If Not Vaccines, Then WHAT Causes Autism? - Page 2

[ShaggyDaddy]

Originally Posted by BeckyBird 

Hold on people.......all I want is to lay out any Possibilities........what is wrong with doing studies and asking questions? Did I say these factors definitely cause autism? No, I did not say that at ALL......But why should you be afraid to explore any and every possibility? You don't want to explore any possibility that might be viewed as the "mother's fault", so then I guess we can't open that topic of conversation at all? That is unacceptable.

And, how are environmental toxins the "mother's fault"?!? Is fluoride in the water "mother's fault"?!?  Electromagnetic pollution the "mother's fault"?!?  Can we be adults here, and try to look at any cause that might be possible? Any and every? Jeez, I was never trying to offend anybody here, and if you took it that way, well then I am sorry. But, as a scientific thinking individual, I am very interested in any study that might explore possible links.

When you presuppose (without evidence) that Autistics are damaged by poison/injury/electricity/magic, you must also assume that Autism is damage.  Following this line of thinking is by very definition declaring Autistics unwhole and unnatural.  The known evidence does not support this. 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110427171517.htm

http://www.gwu.edu/explore/mediaroom/gwinthenews/researchspotlight/gwresearchersrevealfirstautismcandidategenethatdemonstratessensitivitytosexhormones

Assuming Autism is damage and using that as the starting point for the national discussion is offensive to Autistic people, and it is the reason why quack and hate organizations such as DAN! and Autism Speaks are never EVER endorsed by adult Autistics.  Think about that; a national organization with millions and millions in capitol and they have not found a single adult spokesperson, why?  Autism is a childhood disorder, yet we know the individual is affected for life, how can that be true?  The truth is, it is a lot harder to be an Autistic kid than it is to be an Autistic adult.  The same can be said about a wide variety of personality types and physical and emotional conditions.

Autism as "damage" is an easy sell to a parent of an uncontrollable 4 year-old with language delays, but much less so to adults who have caught up, surpassed, or side-stepped the typical developmental path.  Individuals with Asperger's syndrome, for instance have a higher than average incidence of above average IQ.  Can you name a poison or injury that can increase my IQ?  Because if you can, you are going to be so. very. rich.

Autistics are different.  Not better, not worse.  They are not sick or damaged or victims of tragedy.  As we become more and more aware of how different we are from each other, it is up to us as a species to accept and work with these differences, instead of villifying them and working (in vain as the evidence suggests) to *correct* them.

Up until a few hundred years ago, left-handed people were damaged, defective, unclean, tragedy cases that could be taught through strict and cruel repetition how to appear normal.  Please consider that, before we repeat history again.

[ShaggyDaddy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilverMoon010 

But if this is the case, and if there is a growing awareness of autism, why aren't we seeing more adults being diagnosed with autism today? Why does it seem to be mostly in children?

Nobody in their right mind is stumbling to seek after a highly stigmatized and personally dangerous diagnosis as the "emotionless" "trapped" sociopath that the media would have us believe Autistics are.

[treeoflife3]

while I have no opinion on whether the rise has to do with more toxins in the environment or simply a diagnosing issue... I don't think seeking to find if things like certain drugs and ultrasounds during pregnancy or GMO foods are really mom blaming.  Honestly, I'd just as soon blame the powers that be who allow these things to happen without adequate research first on their safety.  I mean, it isn't really the mom's fault if she can't afford all organic food... and it also isn't her fault that sometimes the only option is between organic and GMO and a non organic but natural option isn't always available.  It isn't the mom's fault if she needed ultrasounds to check on her baby, or heck if she was just excited and wanted to see her baby lots... that blame I think goes to the people who push ultrasounds although there haven't been decent studies on safety and the use isn't regulated to be sure it is within safety standards.

As mothers, I don't think we are powerless, but we are still only able to do as well as what we are given.  researching the safety and effects of any of these things shouldn't make moms with autistic children feel it is their fault, rather I think it should make them feel we need to hold people in more powerful positions more accountable so that we might protect children better in the future.  I think ultimately this is less about blaming people and more about giving people a chance at being healthier and safer, assuming any of these things listed do in fact cause autism or at the very least, make it more likely where it might have already occurred anyway.

