Grrrr, vaccine ARE connected with autism. >.< That's a

Post Reply New Topic

DeaconBlues, you're misreading me. I don't believe vaccines cause autism - perhaps they can trigger something similar, I don't know, but I don't actually think they have a lot to do with it. I also don't really believe thimerosal can cause anything other than mercury poisoning, and mercury poisoning is not autism. I do, however, know they're full of a lot of things that have been linked in with other neurological diseases - degenerative ones - such as alzheimers and parkinsons. They have a lot of things in them that the body does not need and should be avoided, not injected. They also, in my experience, don't do much to stop people getting these diseases anyway. That's why I don't vaccinate. I've already explained that.



Lau - again, I don't want eugenics and I don't believe in it. What I'm saying is that 'genetics' is a pretty broad term (there are a lot of genes and chromosomes and whatnot...!). And we already established I'd been using the word 'cure' interchangeably with 'treatment', rather than specifying for these boards what I was meaning in the use of the word. So if they could find the actual cause - not just saying 'genetics', but a potential environmental trigger that can cause damage in susceptible children leading to a regression into autism (not the ones who've clearly had it from the word 'go'), as has not yet been ruled out by science - then perhaps that could mean either a treatment to reverse the symptoms in those children (provided they wanted it, of course) that make their lives hell, or a way of avoiding the specific trigger in those children from causing that regression. Leaving them, say, with high-functioning Aspergers as opposed to low-functioning Autism.
So for example if they found a gene that meant that when the child came into contact with a specific trigger - say by eating the leaves of a certain plant - then it would mean the parents could just avoid having that in the garden, keep the kid away from it, and avoid that regression and co-morbids the kid would end up with. Speaking theoretically of course, I'm not saying someone can regress into autism by eating a leaf!! But just to use an analogy. That isn't eugenics, and it isn't unreasonable to think of either. Yes, genetics is the main culprit. But there is that 'grey area' that's been mentioned above where there is the potential for people on the autistic spectrum to be exhibiting the same symptoms but with different causes. Perhaps some ARE autistic due to an 'allergenic' environmental trigger, and they're the ones with all the co-morbids. Who knows. It hasn't been ruled out, so I don't see why people shouldn't be able to search for that trigger for those who may just benefit from it.

So... refuse every injection.
Also, stop eating (food contains traces of... everything).
Stop breathing... (all those nasty gases... why, there's even radioactive argon in air! You might blow up.)
Stop standing on the ground... (dirt! disgusting stuff... and there are all those microbes that can come in straight through your skin)
In fact, don't touch anything, especially not other people - they are full of cells that could kill you.

Learn things. You have "explained" nothing. You have stated, as if they were fact, a few anecdotes that you have picked up from somewhere. You haven't gone as far as bad science, as you haven't given any science at all.

You have demonstrated that you do not understand how vaccines work, but have not attempted to rectify that lack of understanding.




"Genetics" is not a "broad term". It's a fairly narrow branch of science.


Oh my... are you really a representative of "Autism Speaks", after all? The mere concept of "regression into autism"...


So... we "aspies" are better than those nasty "auties". You just want to get rid of the ones that you don't understand so well?


So... I'm regressed into my autism. You really lay it on.


What? According to you, you CAN "revert into autism" by environmental factors. Eating a leaf is exactly such a thing. It is not an analogy you are giving; it is an example.


I have no idea what "that" you are referring to here. If you mean "not eating poisonous leaves", then I would agree "that" was not eugenics. When we say that you support eugenics, it is when you insist on research into the "cause" of autism, with the explicit aim of identifying the genetic basis and eliminating it.


You perpetually return to this subject, causing the rest of us to have to continue. Autism clearly runs in families. The details of that identify it as genetic. Autism itself, per se, is not a "bad" thing. There are no comorbids that are associated with it alone. Discussing palliatives for them is just obfuscating the issue.

Autism is genetic. The cure for genetics is eugenics. I find that unacceptable.
I don't need to be cured. I am not ill.

Those things are unavoidable; you can avoid vaccines - you just don't get jabbed. Hence why I won't do it. I can't avoid what's in the air so I don't stress about it. I eat organic food and that's about the best you can do in terms of diet, dirt is good (too little and you end up with allergies, apparently) etc etc. It's about limitation for me - some things I can't do anything about, so I won't even worry. Some things I can, so I avoid them. I won't avoid ALL injections because some are necessary and don't contain the same toxins as are found in vaccines. I just avoid the ones that do contain the bad stuff.

