Did it never occur to you that children with severe autism, over 75 years ago, might not have lived beyond childhood?
I have a question for the poster who claims chelation cured her child of autism - was your child ever professionally tested for mercury poisoning? By what method?
Blake,
I think you are misrepresenting what a miniscule amount is. The CDC says one microgram of mercury is safe. The flu shot for infants is given in two doses, each containing 12.5 micrograms or 12.5 times the safe amount. Do you know if there is an equation to figure out how much of the 25 micrograms in the flu shot that pregnant mothers get goes into the fetus?
Measles and Rubella didn’t bug me, or anyone else I knew or heard of who had those annoying things all kids went through when I was young. I suppose if you wanted to sell vaccines, you’d play up the few who had severe and extremely rae reactions to those diseases. I also suppose if you were trying to sell vaccines, you’d play down the autism they cause and write those kids off as collateral damage.
So, who’s moving goalposts, Blake?
Snakes,
Since there were only 11 children with autism 64 years ago, I think the sample size is too small to judge.
No autistic children died over 75 years ago because no autistic children had ever existed at that time.
Do you not agree with other clinicians that ADHD and an ASD can appear to be similar in young children, and that ADHD should be included under the category of autism-spectrum disorders?
I categorically disagree. There is no reason, nor any evidence, to support the inclusion of ADHD along with the Pervasive Developmental Disorders.
Fascinating. How do we know that?
You mean no children had ever been diagnosed with autism at that time. I do not believe it just appeared.
May I borrow your time machine? Because I’d like to witness this for myself.
I’d also like to witness the heat death of the universe before it’s too late.
It was actually given by an autism expert and psychiatrist, a certain Professor W.
Do you not agree with other clinicians that ADHD and an ASD can appear to be similar in young children?
I think I can answer this somewhat…
because we are all unique.
That depends, I’ll explain later.
You are right in one thing. We are all unique individuals. And while its nive to talk about genetics being part of the autism puzzle, there isn’t **one gene fits all ** … we are all so unique, and my gene combinations aren’t the same as my brothers. The kids in our family were all brought up by the same mother who, at the nearest sound of a cough, demanded antibiotics. I pretty much think we were fed them at least four times a year.
BUT… I am the only one, who in my teens nearly died from antibiotics, and am now allergic to all of them. AMAZINGLY… I discovered that you can actually survive the thought of a cough, and even… pleurisy, pneumonia and an infected thyroglossal cyst ***without *** the use of antibiotics. In fact, being allergic to antibiotics has turned into a God-send literally. While I don’t have all the answers, and neither does anyone else, I know what to do for many different infections, and how to do it. Hence the fact that I’m still here and can talk to you today.
So why didn’t the rest of my family become allergic to all antibiotics under the face of the sun?
why is it that my brother is highly allergic to bee stings, and I’m not?
Why is it, that one of my sisters has major health issues that I don’t?
Because while we are from the same parents we are very very different.
They have neither my specific genes, nor the influence of those genes on my immune system. they don’t live where I do. They don’t eat as good food as I do. They drink alcohol, and I don’t. They have much more exposure to toxins than I do. It was only as an adult that we discovered I had a primary immunodeficiency, albeit mild. I’m presuming they don’t. I also have heart damage from some drugs given at the age of three. They don’t.
If every human on earth was an identical clone with identical gene defects, which resulted say in an apo-e4 which meant that they could not excrete aluminum or mercury, and they all had my immune system, possibly… maybe… every human on earth would also be allergic to everything that I’m allergic to.
If every human on the earth, had the same “weaknesses”, stressors, epigentic methylation as children whose parents allege that they DO get autism from vaccines, then yes, maybe everyone would have autism.
I’m sure someone here with **alphabet soup *** after their names can confirm that there are huge variations in drug doses between races as well. It’s been known for decades now, that the same X drug, when given to say, a caucasian, a chinese, an african american, will have totally different effects, and each race might require totally different dosages. Side effects will also be totally different.
The human race isn’t a one size fits all. The fact is that every human being is a unique walking laboratory, so the epigenetic “trip switches” they have will be completely different to anyone else.
Ah. So is this the way to argue a point? by emphasising the alphabet soup after your name?
Dr Hentor the Barbarian…what’s your medical history like? do you recall an American doctor called Dr Oliver Wendell Holmes per chance?
