Have you ever wondered why the official "autism" numbers keep rising despite the removal of thimerosal? The latest "autism" rate from the UK is 1 in 100. And yet Safeminds and the Geiers have shown that the rate of autism is falling.
Both groups use the word 'autism', but the rate can't be rising and falling at the same time, so they must be referring to two different Autisms. They are. The pro-vax researchers, like Fombonne, mean "PDD". Safeminds and the Geiers mean "full-syndrome autism".
Today, PDD = Autism Spectrum Disorder, and gives ALL children (and adults) with autistic behaviours the same "Autism" label, regardless of the severity of the symptoms and regardless of whether or not they meet the full diagnostic criteria. Some have severe, moderate or mild symptoms, some only have autistic features or traits. Today, they are all being squeezed under the PDD/ASD/"Autism" Umbrella.
They had a similar problem with over-diagnosis in the 1960s. (1) But I seriously doubt that even those psychiatrists would have diagnosed geeks, nerds, eccentrics and shy people with "Autism". And I believe it is deliberate. These people would not have had an Autism label in the 1980s and 1990s.
That's what's wrong with using PDD and Autism as interchangeable terms.
There is also a problem when they do the 'Vaccines don't Cause Autism' studies. They never look at the group of once-neurotypical children with regressive late-onset autism after any vaccination, they always concentrate on MMR or thimerosal and the possible (or impossible) link with "PDD". Any vaccine or vaccines, alone or in combination and any of their ingredients, alone or in combination, might cause behavioural symptoms that are attributed to "Autism".
And not all children with "Autism" are vaccinated.
Bernard Rimland has said that before the mid 80s, two thirds of children with autism had symptoms from birth. Then from the mid 80s and throughout the 90s, one third of children with autism had symptoms from birth. So some children obviously don't need a vaccine to cause their "Autism". Their brain damage occurs before birth, or at birth, or they have a known genetic disorder that has interfered with brain development. For instance, it's very likely that the children with Tuberous Sclerosis and autism, would have the core deficits of "Autism", regardless of vaccination. (2)
So, if an unvaccinated child has TS with mental retardation, epilepsy, and deficits in socialization and communication which fit the criteria for an "Autism" label, you can't say,
"This child has "Autism". She isn't vaccinated (or isn't vaccinated with MMR or hasn't received a vaccine with thimerosal). Therefore, vaccination (MMR or thimerosal,) doesn't cause Autism."
So, when anyone says that their child has "Autism" but hasn't been vaccinated. The question then is, not just why do these children have autism, but what sort of "Autism" do they have? Is this the same Autism we saw in the 90s or is it a milder type?
What is different about completely unvaccinated children with the "Autism" label? And I really do wish someone would study them.
But they would have to exclude:
a) children born prematurely
b) children with brain damage from lack of oxygen at birth
c) children with brain damage from head injuries
d) children with known genetic disorders such as: Tuberous Sclerosis, Fragile X, Downs Syndrome, Anti-Convulsant Syndrome, Retts Syndrome, Rubella Syndrome or Fetal Alcohol Syndrome
And then carefully examine the remaining children.
|Kanner (1965) complained of two related trends in child psychiatry. Some child psychiatrists did not accept that autism was a distinctive syndrome, and suggested it was fruitless to draw sharp dividing boundaries between autism and other types of atypical development. Others accepted that autism was a syndrome, but applied this fashionable diagnosis far too widely.
Wing (1976) argued that while it is easy enough to recognise children who have the classic syndrome described by Kanner and to differentiate these from an equally classic case of developmental receptive language disorder, the borderlines of these conditions are not at all clear.
|'...it became a habit to dilute the original concept of infantile autism by diagnosing it in many disparate conditions which show one or another isolated symptom found as a part feature of the overall syndrome. Almost overnight, the country seemed to be populated by a multitude of autistic children.'
|If children with these problems could be arranged in an orderly series, starting from the most autistic child at one end and extending to the child who most clearly had nothing but a developmental receptive speech disorder at the other, to say where the dividing line should be drawn would need the judgement of Solomon.
I do hope this clarifies things grypx831 (There's no need to respond.) .