[GoBecGo]

Originally Posted by SilverMoon010 

But if this is the case, and if there is a growing awareness of autism, why aren't we seeing more adults being diagnosed with autism today? Why does it seem to be mostly in children?

My father was dx Aspergers as an adult.  My DP has decided he'd rather not have the formal diagnosis.  People don't drag adults to doctors saying "what's WRONG with him!?" the same way they do with kids.  Adults can decide or not if they want to get a dx for the milder end of the autistic spectrum.  Many decide not to.  They prefer to stay odd/eccentric/awkward/antisocial, none of which are seen as a disability.

My dad, aunt, granddad, gran, great uncles, great grandparents and any number of my extended cousins have autistic traits, many are dx, many are dx-able but not dx, many are not quite "out there" enough for a dx.

I had ultrasounds, i ate junk, i have mercury fillings (i had one replaced DURING pregnancy), use flouride toothpaste, i use allopathic medicines, the whole uncrunchy shebang, and i vaccinate my kids.  Neither of them are autistic.  Go figure.

[GoBecGo]

Originally Posted by ShaggyDaddy 

When you presuppose (without evidence) that Autistics are damaged by poison/injury/electricity/magic, you must also assume that Autism is damage.  Following this line of thinking is by very definition declaring Autistics unwhole and unnatural.  The known evidence does not support this. 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110427171517.htm

http://www.gwu.edu/explore/mediaroom/gwinthenews/researchspotlight/gwresearchersrevealfirstautismcandidategenethatdemonstratessensitivitytosexhormones

Assuming Autism is damage and using that as the starting point for the national discussion is offensive to Autistic people, and it is the reason why quack and hate organizations such as DAN! and Autism Speaks are never EVER endorsed by adult Autistics.  Think about that; a national organization with millions and millions in capitol and they have not found a single adult spokesperson, why?  Autism is a childhood disorder, yet we know the individual is affected for life, how can that be true?  The truth is, it is a lot harder to be an Autistic kid than it is to be an Autistic adult.  The same can be said about a wide variety of personality types and physical and emotional conditions.

Autism as "damage" is an easy sell to a parent of an uncontrollable 4 year-old with language delays, but much less so to adults who have caught up, surpassed, or side-stepped the typical developmental path.  Individuals with Asperger's syndrome, for instance have a higher than average incidence of above average IQ.  Can you name a poison or injury that can increase my IQ?  Because if you can, you are going to be so. very. rich.

Autistics are different.  Not better, not worse.  They are not sick or damaged or victims of tragedy.  As we become more and more aware of how different we are from each other, it is up to us as a species to accept and work with these differences, instead of villifying them and working (in vain as the evidence suggests) to *correct* them.

Up until a few hundred years ago, left-handed people were damaged, defective, unclean, tragedy cases that could be taught through strict and cruel repetition how to appear normal.  Please consider that, before we repeat history again.

I just loved this post, you summed up my feelings so eloquently.  Autistic is NOT broken.

[elmh23]

Originally Posted by ShaggyDaddy 

Autism screening (which basically didn't happen before 20 years ago, and couldn't happen before 30 years ago) is the single largest and least scary factor, which is the the clear and undeniable source of the "autism epidemic",

We found Autism a lot more often when we started looking for it.  Shocking!  Call the press!

Autism was not in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistics Manual of Mental Disorders) until 1980, so it is un-shocking that there were very few cases of diagnosed Autism until 1980, and the few cases that were diagnosed were in individuals who were lower functioning.   In 1994 (17 years ago) the DSM included Asperger's, Rett's, and PDD-NOS, guess what happened after those were introduced?  EPIDEMIC!!! Children all over were diagnosed with these newly diagnosable conditions.  The simple answer is that, well, not many specialists could diagnose them before then.  You know what, in May 2013, Asperger's, PDD-NOS, and Autistic Disorder will be replaced in the DSM with "Autistic Spectrum Disorder" and I think we will see an EPIDEMIC!!!! of children who get an Autistic Spectrum disorder, 100% more kids than get that specific diagnosis than today!!!