Or another doctor called ***Dr *** Louis Pillimer either?
I could name a host of them, but then, if you don’t know who they are, you might not get my point.
There are medical copernicus’s in the world. I’m not saying that **DR ** Atwood is one, because I think he has his head where the sun don’t shine at times.
But then, history shows us, when we look at the many Semmelweis, Holmes, Pillimer, Lister, and a raft of other medical “copernicuses”, that the majority of doctors can have areas in their medicine where the sun don’t shine.
Were all the medical evidence for that written up, from 1500 onwards, the tomes would be larger than the encyclopedia britannica.
Just because you have and md after your name, if you do, doesn’t mean you know anything worth making jam with.
We parents with kids with problems have learned that what matters are doctors prepared to work in partnership, to think outside the square, to try modalities outside the pharma comfort zone, and not treat us as neurotics only worth being patronised.
Perhaps not, but I’m sure that you didn’t get mine. Here’s a hint - parody is sometimes too subtle for some to pick up.
I don’t. I have a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology.
I don’t know what the pharma comfort zone, as I’ve already said in this thread.
However, whatever parents do, I hope they insist upon the most empiricallly well-validated treatments available. Otherwise, they are just potential dupes for the latest in snake oil.
PS… I’m not saying, Hector, that you don’t have anything worth making jam out of. I’m just saying that letters after the name, don’t equate to inate wisdom on all topics.
Ah well, this is where things get really interesting, because one of my pet joys in medical research, is reading medical articles about how many of the standard treatments of the day, are empirically well-validated treatment, based on really good science.
Would you like to start a thread on the validity of standard medical practice of today, looking at all the studies that show that the vast majority of drugs and treatments that are considered good science, have an incredibly shaky foundation?
That might be worth doing. It would do people good to be able to think very carefully and rationally from what is written in the medical literature across the board.
We could start with the subject I introduced in my first post… the long-intoned dogma of calcium supplementation for osteoporosis if you like.
But I have a whole shelf full of clear files with lots of really good information we could debate as to whether or not a treatment is well validated.
another point we could debate is the thought behind ***the most impirically well validated treatment available, and how it is that this has changed so much.
Perhaps we could start with this man, someone who is venerated in USA, and someone who I certainly found very sympathetic to parent’s concerns on this topic.
Good, R.A. 1974. “The Immunoglobulin A system”. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol, 45:
513–531. Impressions, summary and questions raised by the IgA Symposium.
International Symposium on the Immunoglobulin A System, Birmingham, Alabama,
1973:
who is to say, Hector, that your treatment of today, will be considered worthy of thought in 15 years time?
Just because its based on words written on paper, published in a journal subsided by Merck and Co, doesn’t mean much, does it?
Yet people think because something is peer reviewed (meaning: conformed to the consensus dogma of the day) that that’s the only thing worth trying.
To me, that is very odd. But understandable, because we all want to be considered “normal” and “socially acceptable.”
sorry… not all of us. Obviosly, the neurodiversity group considers those who aren’t like them, abnormal anyway…
Speaking as a parent, I have to tell you, if my kid gets sick, I’m going with the opinions of the science guys. You’ve done a hell of a good job convincing me NOT to trust your side of this “debate.”
Actually, you ARE saying Hector. Over and over you have said Hector. However, you might take a second to look at the name of the poster to discover that his username is Hentor.
So here’s an honest question for you. What would you say if someone got together and counted the kids who had been exposed to mercury, and counted how many of them got autism? Then you count the kids who weren’t exposed, and count how many of them developed autism.
You’d agree that would give valid results, right? If mercury really causes autism, then this would be a good way to prove it. Right? Especially if you did this with a really large group, right?
But what if the results surprised you - what if the kids who didn’t get exposed to mercury developed autism exactly as often as the kids who did get exposed? Would you still be able to maintain that mercury causes autism?
Because this is exactly what happened. People on this board toss around fancy talk like “science” and “peer review,” but what the science boils down to in this case is plain old counting. You have scientists who try hard to make the most valid, apples-to-apples comparisons possible, then you just count.
And what has already happened is that large populations have shown that kids exposed to mercury develop autism at the same rate as kids who weren’t exposed.
Rickjay,
The science says chelation cures mercury poisoning. Autism and mercury poisoning are synonymous. That’s why my kids getting better. Is your kid getting better?
CurtC, I think you just made that up.