Learn things. You have "explained" nothing. You have stated, as if they were fact, a few anecdotes that you have picked up from somewhere. You haven't gone as far as bad science, as you haven't given any science at all.

You have demonstrated that you do not understand how vaccines work, but have not attempted to rectify that lack of understanding.





No, but to just say 'genetics' isn't specific enough for those looking for the actual cause. What genes? How is it inherited - from a mother or father or both? What combination causes what on the spectrum? Etc etc.



I'm not the one whose children have 'regressed' but there are far too many who believe their kids have for me to dismiss it as them not being observant enough of their young children. Maybe they're wrong and they did have it all along, but I think it's worth investigating is all rather than dismissing off-hand. Perhaps there is something in it. And no, I don't know anything about Autism Speaks. I tried looking at their website once but it annoyed me so I left.



I don't want to get rid of anyone. I hope you aren't deliberately twisting my words as I don't think you'd do that, but nevertheless, my words are being twisted. This is all theoretical and on the proviso that the person involved would want it - I'm not into forcing things onto people (as you may have gathered from my opinions on vaccines and other threads about fluoride). I don't think any of us are any better or worse than anyone else; we're all on the same spectrum aren't we? I just think perhaps if someone with more severe autism wanted to be less autistic/more 'normal'/higher up the spectrum/better able to communicate/(however you want to phrase that) then they should have that chance. I certainly know there are days when my lack of understanding frustrates the hell out of me and I wish like mad that I could, just for a day, be 'normal' and not have all this extra pressure and effort that comes with just living a normal life. I wish I didn't just want to go home and sit on my bed and rock and listen to the same song 1,000 times and not talk to anyone for the next week. And if I feel like that and I'm high-functioning Aspergers, then what's it going to be like for someone more severely affected than I am?



No, I didn't say that. I'm talking about these ones who perhaps are affected by something somewhere in the environment. Mine is genetic and I've had it from the word go, and I believe you if you say you're the same, and I acknowledge that the vast majority IS genetic. But there are others - lots of them, although a minority - convinced that isn't the case for them, so surely we owe it to them to investigate the possibility? If it's ruled out it's ruled out, but that won't happen without investigation.



A theoretical, nonsensical example used to illustrate my point. Eating a leaf is an environmental factor, but one that I very, very much doubt would have any possibility of causing normal people to 'go autistic'. I rarely use this saying as I don't like the pictures I get from it, but, well, the day that happens would be 'when pigs fly'.



I don't want to eliminate the genes as I don't like where that would be headed - I agree, probably eugenics. I'm talking about finding the cause to alleviate some symptoms in those who want them alleviated - an optional treatment not involving genetic alteration/manipulation/deletion/eugenics. If there is an environmental aggravator then that's what I would be interested in as it could mean good things for those people who want it (I wouldn't myself, but I know a few who would). I guess it comes down to my being overly optimistic - I'm often told I've too much faith in human nature, and I guess that comes in when I don't believe finding a cause (not with the aim of 'cure' - with the aim of finding a cause so as to understand it better) would lead to eugenics. I can see that it likely would, but I don't believe people would be so cruel.

[/quote]

Again, I agree - I don't want the genes cured as that would be eugenics, which I'm firmly opposed to. But if there's an environmental trigger that can lead to helping those who want help then how can we deny them that?

I don't need to be cured either, I agree, I'm not ill. I'm completely 100% with you on that. But there are others out there who aren't as fortunate as we are and who would like to be 'cured' (cured meaning treated), and I think we have to respect that.

Give it up, Lau - LeKiwi doesn't know the science, s/he doesn't want to know the science, s/he is perfectly happy with his/her preconceived notions (like this idea that somehow, trace elements from the environment don't sneak into these magical "organic" foods). Provide him/her with references (as I have), and they apparently go unread. S/he fancies him/herself a "journalist", but seems to have no notion whatsoever of journalistic objectivity - in fact, in some of his/her exchanges with zendell, s/he seems to have rejected the idea of "objectivity" altogether.

Hell, s/he can't even look at the real world and see that diseases like polio have been all but eradicated from the industrialized world (thanks to Dr. Salk's vaccine), or that smallpox (again, thanks to vaccines) only exists any longer in about three laboratories, where it used to threaten millions. S/he can't observe the drastic drop in major communicable diseases in the Western world (when was the last time you heard of a real flu pandemic, as opposed to hysteria about one? When was the last time an influenza variety swept through an entire continent, killing millions?), due to vaccines. Instead, when confronted with this, s/he blocks his/her ears, and continues to insist that these nasty vaccines are the real danger (even when provided, as s/he was a few pages ago, with links to the relative toxicity of various materials found in some vaccines).

