sum payment in its place. Royalty Pharma -- an intellectual property investment firm that “provides liquidity to royalty owners and assumes the future risks and rewards of ownership” -- stepped in to pay CHOP for the rights to its Merck royalties. CHOP, in turn, paid Offit his inventor share. Although neither CHOP nor Merck has disclosed Merck’s royalty obligation around CHOP’s patents, the fact that Royalty Pharma was motivated to pay CHOP $182 million for the right to receive the Rotateq royalty stream suggests that obligation was significant.

Other news organizations, most notably CBS News, have asked Offit to disclose the financial details of his Merck relationship. CBS New reporter Sharyl Attkisson wrote last July that, “future royalties for the [Rotateq] vaccine were just sold for $182 million cash. Dr. Offit's share of vaccine profits? Unknown.”

Offit protested loudly over the CBS News report and went so far as accusing Attkisson of unethical conduct. “Did [Attkisson] lie about whether or not we provided materials? Of course,” Offit claimed in an August interview with the Orange County Register. He argued that in responding to a CBS News investigation of his financial ties to Merck, he readily provided full details of the payments that CBS asked for including: “the sources and amounts of every grant he has received since 1980”; “the details of his relationship, and Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s relationship, with pharmaceutical company Merck”; and “the details of every talk he has given for the past three years.”

A personal profit of at least $29 million seems like more than a small detail to leave out.

This is the type of 'conflict of interest' that permeates the culture of Big Pharma. We haven't heard the last of Dr. Andrew Wakefield either.

I presume you've seen this before?

Al

But Jim,

Where's the data?

I also still think we're talking about apples and pears. How do we know the respondents who couldn't respond would be diagnosed as autistic and not something else?

Also, what about the questions? Do you prefer parties or libraries?

I know I'm nit-pickin' here but id doesn't appear to be very scientific. Are you saying that this paper has been audited by independent peer professionals and found to be a robust piece of work? Maybe you could point me to those?

I'll read the testimonials in a minute.

I read about Donald T, one of Kanner's original subjects about a year ago when a TV team tracked him down. I've just done a search for him now and uncovered this:

mickiesprogress.blogspot.co.uk/.../first-boy-diagnosed-with-autism-by-dr.html

Any thoughts?

Al

Hi Al, 

Just seen your reply, sorry to have missed that before I posted mine. As I said, I expected we'd disagree about it. 

I did just spend some time reading the following report, which I felt worth sharing with everyone in the discussion.

http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/48/4/456.full

Hi Al, 

That report is a prevelance study - it's finding isn't that 1-100 adults on average meet the diagnosis, it's that across all age groups they do. 

To quote 'prevalence of autism spectrum disorder remains broadly level across all age bands' 

So be flabbergasted or claim that it's lying. Whatever choice you make it's worth noting that this is a study conducted with clear oversight in the same way as all other similar studies of other conditions. You are welcome to dismiss it as 'rigged' but that is your personal view and not a fact.

This is the first report of it's kind and many more are likely to follow but I don't expect to see a significant difference. 

You may be interested to read the experiences of some of those people on the spectrum who are in later life now. 
http://www.autism.org.uk/living-with-autism/adults-with-autism-or-asperger-syndrome/autism-in-maturity/real-life%20stories.aspx  

Hey Hope,

I agree, autism has always existed. What I don't agree with are the numbers presenting today or the reasons for the increase rate rises. I think if I trawled all literature in the past, we would find references to Aspi's (children reading at an early age, being intelligent beyond their years etc).  What I don't think we'd find would be any mentions whatsoever of a child beginning to speak words and then at between 15 months and three years, regressing into no speech, tantrums, etc. I think this would have been noticed somewhere. If you can point me to any online references to these I'd appreciate it.

Al

Well I've just read it.........

It states that although the sample size was small, everything's been weighted etc. and across all age bands the rate of autism in adults is 1 in 100. I must have been incorrect in my assumption pre-reading it that we would see differences in the different age bands.........oh! wait a minute....what's that?

3.7.3 Age-standardisation
Because presence of ASD was not found to be significantly associated with age broadly banded, it was not considered necessary to age-standardise the data in the tables in this report.

In other words, someone decided that age was of no importance in the interviews and then decided the rate of autism in adults to be 1 in 100.

This report is a load of tosh. I don't have the expertise to point to specific points in this to say, 'well you haven't weighted this piece of data correctly' etc. (and if that provides for someone to say.....'you said you had no expert knowledge' then I've save you the bother). Surely, the data should have been broken down into age bands at the very least?

