Refrigerator Mom Theory

Post Reply New Topic

Alright, returning to this anomaly (and removing all ideas about para-normal influences), and after having reviewed the works of Dr. Russell Blaylock (a Neuro-Surgeon), I have to conclude that there came a time in our semi-recent history where various additives and preservatives being added into the human-consumption supplies would be able to contribute into a baby's interpretation of unsafe-environments, even with stellar parents. Whilst I am not Anti-Vaccine, and do not regard anything wrong with Vaccines in of themselves, I am aware that there have been Additives that were added into them since slightly after the mid-part of last century. Amongst those additives is something called Thimerosol, a type of Mercury, and is scientifically confirmed to be a Neuro-Toxin as can be read and confirmed in this following Scientific-Document...

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1175560-overview

The number of Vaccinations and Flu-Shots had increased also since around that time-period. I have reason to believe that the existence or presence of neuro-toxins in a mother's body, a mother who is a smoker, a mother who may have drank alcoholic-beverages during the particular vital-stages of pregnancy, a mother who may have been exposed to other forms of stress or somehow got any other kinds of contaminants or neuro-toxins into her blood-stream, can be enough to trigger the activation of Autism-Genes, due to the presence of Neuro-Toxins within a Mother's Body being interpreted by the Baby as an Environment that is Unsafe, similar to the Dutch Hunger-Effect. I am also aware that the whole Thimerisol-in-Vaccinations idea is full of Controversy, but Dr. Blaylock's works seem to be well-documented, and I will just post a screen-shot of a response to someone who attempted to claim that Blaylock was somehow thoroughly debunked with nothing peer-reviewed, when in fact there is a huge list of peer-reviewed studies that we can all read for ourselves...




I will need a bunch of time in order to personally review and double-check on the thoroughness of this research but, for the most part, I already trust Dr. Russell Blaylock's research and reputation and credentials to be reputable, although I sometimes still managed to find mistakes in some of the works of people whom I highly respect (this even includes occasional things that I had even helped to correct for the very Messiah himself!).

Ban Dodger, just for the record, I think you are cool but you are not going to convince me to change my understanding about the causes of Autism. I do appreciate your position though and your evidences that you are presenting.

Ban-Dodger, my apologies, but I'm a bit confused by your assertion. Are you advocating a position somewhat akin to epigenics, that statistically there appears to be a genetic component but the expression of those genes is moderated by such a complex set of chemical conditions that at present it's impossible to simply do a large scale analysis to suss out the genes that are responsible when they actually are expressed at just the right moment (and possibly only in conjunction with others)?

Perhaps I should direct-quote those reference-links to the peer-reviewed medical-studies instead ?
Most people also cannot seem to identify corporate-science as being a type of pseudo-science.
I always want to know who has funded any particular area of research; sometimes it's a corporation.
I am also fully aware of the beliefs amongst Western-cultures that X or Y or Z has been "debunked" but alas...

http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/u-s-me ... se-autism/

...within the above-linked article, and I quote from the above-linked article, some of the following...

Presiding Judge Nicola Di Leo considered another piece of damning evidence: a 1271-page confidential GlaxoSmithKline report (now available on the Internet). This industry document provided ample evidence of adverse events from the vaccine, including five known cases of autism resulting from the vaccine’s administration during its clinical trials (see table at page 626, excerpt below).

Last time I remember once there was mercury in vaccines,they were the older ones,but it has been removed.Well what do I know?
But I doubt it's because of vaccines.

Several posters have said that the refrigerator mom theory has been debunked. When was it debunked? Who debunked it? I'm curious about how the theory was proved to be invalid and would like to know more. So far, I don't see anything farfetched about this theory.

The refrigerator mother theory was also used to explain schizophrenia - yet as far as I know schizophrenia is now commonly considered to be caused by genetic factors.

Children who have experience trauma/abuse which would include neglect and emotional abuse are likely to have an attachment disorder and suffer from complex trauma the presentation of these can look similar to autism in some cases but are not the same. Trauma effects the development of neural pathways and the stress response system and this then impacts on a persons ability to integrate sensory information. Their is now significant scientific evidence for psychodynamics and elements of psychoanalytic theory as we can now see how trauma effects the brain and what the impact of psychodynamic practice has on enabling self regulation and relationship building. If you wish to know more I would suggest reading Bruce Perry or Bessel van der Kolk. For attachment disorders I would read Kliene, Bolby or Winnicot. There is significant evidence that Kanner wasn't entirely honest or up front about his so called discover of autism and had some significant bias. As for who debunked the theory, well it was Kanner's theory and he eventually stepped away from and criticised others for using it. The list of people who have shown it to be inaccurate is incredibly long.

The refrigerator mother theory is that the refrigerator mother or parent are the sole cause of autism in thier children. It started to be debuked when people started notice that in families some children were autistic while thier sibilings were not. Studies in the 1970's and beyond showed heritability

Thanks I'll give Laurence Heller a go. They did try to get it recognised, it would seem that the term was to broad and covered areas that come under other diagnosis's. There was a lot of talk about it being a political decision as well. Don't really know what the truth is.