So how is it possible that all of these kids had no diagnosis before the DSM contained diagnostic criteria for Autism?  Where were these kids hiding?  Where are all these Autistic adults?   Well, they are simply undiagnosed.

http://autismus.posterous.com/600000-adults-in-uk-could-have-undiagnosed-au

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-05/uol-aw050411.php

Yup!  I'm pretty sure my 66-year-old father-in-law could be diagnosed with Asperger's.  And from listening to stories, he father probably could have as well.  Same with my 60-year-old father.  They're just living their lives, socially awkward, really smart guys.

[Lollybrat]

The problem with the question “What causes autism?” is that it treats autism as a single entity.  But autism is not a single disorder.  It is an umbrella term used to describe several different disorders with similar presentations and overlapping symptoms.  We will not be able to identify the different causes of autism until science is able to differentiate between the various types of autism.  I’m not talking about the differences between Asperger’s Syndrome and classic autism, although that is part of it.  I mean the fact that autism presents so differently even among individuals with the same diagnostic code.

Important questions which need to be answered include:

• Why do some children have signs of autism from birth (often realized in retrospect) while others have a clear history of regression?
• Why do up to 50% of children with autism have GI issues?  How are these children with GI issues different from those without?
• Why do a small, but significant, percentage of individuals with autism have microscope chromosome anomalies (microdeletion or microduplication)?  What affect do these small changes in the chromosomes have?
• Why do approximately 10% of individuals with autism have savant-level (not necessarily prodigious) skills?  What does this tell us about brain development?
• Why are some individuals severely affected by their autistic symptoms while others are mildly affected?

…and so on.  We cannot hope to understand what leads to autism until we understand what autism really is and right now medical science is nowhere near there.  

Originally Posted by ShaggyDaddy 

Autism was not in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistics Manual of Mental Disorders) until 1980, so it is un-shocking that there were very few cases of diagnosed Autism until 1980, and the few cases that were diagnosed were in individuals who were lower functioning.   In 1994 (17 years ago) the DSM included Asperger's, Rett's, and PDD-NOS, guess what happened after those were introduced?  EPIDEMIC!!! Children all over were diagnosed with these newly diagnosable conditions.  The simple answer is that, well, not many specialists could diagnose them before then.  You know what, in May 2013, Asperger's, PDD-NOS, and Autistic Disorder will be replaced in the DSM with "Autistic Spectrum Disorder" and I think we will see an EPIDEMIC!!!! of children who get an Autistic Spectrum disorder, 100% more kids than get that specific diagnosis than today!!!

This is very true.

30 years ago, my son would not have had an autism diagnosis, because he is verbal and is not cognitively impaired and such children were not diagnosed with autism back then.  Maybe he would have had a diagnosis of language disorder or of Minimal Brain Dysfunction (MBD is now called ADHD).  In school, he would not have received the extra support and therapies that he is entitled to now.  His teachers would have considered him bright, but uncooperative.  So he would have been considered a “discipline problem” by his teachers and a “weird kid” by his classmates.   

Autism is not something my son has; it is a part of who he is. Autism presents him with many challenges, but it has also given him amazing gifts and a unique perspective on the world.  My goal is not to "cure" my child, but to help him learn to function and participate in the community as well as to help me better understand his native culture.

[SneakyPie]

Vaccinations don't cause autism -- neither the ingredients nor the preservatives.  That has been firmly established for a long time.

Fluoride doesn't either.  Established for a long time.

Saying that science keeps it mind open and doesn't discount POSSIBILITIES is true.  But science also doesn't need to waste its time "researching" avenues that have already been exhaustively explored and shown to be fruitless.  Just because a few upset moms on the internet, who are not actually scientists, are worried about something, doesn't mean that new research is needed.  It just means those worried moms haven't done careful reading of the available, conclusive, completed research.