Then read the 20 questions:

'Would you rather go to a party or a library?'. Seriously? I'd rather go to a library than a party. It doesn't make me anti-social or autistic....I'm 50. I've been to most parties I ever want to go to.

'Do you like doing the same thing over and over again?' . What you mean like playing the piano....or playing golf....or playing on a Playstation?

If someone has experience in this field of work, and has come across this report will they let me know whether they think it is a bona fide piece of research, or as I'm claiming a 'fait accomplit'?

Al

I have studied History, a great area of interest, and I have analysed primary data on asylums, which describe individuals called 'idiots' and the 'feebleminded' - today they may well be labeled 'autistic'.

Positivism emerged as a school of thought in the Victorian era. Positivists sought to categorize and name conditions that previously had no label. The Victorian period witnessed the growth of a great naming industry, but different names for the same condition arose at different times. Schizophrenia used to be called Dementia Praecox, meaning premature dementia. Moreover, young children were described as having this condition, later called Infantile psychosis and finally autism, even though we now know that Schizophrenia is very rare in young children when compared to young adults, when it is more common.

So, you see, autism has always existed. These psychiatrists described the same condition (you just need to consult the evidence available), but gave it a different name.

Hey Jim,

I've just started to read the link to the document that you said the rate of autism in adults is now 1 in 100.....I literally read the title and the thought smacked me round the head.......you see, I think I am now able to read between the lines of all the propaganda. It may be dillusional, time will tell. But before I read anymore, I just wanted to run this by you.

I guarantee that what this study shows, is that we now have 'adults' (classed as anybody above the age of 16 or 18) who have an ASD in the order of 1 in 100. Now I predict this is what it will say, for the simple reason that the rate of autism in the UK when Tom was diagnosed (ten years ago) was running at the order of between 1 in 85 / 120 (depending on which study one referenced). All those children, hey presto are now adults (or almost depending of age at diagnosis). A self-fulfilling prophecy really.....and once again, very clever.

I will be flabbergasted if it tells me that the age groups 30-40, 40-50, 50-60, 60-70 year olds show diagnosis rates of autism of 1 in 100. You see, whether it is blind faith (or stupidity) on my part, most of this scientific research is rigged.

Ok, that's my prediction....let's see what it says.

(I should add a disclaimer here, similar to the ones you see on vaccination manufacturer's sites). Any of the material you read here is subject to change and cannot be produced in a court of law as evidence...

Al

Hey Jim,

I've just read the article you cited. Have you read it? It is quite funny.

No mention of Building Seven, not surpringly. Mentions of fires and heat being the reason......but surely the huge fireball we saw immediately on impact was the majority of the fuel....after a few seconds there would be no more fuel to burn....and aviation fuel burns lower than 500 degrees C....and the floors didn't 'pancake' as photos show...they were blown into tiny pieces.

Therefore, at face value if you never heard another person's point of view, we would all think that this esteemed practice of architects were the definitive voice on what happened.

Al

I just had a thought when washing up......are your (meaning everyone who doesn't believe the vaccination theory) thoughts then about increasing rates simply that the rates have remained unchanged over eons and it's just better diagnosis?

Does this mean then that diagnosis will get better year on year and the New Jersey rate of 1 in 29 will rise in the future?

To what? 1 in 1 eventually?

Al

Hey Jim,

My thoughts on 911 were not made after watching one video.

What about university lecturer Kevin Barrett:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pl8N6S48Tag

Watch this YouTuber, 'physicsand reason'. He explains more in his videos than the whole of the NIST report ever did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

Any naysayers are usually dealt with:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvay28lZiHU&feature=related

The demolitions expert Danny Jawenko featured in this next video describes his thoughts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw

This is a report of his death in suspicious circumstances

http://mycatbirdseat.com/2011/07/dutch-demolition-expert-danny-jowenko-dies-in-car-crash/

I don't work in insurance, but I would be interested to know what the probability is of all those people dying.

My point in mentioning all this, is because they are the independent voice. They are not members of professional institutions who are paid to do a job and whose livelihood and professional reputation is at risk if they ever spoke out.

You see, for me when I learned about Building Seven, everything changed. If that is a lie, then anything can be a lie. If the whole world can be fooled when the evidence is staring them straight in the face, how much easier then to suggest autism has always been around in large numbers....it's just that we haven't looked for it. Why is there no mention of it then in literature, in articles, in medical journals before the 1960s? Are you saying that the Victorian asylums were full of Asperger's and autistic people, because even if we accepted that they were full of nothing but autistic people (autistic meaning Aspies as well) it wouldn't account for the rate we are seeing today. The maths just doesn't add up.

