Board index › General Discussion › General Autism Discussion

Recipe for Creating Autism in a Child

Page 9 of 11 [ 171 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Tempy
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jul 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 296

16 Jan 2008, 3:42 pm

jjstar wrote:
Have at least one parent not breast-fed, but fed on bottles, not bonded with mother.
Add to that - mother who ingested pharmaceuticals prior to her pregnancy
and/or
mother vaccinated
and/or
Mother who suffered severe psychological upheaval prior or during her pregnancy
and/or
Mother who opted for epidural, hospital birth, inducing birth trauma, swaddling of infant, immediate separation from infant at birth
Mother who opted to vaccinate infant
and bottle feeding
and incorporating and of the following in the home -
TV, microwave, flourescent lights, plastics that leech toxic substances, lead paint, tainted water, air and earth, mould
Ingestion of toxic components (additives, colorings, preservatives, drugs, alcohol during breastfeeding)
Non-bonding with infant via mirroring from birth onwards (see also rejection, coldness, removal to nursery immediately after birth without a first feeding, inconsistent mothers, numerous caretakers, chaotic surroundings)


AND THERE IT IS.

Welcome to the Isolated World of Autism. Oh and BTW - Doctors don't know sh*t about what ails the child - but they'll do their darndest to make sure they're *manageable* by any means necessary. Shock, drug or restraint. Whatever it takes.

And parents are still in the dark.

What a shame.
What a bloody shame.


Thats like saying the "cold mother" theory is accurate, when its in fact outdated. I bet you there are plenty of caring mothers who brest fed stayed at home and did the baby sitting in a stable enviroment and have autistic children.



sartresue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 69
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism

16 Jan 2008, 4:11 pm

Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble Topic

It took me a while to get through the tons of information in this forum about how to create the perfect Autistic Child.

I also took offense to some of the personal attacks against various posters by various posters.

I would not want that recipe to create such an unfortunate child to fall into the wrong hands. I am glad I was never aware of such cookery. My three children are all NT, the last one the healthiest.

I am also not certain as to a cure for persons living on the Autistic Spectrum by way of amalgam filling removal and/or chelation. Does the cure manifest itself billionths of a second after the last nanomolecule of toxin is removed? Is there a sigh of relief after the Spectre of Autism floats upward, slipping the surly bonds of earth?

Will mirror neurons suddenly appear after I am detoxified?

I do not blame my parents/society/teachers/employers for who I am. This is how I am. This is what I am, and this is my life. One moment I am frustrated in a NT setting, and the next I am in my AS setting, enjoying my differences in a burst of creativity.

You take the good with the bad. You do not knowingly hurt yourself or others. I probably ingested more lead than any of these younger posters put together. I am 53 years of age. I live with Asperger's. Others live with their own challenges. Things could be better, and things could be worse. You live your life the best you can. I hope things work out for all of you.

An interesting thing about that recipe. It said little if anything about fathers, in either a genetic role or an environmental one. 8) 8)


_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind

Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory

NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo


nannarob
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,083
Location: Queensland

16 Jan 2008, 4:13 pm

OMG! Is this thread for real!


_________________
NEVER EVER GIVE UP

I think there must be some chronic learning disability that is so prevalent among NT's that it goes unnoticed by the "experts". Krex


Odin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,475
Location: Moorhead, Minnesota, USA

16 Jan 2008, 4:27 pm

jjstar wrote:
DeaconBlues wrote:
jj, your rejection of all aspects of modernity, and your insistence on Lysenkoistic genetics, means that there's no point in having a conversation with you. Citing mere reality will carry no weight against your own personal convictions, so why bother pretending you're "inviting a serious conversation"? You're just trolling now.


Trolling. Now there's a laugh and a half. wait. I'm going to really ROTF - LOLing. :) :) :) Pot, kettle, black anyone?