There's no point in attempting to reason with LeKiwi, my friend, as his/her position is not based in reason, and thus won't be changed by it. It's magical thinking, pure and simple - a common human flaw, one we're every bit as susceptible to as NTs.

And which injections are the "good" ones? Do you just guess?

You have demonstrated that you do not understand how vaccines work, but have not attempted to rectify that lack of understanding.



Yes. Genetics is genetics. It is not a broad term. It is a fairly narrow branch of science. It is something you talk a lot about, but seem to know very little about.


I don't dismiss anecdotes. I look for the truth.


No. You bring in regression again, and make that value judgement of "Leaving them, say, with high-functioning Aspergers as opposed to low-functioning Autism."


And that's precisely what I want. I want you to have that as an option. I want there to be more support and understanding. I have scientific curiosity about the underlying mechanism of autism, but I'm prepared to shelve that, indefinitely, in favour of supporting and understanding this segment of the human race.

Wow. You mean to say that you DO use such an expression?



If you mean "treated", say "treated". "Cured" has a different meaning.

And, have you spoken to these "others"? I'll admit to seeing quite a few members arrive here, expressing such a desire. On reflection, they all seem to come round to a different view. They want an end to the intolerance, and assistance with some areas, physically and mentally, where they don't cope too well.

Autism-like symptoms (in Germany):

Autism-like symptoms don't warrant for a clear spectrum diagnosis. Autism-like symptoms appear all over other neurological disorders, but a person with Down's has still Down's and not autism. Although a person can of course have both. Also, non-genetic disorders are also included in the term 'autism-like symptoms', as for example locking a perfectly healthy child away causes behaviour that resembles autism closely, but is not.

Autism-like symptoms isn't an official diagnosis, but recently, some wary diagnosticians use it though it gets a child/adult nothing, which makes it pretty useless.

So autism-like symptoms means that either a clear other source can be found that explains the symptoms or because a person shows features but doesn't warrant any diagnosis at all. It is used to label everyone who shows symptoms that occur in autism, no matter what the source of this autism-like behaviour is. But it doesn't mean anything, it's not a real diagnosis.

They don't have a PDD-NOS and anyone who doesn't fit or is made to fit either classical or AS to a T often doesn't get a diagnosis of the spectrum. Unless there's MR involved.
A-typical autism is rarely used here, but I know a severe brain injury with autism-like symptoms fitting the description of classical autism entirely can get people the a-typical diagnosis. It's rarely used and hard to say any special kind of group would get this label.

I understand that PDD-NOS in the DSM-IV is an umbrella term which we lack here. I see the problems and advantages of it.



No idea about vaccinates and autism, I didn't get my shots, I'm the only autistic individual in my family and thus my interest in vaccination is lacking.

On a very personal level, the environmental factors I consider most likely to have adversely affected my born Aspie son, and given him conditions that my Aspie husband and Aspie father never had to deal with include:

1) The fire retardant on his infant sleepware. Which he chewed excessively. When I learned the symptons of fire-retardant poisoning, I realized they applied every bit as much as the Aspie diagnosis, albeit for different things about my child. Being Aspie makes him creative. But the fire retardant may have made his mind jumpy, and ret*d his growth. Not that I am looking around for any proof of it or trying to cure it, I would assume that damage is done, but I do wonder. And if that wondering could lead to another child having a better chance at life, why not?

2) Having a C-section birth. I remember when my son was first born, a friend of mine encouraged me to do all these wacky excercises which I now realize were meant to help with sensory integration. I did none of them; I thought it was wacky. What she said at the time was that as a seventh grade teacher, she could always spot the kids born via ceasaren. Something in the sensory process that was supposed to be melded by the birth canal experience. I listened politely but didn't accept the theory. But now that 75% of the babies in my mom's group that were born via S-section have been identified with some sort of sensory processing learning disability, I have to wonder if she had it right. Birth experience issues was also a question on the official diagnosis forms we filled out.

3) The senosry overload and noise of the modern world. Pure daily over-stimulation, at a level far different than previous generations. My son was born a sensory seeker, of all sorts, fascinated by this crazy world of ours, staring at lights, wanting to be in crowds, etc. But as someone later pointed out to me, what a child is drawn to is not always what is good for them. At this point in time he is clearly stressed by the same things that once made him happy. Was it overload? A defensive mechanism inside of him that had to switch off in protection? That would not have been triggered if he had not been exposed to so much?