I think in the end though, you can present all the evidence you want to people and we all believe what we want to believe. For example, you could show me all the sworn Affidavits that you like from expert witnesses to 911 that the buildings fell because of fires and impact. I wouldn't believe it because I know there are only three steel buildings in the world that have ever fallen....all occurring on that day.

The same is true, FOR ME, around vaccinations. It makes no sense to me that they could possibly be BLACK OR WHITE in implementation. When my wife and I conceived our daughter, we know the risk of Down's Syndrome was 1 in 100 given her age. We decided the risk was worth taking. If someone had said to me, delay vaccinating your son. The risk of him catching measles is THIS, the risk of him developing HIB disease is THIS etc,

we could have made an informed decision. Instead, we are treated like cattle.

I hope this is of use to anyone contemplating vaccinations, although I realise that they probably end up at this site after the fact.

Scorpion,

You seem intent on winning the argument, whatever the argument is /was and I am not going to go through all your replies.

I have read lots of what Tony Attwood has to say. I've listened to his radio interviews and for me the idea that '"When you've met one person with an ASD... You've met one person with an ASD!" strenghthens my case that the smokscreen is here, alive and functioning as it has been designed to do.

I have read lots on Autism over the ten years. From thimerasol to glutathione, from ABA to PECS. From Shattock to Baron-Cohen and another 8Gb worth of data. I do pray that I'm wrong about vaccinations because I fear for the future. I can see a day, coming quite soon I think, when an H1N1 virus will be implicated in urging everyone to get a vaccination. The vaccination will spread the disease although I don't think we will see 'Cytokine Storms' as in the 1919 Spanish Flu, for the simple reason that our communication setups are too independent for this to pass without being noticed. I think it will be a slow burn disease, where everything appears fine for a few months, maybe even a year but then develops at an exponential rate and one which totally overwhelms all forms of medical help. I truly hope I'm wrong about this. The only way this could happen at present I think is through voluntary vaccinations.

Hope,

I have read a lot of Baron-Cohen's work. 'The Essential Difference' is one book I used to lend to people. I think his ideas of input/ output, systemitizing brain etc. are valid for generalisations about the population. His idea of testosterone levels in the amnio fluids (if I remember rightly) seems to correlate to the digits of the hand idea. The visual acuity theory his team tested seemed to explain youngsters having difficulty with facial expressions and visual contact (and also how a youngster can enter a strange room and be drawn to a tiny mark on a wall that no-one else has ever seen).

I also was impressed that you could articulate his ideas about empathy, because I think identifying anything then leads eventually to understanding, even if it's arrived at differently. I do agree that my son is one of the nicest (if not the nicest) people I know, because what you see is often what you get (no scheming, back-stabbing, hidden agendas, ulterior motives etc.)

I'm not sure I have anything more to add to this discussion.

Al

I think Scorpion has covered most of the key points, and in the main I agree.

I would just like, though, to come back to altruistica's point about lack of empathy in Asperger/autism. This is a generalization in itself and shows a lack of understanding with regard to the subtleties of empathy, which is a muiltifaced entity. There are in fact many types and degrees of empathy, the most obvious being that between cognitive and affective empathy, which professor Simon-Baron Cohen (who I do not always agree with in other areas) has demonstrated. Cognitive empathy is also called Theory of Mind, and it is this type of empathy which people with ASC tend to be lacking in to a greater or lesser extent. It is the ability to understand in real time what the other person is thinking or feeling based upon body language, tone of voice and/or facial expressions: a form of non-verbal communication. I struggle with this, Scorpion probably does too, but we all differ as to how far we are affected.  Also, since ASC is a developmental condition, we can acquire these skills as we get older, although we will always struggle at least a bit because of the nature of our condition.

Affective empathy, on the other hand, is the ability to respond appropriately to real suffering. It is true, that some autistic people will lack this type of empathy too, but this is often not the case. Most people with ASC get very upset if they can see and understand that someone is suffering. While emotional suffering can be hard to work out, this is more a question of 'mind blindness' as opposed to a lack of empathy per se. And, when it comes to physical and concrete suffering, we are often the most caring people around. On the contrary, psychopaths have Theory of Mind, but they lack affective empathy, and so they are emotionally cold and have no remorse. People with ASC are far less likely to exhibit psychopathic behaviour than people without ASC

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.

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?

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.

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.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'.

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.