I think YOU'RE trolling for calling me a troll. How's dat? It seems that way, I mean you're all for the scientifical clueless crowd, and everyone who has an ounce of cerebral matter knows the baseless stance *science* comes from - removing Creator and Spirit from the equation, so how can anyone take you seriously? Your kind cites equations and *proof* that if at all credible first had their roots in the ancient wisdoms - preceding so-called science by 5000 years, rendering anything you have as *proof* as plagarism at best and guesswork at its worse. Science without Creator and Spirit is half an equation and sheds NO light whatsoever but actually create darkness, destruction, disease and disasters.


What a bunch of religious BS. There is no "Creator" and there is no such thing as "spirit."


_________________
My Blog: My Autistic Life


Odin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,475
Location: Moorhead, Minnesota, USA

16 Jan 2008, 4:30 pm

jjstar wrote:
LeKiwi wrote:
She's one of the lucky ones then.

I'd suggest, off the top of my head, Vitamin B17 (from apricot kernels), Vitamin B, and all else would depend on the cancer itself. I've never had to face it - touch wood - so what I've read has been incidental to my studying of natural medicine.


Good ideas. Did you ever check out http://www.quantumbalancing.com/resources.htm



Radical, compelling and awesomely good stuff.


Woo, woo, and more woo.


_________________
My Blog: My Autistic Life


Odin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,475
Location: Moorhead, Minnesota, USA

16 Jan 2008, 4:32 pm

jjstar wrote:

In humankind - there is no such thing as natural selection, unless you count governmental experimentations that lead to disease, destruction and disaster that cause human suffering and genocide.


LOL, conspiracy nuttiness and ignorance of biology in one post! :lol:


_________________
My Blog: My Autistic Life


Odin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,475
Location: Moorhead, Minnesota, USA

16 Jan 2008, 4:42 pm

LeKiwi wrote:
Well, keeping kids out of the way of video games and tv screens and electronic babysitters as long as possible is the best thing you can do if you want them to have a decent imagination, learn about the world around them, and have them grow up healthy and balanced instead of over-hyped and over-stimulated by electronic overkill (Light! Colour! Sound! Noise! Too much going on at once!). I don't know if you've ever seen what happens when you put a baby or toddler in front of a TV but they aren't watching it, they're mesmerised by the colour and noise and end up spacing out - at first it looks kinda cute, but then you realise just how scary it is.
She put it brilliantly. = brilliant.


Actually, video games are good for mental development and eye-hand coordination, unlike TV.


_________________
My Blog: My Autistic Life


Sedaka
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind

16 Jan 2008, 5:12 pm

jjstar wrote:
Phagocyte wrote:
LeKiwi wrote:
And jjstar - what a brilliant blog entry, and I couldn't agree more with it.


Not to be rude, but how exactly was it brilliant? It's the same thing politicians and parents have been regurgitating for ages.


It is brilliant. That's why I posted it.

If you don't agree with issues that pertain to the health and lives of children you and others can start your own threads about all the goodness and joy to be found in ingesting heavy metals and living vicariously through glass screens. Please feel free to do so. But that will never change the FACTS as they are right now, and people will continue to speak UP to stop the poisonings - and that is also a FACT.


not disagreeing with the fact that they're bad... they just dont cause autism


_________________
Neuroscience PhD student

got free science papers?

www.pubmed.gov
www.sciencedirect.com
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl


anbuend
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jul 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,039

16 Jan 2008, 5:14 pm

There's actually no reason religious people can't be scientists, although one scientist I know gets hate mail from religious extremists who either (a) don't believe that she (as a woman of their religion) belongs working at all, or (b) don't believe that she (as a person of their religion) belongs being a scientist. Many scientists believe they are exploring the intricacies of the world that God made. It tends to be only those who are in the extreme end of various religions who think science undermines their religion. Most others see no conflict. But you don't see the most others most of the time, because they're not making a big fuss about how science supposedly invalidates their religion.

I see religious people bashing science and scientists or science fans bashing religion (or acting like religious people are just stupid) as equally offensive.

