Originally Posted by AbbyGrant
That seems to be similar to the way littlest birds put it, and it appears to be paper written by lawyers. If you haven't already you can go to the links I provided about the DSM criteria to see how just having those three symptoms would not qualify one for an "autistic disorder" diagnosis.
That wasn't my point.
I don't propose that those three symptoms constitute autism. It's the other way around. It looks to me like as long as you don't use the term "autism" that the early signs of autism qualify as vaccine injury. And all those parents that the doctors are turning away after autistic regressions and telling them they didn't have vaccine reactions? According to our CDC's definition they should have been considered as such because they WERE exhibiting the legitimate symptoms of: TA-DA! vaccine-induced encephalopathy. Doctors seem to have had NO justification for ruling it out. My point is that way back when these kids first presented they were presenting with symptoms of vaccine damage. Why weren't they taken seriously?
I mean if it looks like brain damage and acts like brain damage and it also shows increased incidence with other causes of brain damage (like fetal oxygen deprivation and traumatic births) and you have another confirmed brain damage cause (vaxes) in the room you should take the coincidences pretty seriously.
And here the medical establishment is basically saying we don't know what autism is but we'll fight like hell to stand our ground on what it isn't. Not very convincing. What exactly excludes the possibility that vaccines that can cause encephalopathy can also cause this somewhat more nuanced disorder that "starts out" just the same as encephalopathy but includes additional symptoms? Everything about my son's symptoms seems pretty much centered on disconnect from environment and people around him--ALL the items in the DSM criteria could plausibly result from damage to the brain's ability to connect. There's nothing that doesn't fit. The encephalopathic symptoms indicate the original damage, and the DSM criteria are what life looks like when you try to function with that damage.
I am not even saying I am 100% convinced of this theory but the pieces fit way too well for it to be written off IMO.