[SilverMoon010]

Originally Posted by SneakyPie 

Just because a few upset moms on the internet, who are not actually scientists, are worried about something, doesn't mean that new research is needed.  It just means those worried moms haven't done careful reading of the available, conclusive, completed research.

Since when does a mom have to be a scientist to know her child well enough to know that something has changed with the child after a vaccination?  I didn't know you needed a degree in order to know your children.  I don't think a mom would be considered "worried" when she chooses to avoid substances that are injected into her child that have the ability to cause harm, AND guess what, even the inserts list a ton of side effects. I call that making an educated decision based on facts of the potential harm vaccines can cause, not simply just being a worried parent.  Come on now. Let's be real and a little less judgmental please.

And your damn right, if it involves my child, I want ALL the research in the world done about how safe it is and I don't want them to STOP researching.

[ShaggyDaddy]

Originally Posted by SilverMoon010 

Since when does a mom have to be a scientist to know her child well enough to know that something has changed with the child after a vaccination?  I didn't know you needed a degree in order to know your children.  I don't think a mom would be considered "worried" when she chooses to avoid substances that are injected into her child that have the ability to cause harm, AND guess what, even the inserts list a ton of side effects. I call that making an educated decision based on facts of the potential harm vaccines can cause, not simply just being a worried parent.  Come on now. Let's be real. BTW, it's more than a "few."

A prophecy declared as truth when it is actually false may sufficiently influence people, either through fear or logical confusion, so that their reactions ultimately fulfill the once-false prophecy.  Parents often have a hard time seeing Autism, especially in younger or first children, but when criminals (like Mr. Andrew Wakefield - who is no longer a Doctor) falsify evidence of vaccines causing Autism.  Then Celebrities use their status to promote this junk science; such as Jenny McCarthy (who knew her son was different before the vaccine, yet still blamed the vaccine for causing Autism, and later admitted her son is not autistic at all), it all just creeps into our subconscious. 

Of course parents of Autistic children are going to notice Autism when they are looking for it.. Just like specialists started noticing Autism when they started looking for it.

There are a lot of problems with vaccines, there are a lot of issues that make the choice to delay or decline them one that rests with the parents.  But Autism just isn't one of the risks.  It was a deception that has been proven false, a lie with clear financial motive.

What If a criminal like Andrew Wakefield had been working on an alternative to latex paint instead of an alternative to the MMR (which he holds a patent for).  He could just as easily published a similarly falsified study about latex paint and Autism and first world parents who have Autistic children would have said "Oh my god, you know what, that day when danny was chewing on the trim piece on the doorway?  After that he was totally Autistic!!!"

[DariusMom]

Originally Posted by SilverMoon010 

But if this is the case, and if there is a growing awareness of autism, why aren't we seeing more adults being diagnosed with autism today? Why does it seem to be mostly in children?

Because, as these posters describe below, there is, by the time they are adults, very little perceived need  . .. or great social stigma attached to such a diagnosis.

Originally Posted by Annie Mac 

Maybe because the adults have already figured out ways to deal with it, have found some sort of niche and are functioning in the world. Maybe they don't see the need to go get diagnosed as an adult. Whereas children are more on the radar, being in school and expected to conform to a certain model of learning and behaving, and they have just more supervision generally. That might be one reason.

this.

Originally Posted by GoBecGo 

My father was dx Aspergers as an adult.  My DP has decided he'd rather not have the formal diagnosis.  People don't drag adults to doctors saying "what's WRONG with him!?" the same way they do with kids.  Adults can decide or not if they want to get a dx for the milder end of the autistic spectrum.  Many decide not to.  They prefer to stay odd/eccentric/awkward/antisocial, none of which are seen as a disability.

My dad, aunt, granddad, gran, great uncles, great grandparents and any number of my extended cousins have autistic traits, many are dx, many are dx-able but not dx, many are not quite "out there" enough for a dx.