Oh, and, speaking of offensive and religions, isn't that whale.to site that people keep linking to on this thread, the same site that has a lot of extremely offensive anti-semitic conspiracy theories?


_________________
"In my world it's a place of patterns and feel. In my world it's a haven for what is real. It's my world, nobody can steal it, but people like me, we live in the shadows." -Donna Williams


Last edited by anbuend on 16 Jan 2008, 5:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Sedaka
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind

16 Jan 2008, 5:16 pm

AspieDave wrote:
If you want to create an autistic child, get a man and a woman of breeding age (and fertile!! you have to remember fertile....) together. Make sure one or both of them have autistic traits carried in the appropriate gene loci.

Mix vigorously. (hint... THIS is the fun part!)

Wait 40 weeks, take baby (aka "the bun") out of oven. Either perform a complete genetic assay or wait until developmental clues surface (approx. 6 months).

Depending on the man and woman's genetic structure, a percentage of their offspring will inherit autistic traits under the easily understood formulas derived by Gregor Mendel with his pea plants.

Hmmmm... note to self: Check good biography of Gregor Mendel to see if he demonstrated autistic traits.....

Repeat as necessary. Please.... the world NEEDS more smart people.... :salut:


funny thing is... it's a little known fact that Mendel Fudged some of his numbers to make them prettier..

lol


_________________
Neuroscience PhD student

got free science papers?

www.pubmed.gov
www.sciencedirect.com
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl


Sedaka
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind

16 Jan 2008, 5:17 pm

jjstar wrote:
AspieDave wrote:
If you want to create an autistic child, get a man and a woman of breeding age (and fertile!! you have to remember fertile....) together. Make sure one or both of them have autistic traits carried in the appropriate gene loci.
:


You forget that there is still something called the random factor, which is not predictable and is a variant which operates autonomously; cannot be controlled. This is why 2 deaf parents can have a hearing child, 2 dwarf parents a normal growth child, ret*d parents - a normally functioning one and obviously 2 autistic parents a child capable of emoting, communicating and empathizing.


please take a bio course to understand how genetic recombination works


_________________
Neuroscience PhD student

got free science papers?

www.pubmed.gov
www.sciencedirect.com
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl


Sedaka
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind

16 Jan 2008, 5:21 pm

jjstar wrote:
AspieDave wrote:

The "random" factor you talk about is a clearly understood function of Medelian genetics and it operates under clearly understood mathematical rules. Those rules work for anything that has a genetic code. If it didn't, stock breeders would have been out of business thousands of years ago. It works for humans just as well as it works for cows, dogs, horses or sheep. That's the difference between science and magic. Science works, magic is make believe.


I don't know what any popycock language the geneticists have conjured up. I do know that nothing is predictable 100% and even under the closest scrutiny of a microscope with 20 doctors all supervising, nothing is a sure thing. As for stock breeders, they are going out of business and the only reason they stayed around for so long was the human addiction to meat and meat products regardless of the health risks involved. But going out of busincess they certainly are. The new era of cloning is upon the world. And that too will fail, just as everything else science has gotten their hands on because without the God Factor in the equation rendering life complete and in harmony with all of nature, in its rightful place, there will always be failure. And how magic even figures into this...? Who knows. :roll:


it's not that it's predictable... we cant say that it occurs beyond a certain percentage of time... it's still random

im going to request you take a math course along with your bio courses you need desperately.

as for the rest of your post... why do people with strong religious beliefs who feel the need to pick at science... never seem to understand it (science) AT ALL. i'd be fine with you rejecting it if you demonstrated the capacity to comprehend it.

lol


_________________
Neuroscience PhD student

got free science papers?

www.pubmed.gov
www.sciencedirect.com
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl


LeKiwi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,444
Location: The murky waters of my mind...