My point is not to run about investigating all these things, or to change anything about my child the way he is today. But as a parent who has watched and known the entire life experience of one Aspie individual, and who has seen certain changes in him that have been for the worse, despite it being clear he was not like other children from day 1, I am going to wonder. There are no scapegoats in my world, but there does seem to be evidence that something is making the burdens that can come with spectrum conditions to be worse than they needed to be.

None of these three things I mentioned were factors in the life of my husband or father. But they are factors in the life of my son. Could any or all of them be why my son's Aspergers has carried far more burdens than my husband's or father's did?

Isn't that a question that SOMEONE should be asking?

Of course, I don't think this is the agenda of organizations of Autism Speaks. They get none of my money, or of my support. It isn't in their defense that I bring it up. It is, instead, in defense of others parents who are left wondering what happened, what changed. To say that I can see why they wonder, and to say that I believe they shouldn't be attacked for doing so.

Thanks for listening.

I did say I wouldn't mention it again. I plan not to.

Lau, you and pepperfire are going to absolutely hate me for saying this, but at some point, as a society with limited resources, we have to look beyond what individuals want for themselves, and what is necessary for society to flourish. Large groups of individuals who cannot, as adults, take care of themselves and are in continual need of services is not something society can actively encourage, because society cannot afford it. The pragmatic realities cannot be completely ignored. Which is why, to me, knowing if there are environmental triggers that could take a person who was born high functioning, and relegate them into a life that is low functioning, society is going to need to know about it, and act on it. If it is God's will, then we'll live with it. I do NOT beleive in Eugenics, and have been distressed for years about what has happened with Downs. But what if it isn't God's will, if something people are doing is making the burdens heavier than they need to be? The gray areas I have mentioned before, that I insist on seeing, but most Aspies cannot.

I don't want to anger anyone, I apologize, but I am someone who has always played Devil's advocate, because thinking cannot advance nor solutions be found unless someone does. I firmly believe that. I never buy the party line, hook line and sinker. It isn't in me to do so.

And absolutely the current Autism spending needs to be reworked. I loved Alex's statement about funding hope, instead of fear. Without a doubt, too many funding choices are currently driven by fear. So much hope really does exist, and could flourish with better funding. Not hope to make Aspies into NT's, but hope to make the burdens less, so that the gifts can shine.

I really ,really REALLY need to get to work and leave this discussion.

DW, that's really interesting about your son. The fire retardent is something that interests me a lot right now - it's so pervasive in our world these days but so toxic, it's exactly the kind of thing I think SHOULD be being investigated for the possibility of worsening conditions such as autism. Same as Teflon, which is in so many things besides just pots and pans and yet is noxious and nasty, and found in 95% of our bloodstreams... how's that for a scary thought??

Also interesting what you've said about C-section births. I don't much on the subject as I've not yet had children myself, but nevertheless, it is food for thought...

As I've said, the reason I avoid vaccines is because they're yet another thing adding to our overload of toxins we get just by living these days, so as it's avoidable I'll avoid it. I don't think they're the sole potential 'trigger' at all, they're just one of many that's avoidable in a world of poisons mostly unavoidable. The ones you can do something about you do something about, the ones you can't you just don't worry about.

Lau - I look at what's in a medicine and what the pros and cons of taking it are, and then go from there. If there's something nasty in another injection such as there are in vaccines I wouldn't have it, but if it's something I would personally feel is an acceptable risk then that's ok, I'd go for it. More often than not I'm more inclined to try the natural version of the drug first - 85% of all modern pharma drugs are synthetic versions of plants and herbs (for example, aspirin from meadowsweet, and metamucil from psyllium), so I'm more inclined to try them in their usually less dangerous and risky natural form first. Unless it's something serious and acute that needs immediate treatment, not just a flu or fever, of course.
When you say I've not attempted to rectify my understanding of vaccines, do you mean I haven't attemped to rectify my understanding? Or simply that it's frustrating that I haven't changed my mind to accept what you're telling me as fact - I do understand vaccines, I just haven't come to the same conclusion about them. Different opinions don't mean a right and a wrong; for me, not vaccinating is the road I choose to take. I don't see either of us as being right or wrong. You choose to vaccinate and I respect that choice, that's up to you, and you clearly understand and know what you're doing. Fine. Just please respect my choice not to.