I had ultrasounds, i ate junk, i have mercury fillings (i had one replaced DURING pregnancy), use flouride toothpaste, i use allopathic medicines, the whole uncrunchy shebang, and i vaccinate my kids.  Neither of them are autistic.  Go figure.

My DH, bless him, was diagnosed with ADD a few years ago in his early 30s. He was resistant to any sort of diagnosis (or even reading about AD(H)D) for *years*. Finally, on the recommendation of a MDC mama, I ordered him Driven to Distraction and it clicked for him.

But, man, was the social stigma *huge*. Now . . . we live in Western Europe which is actually much less open about anything having to do with mental health or "disorders" like ADHD, Autism, etc. Nevertheless, his parents were hugely resistant, one sister-in-law flat out declared that she "knows" he doesn't have ADD, and his friends were freaked out and didn't want to talk about it. People just couldn't wrap their heads around this aspect of him and chose to push it away. Luckily, he's a courageous guy who goes his own way anyway, but I can completely see why an adult would not go for any sort of diagnosis.

Oh . . . and another thing is that his disability insurance has been negatively affected. Silly, but true ... . now the insurance won't cover anything "mental" or psychological at all because of the ADD diagnosis.

[BeckyBird]

Um, I never said Autism=Damage, but how kind of you to categorize me. Nice job.

Let's have a history lesson on yours truly......

When I was 19, I was a nanny. I cared for 2 children--a 12 year old girl who had autism, and her younger brother who did not. I was their nanny for 9 months, and it was the hardest job I had in my life. The girl could not speak, and could barely communicate. She could use the bathroom, but she would poop her pants and get her hands in it, getting it everywhere. I would get calls from her school, telling me to come pick her up because she soiled through her changes of clothes. (She learned that she could go home if she did this.) She would throw fits, and injure her mother, me, or anybody around her. She used to stay up all night long, banging, screaming, crying, until her parents worked with a doctor to find a good, safe, sleeping medication. I really cared for her and her brother, but it was so difficult for me to care for her alone. She was not stupid at all, and I felt so sorry for her. So sue me if I felt that way, all of you, but that's how I felt. My emotions are valid.

After that, I got a job with the ARC. I worked with others, helping out people with disabilities (can I say that word here?) to work at jobs. There were 2 grown men, both autistic, who would spend all day at the ARC.  One man, Mike, was older, and had grown up in an institution. He was very aggressive over food, understandably so. He would try to run away a lot. Even though I was not the only one working at the ARC, it was still difficult to work with him, even with help. I have so much respect for people in the field of care, because I have experienced it firsthand, and I know it is a very challenging task!!

So, do not make me seem like a horrible monster, just because I have the *opinion* that there might be a cause for autism. I don't think autistic people are broken, needing to be fixed or prevented from happening. Come on, lighten up.  BUT, I have had experiences with people that have formed my opinion, and you can't change me by lashing out at me on some internet forum.  If one of my children ever become autistic, or anything else, I would love them just as much as ever before. And I would still go on with my search to find out what might have caused it.

So, lots of you think it is genetic. That is your right, your opinion. It's funny, some of your behaviors are extremely intolerant. You think that your opinion of autism is the only valid one out there. That, I cannot think there might be something in our toxic world that     c o n t r i b u t e s      to autism. Shame on me, that means I hate autistic people!!!   I have news for you--anybody and everybody is entitled to an opinion. I never flamed those of you whose opinion differs from mine. You can be free to think it is genetic, or over diagnosis. And I am Free to think that there are areas that still need to be explored.

[ma2two]

If an autistic person has the capacity to be offended by that, they are a lot better off than many. Autism is a spectrum. Many are low functioning and in constant pain. So yes, if their symptoms can improve and if people can find a way to prevent it from happening to others, I'm all for that.

Originally Posted by ShaggyDaddy 
Assuming Autism is damage and using that as the starting point for the national discussion is offensive to Autistic people,

[ma2two]

I suggest some fact checking.

Jenny McCarthy never "admitted" her son wasn't autistic. He was autistic, (there is no question about that), and he recovered through chelation, biomedical treatment and GFCF diet.