16 Jan 2008, 5:24 pm

anbuend wrote:
There's actually no reason religious people can't be scientists, although one scientist I know gets hate mail from religious extremists who either (a) don't believe that she (as a woman of their religion) belongs working at all, or (b) don't believe that she (as a person of their religion) belongs being a scientist. Many scientists believe they are exploring the intricacies of the world that God made. It tends to be only those who are in the extreme end of various religions who think science undermines their religion. Most others see no conflict. But you don't see the most others most of the time, because they're not making a big fuss about how science supposedly invalidates their religion.

I see religious people bashing science and scientists or science fans bashing religion (or acting like religious people are just stupid) as equally offensive.

Oh, and, speaking of offensive and religions, isn't that whale.to site that people keep linking to on this thread, the same site that has a lot of extremely offensive anti-semitic conspiracy theories?


I agree... there's no reason why science and religion can't sit together. I know a lot of Christians working in the science field who simply tell me "There's no reason why the big bang can't have happened; according to the bible God said 'let there be light' and there it was, and I'd be very surprised if the Big Bang didn't cause a helluva lot of light in an extremely short time!"
They also tell me that they see things like Phi as God's signature, that maths is his alphabet, and symmetry in all things his methodology.
Also bear in mind that quantam science continuously spits out what could easily be seen as more and more evidence of a 'creator' or a conscious design and you've got little reason why they can't sit happily together at all.


_________________
We are a fever, we are a fever, we ain't born typical...


Phagocyte
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,757

16 Jan 2008, 5:29 pm

LeKiwi wrote:
I agree... there's no reason why science and religion can't sit together. I know a lot of Christians working in the science field who simply tell me "There's no reason why the big bang can't have happened; according to the bible God said 'let there be light' and there it was, and I'd be very surprised if the Big Bang didn't cause a helluva lot of light in an extremely short time!"
They also tell me that they see things like Phi as God's signature, that maths is his alphabet, and symmetry in all things his methodology.
Also bear in mind that quantam science continuously spits out what could easily be seen as more and more evidence of a 'creator' or a conscious design and you've got little reason why they can't sit happily together at all.


Very well said. In this same vein, there's a book you may want to check out, called "The Mind of God" by Paul Davies. There's an interesting couple of chapters about how if there's a god, he must be a mathematician since their are mathematical laws seemingly underlying the complexity of nature. I do not believe that there is or isn't a god, but with the right mindset, science could be used to support belief in a higher power, as their are no better ways to appreciate the pattern and beauty of the natural world through science.



Sedaka
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind

16 Jan 2008, 5:29 pm

anbuend wrote:
There's actually no reason religious people can't be scientists, although one scientist I know gets hate mail from religious extremists who either (a) don't believe that she (as a woman of their religion) belongs working at all, or (b) don't believe that she (as a person of their religion) belongs being a scientist. Many scientists believe they are exploring the intricacies of the world that God made. It tends to be only those who are in the extreme end of various religions who think science undermines their religion. Most others see no conflict. But you don't see the most others most of the time, because they're not making a big fuss about how science supposedly invalidates their religion.

I see religious people bashing science and scientists or science fans bashing religion (or acting like religious people are just stupid) as equally offensive.

Oh, and, speaking of offensive and religions, isn't that whale.to site that people keep linking to on this thread, the same site that has a lot of extremely offensive anti-semitic conspiracy theories?


i totally believe that science and religion can be amended and that people can be both.

i just lol cause most the religious people who have any major criticisms of science are dolts who can't comprehend what is going on in science. **

im personally not religious in a conventional sense, but i dont go about attacking religions.

edit** and dont really care to try.


_________________
Neuroscience PhD student

got free science papers?

www.pubmed.gov
www.sciencedirect.com
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl


beau99
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Nov 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,406
Location: PHX

16 Jan 2008, 5:35 pm

Odin wrote:
What a bunch of religious BS. There is no "Creator" and there is no such thing as "spirit."

You don't have to be religious to believe in spirit.


_________________
Agender person.

Twitter: http://twitter.com/agenderstar