Government concludes vaccines caused autism - Page 2 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-01-2008, 10:14 PM
 
sbgrace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 9,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think maybe I can speak to this a bit. My son does have mitochondrial disorder and related to that he has autism symptoms. He did lose skills though around 18 months to age two as his metabolic condition worsened but didn't have vaccines then. Instead his case worsened in part during a series of (non-antibiotic, chiropractic care, etc.) ear infections. Probably the fever actually...which can be the trigger in vaccines too. A rare kid goes through life without fever. Diet had part in his decline too as a feature of mitochondrial disorder is he can't metabolize fat. But ear infections didn't cause his autism either!

He did gain back some skills when we started treating his mitochondrial disorder but brain damage is brain damage (and he's mildly affected compared to this child so far). His geneticist said no live vaccines as they can trigger metabolic crisis though he never had them anyway; I'm glad for that.

But the vaccine doesn't create or trigger mitochondrial disorder..it's a DNA mutation. It could trigger a metabolic crisis which probably happened in this case. A child affected to this degree would not go through life without having metabolic crisis. And in fact mitochondrial disorder is a progressive condition.

The thing is the title to this thread is govt. concludes vaccines caused autism; not really the conclusion.

Rachelle, mommy to 8 year old boys! 

My Blog-free homeschooling finds and my lesson plans and link to the new User Agreement

sbgrace is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-02-2008, 12:16 AM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,565
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
Just wanted to comment that autism is actually defined as a collection of behaviors. It isn't a clear-cut diagnosis the way, say, diabetes is a diagnosis, or scurvy. So saying that this child doesn't have autism doesn't really help either way. A lot of the children who are currently defined as having autism may have something else, just like the child in this case, and that something else may very well have been exacerbated by vaccination.

The assumption that vaccination doesn't "cause" all sorts of things is not based on anything very solid.
Deborah is online now  
Old 03-02-2008, 01:20 AM
 
huggerwocky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 5,396
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidspiration


anyone who knows anything about autism is that there is no such thing as the 'classic common variety' of autism.
So gets to decide who knows something and who doesn't? On its own, saying this doesn't mean anything.
huggerwocky is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 01:29 AM
 
bczmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 434
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
"Just wanted to comment that autism is actually defined as a collection of behaviors. It isn't a clear-cut diagnosis the way, say, diabetes is a diagnosis, or scurvy. So saying that this child doesn't have autism doesn't really help either way. A lot of the children who are currently defined as having autism may have something else, just like the child in this case, and that something else may very well have been exacerbated by vaccination."

And yet haven't you said numerous times on this very board that the cases of autism are increasing exponentially? I agree with what you're saying about autism diagnosis as quoted above and adding that to the change in diagnostic parameters that makes the numbers extremely mushy.
bczmama is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 02:47 AM
 
runes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,933
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by huggerwocky View Post
So gets to decide who knows something and who doesn't? On its own, saying this doesn't mean anything.
i have a lot of professional experience with children on the autism spectrum and i haven't the slightest idea what this person was referring to when s/he stated the words "classic common type of autism".

there is no such thing.

some people do refer to "classical" autism interchangeably with moderate/severe autism, but it's a confusing term to use.
runes is offline  
Old 03-02-2008, 03:27 AM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,565
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 203 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bczmama View Post
"Just wanted to comment that autism is actually defined as a collection of behaviors. It isn't a clear-cut diagnosis the way, say, diabetes is a diagnosis, or scurvy. So saying that this child doesn't have autism doesn't really help either way. A lot of the children who are currently defined as having autism may have something else, just like the child in this case, and that something else may very well have been exacerbated by vaccination."

And yet haven't you said numerous times on this very board that the cases of autism are increasing exponentially? I agree with what you're saying about autism diagnosis as quoted above and adding that to the change in diagnostic parameters that makes the numbers extremely mushy.
Yep. On the other hand, it looks to me like there are a huge number of children who are having severe problems. A whole range of severe problems. Whether all of these problems are "autism" isn't the question. Some good questions to ask: are children healthier? Thriving? Developing normally?

To give just one example: Across the street from my daughter's house are some nice folks who happen to be grandparents. Their grandchildren were visiting one day. The younger child, a girl, seemed to be pretty well on track. Her older brother, roughly the same age as my granddaughter, had a severe speech problem, moved very clumsily (awkwardly), seemed to have some sort of developmental delay. My SIL, who is a speech language pathologist, confirmed my informal observation. This child had some major problems. The numbers of children who need a lot of help because of such problems are way up. So, maybe it turns out not to be autism. Does that mean all the children who have been misdiagnosed are really healthy and thriving? You can't mean that...

And no, I don't think I have said:
Quote:
And yet haven't you said numerous times on this very board that the cases of autism are increasing exponentially?
This doesn't actually sound like something I would say. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else?
Deborah is online now  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off