Also, when I was saying I sometimes wish I could be normal and not just want to isolate myself and rock and listen to music repetitively, that's what I meant. Not that I wish people would let me do that or that it would be socially acceptable (though that would be really, really nice obviously!!); I mean I hate that restless, horrible, dissatisifed feeling I get sometimes where the autism for whatever reason gets really strong and I feel totally out of sorts. I had one of those days yesterday and had to soldier on through talking and smiling and laughing and pretending to be fine. The only thing that got me through was listening to a single song through my ipod - I listened to it 1500 times yesterday!! - and rocking so slightly I hoped nobody would notice. I didn't want to talk, I didn't want to move, I didn't want to think, I just wanted to sit and space. I wish I didn't have that feeling sometimes. It's part of me and I know how to deal with it and I accept it, but sometimes it just brings me down - as I'm sure it does all of us - and I do wish there was a treatment, even temporary, to stop that, besides doing what I do.

For that reason I can understand why some people would choose treatment if they had it available to them, and I feel I can't deny them that chance. But to find a treatment you need to understand the processes that go on in the brain and the chemistry involved to do something about it. That's why I've got no problem with people searching for these things and trying to work out exactly what's going on. Because I know as well as anyone how tough it can be.

All said and done, I don't want to be taken wrongly or out of context - I love my Aspergers, and as I've said, I consider it a gift, not a curse. But everything has its consequences, and if that feeling you get on occasion where it's particularly strong is the consequence of something that lets you see the world in a different way, gives you drive, intelligence, perseverance, inner strength, resolve, courage, love, empathy, etc etc then so be it. I wouldn't want a treatment and I wouldn't change who I am or my Aspergers for anything - I love it. But I can see how some who are worse off than I am and who get 'those days' frequently could want that treatment. So I reserve the right to say go for it.

Transparently you have no understanding of them, as you still refuse to take any responsibility for increasing other people's risk of infection. You insist that, for no grounds bar capriciousness, you will not vaccinate.

I have no idea what you mean by "I just haven't come to the same conclusion about them." - the same conclusion as whom? I have come to no conclusion. I just go by the evidence available. I personally make no conclusions. I rely on epidemiologists, toxicologists, etc. to tell me what the facts are. I don't make them up. I refer you to them.

Lau, plenty of people choose not to vaccinate for reasons that have nothing to do with Autism. Vaccinations come with a cost v. benefit analysis attached to them, and anytime you have that, you are going to find people who disagree with the resulting recommendation. Trying to get inside of that differing opinion is a bit like a Democrat trying to get inside the head of Republican, or vice a versa. Ultimately, it's political and, very personal. I will sell my side in a debate, but ultimately respect the different position. As I would with anything that has a personal or political aspect to it. While I disagree with the choice some families make not to vaccinate, it is their right to make that choice, isn't it?

No. Not if it affects the rights of other people.

You would be happy, knowing that you next door neighbours wished to run a fireworks factory?

The later is against the law, as in the law recognizes that the safety needs trump personal choice. My neighbors are not put at risk in the process of keeping me safer.

The law, however, does not require vaccination, at least not where I live, although the government works hard to sell it. The law has chosen to recognize and respect the personal values element involved. The government's own cost/benefit analysis has also recognized that the greater good with vaccines is going to come at the cost of a certain percentage of individuals who will be harmed by them. In this scenario, my neighbor is put at risk, albeit small, in order to keep me safer.

They cannot be compared on any level at all.

They can. I did.

I think I'd rather have the firework factory that the plague carrier. You get some warning with the former.

Laws change.

Drink driving is now an offence in most countries.

In my opinion, unless your kids have an underlying condtion that vaccines would aggravate, then you should be arrested and charged with child endangerment.

And then, if your kids get a vaccine-preventable illness, and die from it, you should be charged with murder.

Oh come off it. I am NOT a 'plague carrier', I am NOT putting your children in any danger, and the likelihood of them getting anything is about the same as any child who's been vaccinated, arguably lower depending on your point of view (though I won't go into that as it's mostly anecdotal anyway).

Beau, in my opinion anyone who gives their children coca cola, mcdonalds, fast food, preservative-ridden junk, soda, candy, anything containing aspartame, caffeine, soy, trans-fats, msg, ace-k, high-sugar low-calory processed toxic crap should be charged with child abuse. And I can tell you which of the two - not vaccinating or feeding your children the s**t that the majority of people eat - is going to cause the most damage. And make no mistake, that is NOT the lack of vaccinations. Nobody ever died of a lack of vaccinations, but I can assure you, they are dying in droves from eating that kind of crap all their lives.

And, strangely enough, iatrogenic deaths - that is, death by medical mishap/mistake/drug reactions (even when taking them properly and prescribed) - has recently surpassed heart disease as the number one killer in the USA, and are way up there in the top five of most other 'developed' countries.