Andrew Wakefield does not and never held a patent for an alternative to the MMR. The Royal Free Hospital was the patent holder for a measles transfer factor, to treat persistent measles infection in the gut. It was never put on the market.
 

Originally Posted by ShaggyDaddy 
Jenny McCarthy (who knew her son was different before the vaccine, yet still blamed the vaccine for causing Autism, and later admitted her son is not autistic at all)

What If a criminal like Andrew Wakefield had been working on an alternative to latex paint instead of an alternative to the MMR (which he holds a patent for)

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by SneakyPie 

Vaccinations don't cause autism -- neither the ingredients nor the preservatives.  That has been firmly established for a long time.

Fluoride doesn't either.  Established for a long time.

Saying that science keeps it mind open and doesn't discount POSSIBILITIES is true.  But science also doesn't need to waste its time "researching" avenues that have already been exhaustively explored and shown to be fruitless.  Just because a few upset moms on the internet, who are not actually scientists, are worried about something, doesn't mean that new research is needed.  It just means those worried moms haven't done careful reading of the available, conclusive, completed research.

  this thread is turning out excatly how I thought it would. Topics such as this always have lines drawn in the sand and people firmly planted on either side. I don't see the OP as blaming as has been suggested. I feel it started out as an attempt to discuss possibilities, but since many people have it all figured out already despite the fact that science has NOT done the above, it would be difficult for this thread to remain that type of discussion.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" - Aristotle 
 

Edited by Marnica - 5/24/11 at 11:02am

[BeckyBird]

I want to see one study about fluoride and autism. Sodium Fluoride (not calcium fluoride) is toxic.

[WildKingdom]

Originally Posted by ma2two 

If an autistic person has the capacity to be offended by that, they are a lot better off than many. Autism is a spectrum. Many are low functioning and in constant pain. So yes, if their symptoms can improve and if people can find a way to prevent it from happening to others, I'm all for that.

And that statement is fairly offensive.  If an autistic person is offended, it's OK, because they're a lot better off than many?  Wow.
 

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by ShaggyDaddy 

A prophecy declared as truth when it is actually false may sufficiently influence people, either through fear or logical confusion, so that their reactions ultimately fulfill the once-false prophecy.  Parents often have a hard time seeing Autism, especially in younger or first children, but when criminals (like Mr. Andrew Wakefield - who is no longer a Doctor) falsify evidence of vaccines causing Autism.  Then Celebrities use their status to promote this junk science; such as Jenny McCarthy (who knew her son was different before the vaccine, yet still blamed the vaccine for causing Autism, and later admitted her son is not autistic at all), it all just creeps into our subconscious. 

Of course parents of Autistic children are going to notice Autism when they are looking for it.. Just like specialists started noticing Autism when they started looking for it.

There are a lot of problems with vaccines, there are a lot of issues that make the choice to delay or decline them one that rests with the parents.  But Autism just isn't one of the risks.  It was a deception that has been proven false, a lie with clear financial motive.

What If a criminal like Andrew Wakefield had been working on an alternative to latex paint instead of an alternative to the MMR (which he holds a patent for).  He could just as easily published a similarly falsified study about latex paint and Autism and first world parents who have Autistic children would have said "Oh my god, you know what, that day when danny was chewing on the trim piece on the doorway?  After that he was totally Autistic!!!"

Statements like this indicate you know very little about the facts of this case. Personally I don't share you opinion. History is littered with casualities of "war" like Dr. Wakefield. - can you say Joan of Arc? 

Your initial statement I agree with 100% - what if the unproven statement that vaccines of any kind do not contribute in any way to autism is actually the false prophecy??  I guess time will tell.
 

[RedLeaf]

I know Joan of Arc. Dr. Wakefield is no Joan of Arc.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by RedLeaf 

I know Joan of Arc. Dr. Wakefield is no Joan of Arc.

 You know Joan of Arc as a Saint - wrongfully accused of heresy. At the time, when she was accused and burned at the stake - she was GULITY GUILTY GUILTY by all who condemned her. That's kind of my point.