Autism

[DwayneEMTP]

Dwayne, you are correct that much of this data is being recorded/reported by untrained parents. You are correct that many of the methods are unscientific. But look at the sheer volume of data. Look at the number of people reporting the same experiences.

But look at the number of people that believe in UFOs, right? A group of untrained, uneducated people with an emotional tie to a subject that all believe the same thing is often worse than no data at all, as they will, as a group, often begin to see whatever it is that's most emotionally satisfying for the group to see. There is a sheer volume of talk, unfortunately very, very little of that talk is producing data.

...What does that tell us? What it tells me is that there is a huge population of parents that believe something did this to their kids.

I would be shocked if that weren't the case. We ALL wanted to find a demon in the closet, something to blame, something to attack, but that doesn't mean that there is really a demon in the closet. Parents believing it just doesn't make it so. It makes it satisfying to be part of that accepted group, many feel validated by being enraged at the pseudoscience that is produced, but as above, how many actually care enough to take even a semester of science so as to develop the tools to be able to intelligently pursue facts instead of fancy?

...They also say that their kids showed no signs of any deficits prior to receiving vaccinations. That the deficits came soon after the shots...

Which makes it very easy to see why the myths propogate at the rate and intensity that they do. Autism tends to rear it's ugly head somewhere between 15-24 months, around the time that many kids get their vaccinations. Dylan recieved his childhood vaccination (I can't remember which one) and went from an apparently normally developing child to completely silent in 10 days. Do you truly believe that I didn't want to attack the vaccines? I was fucking rabid about it! But the fact remains that approximation does not equal causation.

...If it was a small group of people saying these things, I would not likely pay much heed to it. But it's a rather large group of people. And they all say the same thing. Are they all crazy? Hardly....

Crazy? Not most of them. Ignorant? Yea, I believe most to be. One of the issues that I believe that you will have looking at this issue honestly is that there is this picture of the autistic parent, clean, attentive, kind and loving. That is the TV autistic parent, but not the common parent that I've been exposed to. And I'm willing to bet that I've been exposed to hundreds more than you have. The majority of them have been purposefully ignorant of their childs conditions or their treatments, had little to no interest in their development or how to help feed into it, and often complained to their families and friends about how horrible it is to be the parent of an autistic while allowing their children to sit on front of the TV 16hrs a day. To paraphrase you...grin...if you want to argue that this is a group of people motivated or qualified to gather any type of unbiased data on autism...bring it...

...There was an event that changed their children. The story is consistent from family to family. Telling them they're crazy feels to me like telling a fibromyalgia patient that their pain is all in their head. We were doing that a few years ago, remember?...

I don't doubt for a second that there is something happening, but you're trusting them to know what caused it, and I'm not anywhere close to climbing on that train with you without a mountain of data to support it. We're wasting the precious few dollars that are being dished out for autism chasing the whims and fancies of those that don't know anything, but that FEEL something. And I hate that. They will never help my son by doing that.

And you speak about the stories of these families as if they are isolated from each other. Each family telling the same story independent of the other. They aren't. This has been huge news for a long time now, on the news, on the internet, in the papers. It's almost impossible to talk to someone that believe that vaccines are responsible for this issue that is able to back up their thoughts with intelligent reasons. It's just shit that they've heard on TV and believe might land them in a big payday lawsuit if they keep propagating the myth.

...Consider this: Can anyone here name a medicine that won't have any side effects on at least some people? How can any medicine, vaccine, or whatever claim to be beneficial to 100% of the people, 100% of the time?

I've never known of a medicine, ever, that made such claims.

...and is designed to break down the immune system?

Can you explain that statement?

...I would expect side effects in a large percentage of the population. It's the elephant in the room and people are pretending it's not there.

No one is pretending that brother. The elephant was spotted long ago, it's been mugged, sliced, diced, mutilated and tested until it's really no more than a pink cockroach now, eating at the finite funds available for true scientific research.

...Coincidentally, the first documented cases of autism were born at the same time soluble mercury was added to vaccines and seeds. Eight of the first eleven cases were born to educated, successful parents that had access to the new vaccines...

Unfortunately even educated parents aren't allowed to provide data on their children for the purposes of true scientific research, and for a very, very good reason.

I would like to see the documentation tying the first reported cases to the first vaccines if you have access to it. But again, the first reported cases can't be assumed to be the first cases, right??

It sounds like you're way more married to the vaccine argument than you first led us to believe...but I'm glad. I've not visited in in a while and it wouldn't hurt to take another look with someone as passionate as yourself.

I forgot to send my email to you earlier, but will try to remember to do it after I finish this post. If you would prefer to keep your reasons for believing that the government benifits from the overwhelming number of autistics private, I get that, but I would ask that you keep any of your pathology related comments here in this thread so that all may learn from them as well.

Thanks for you comments....

Dwayne

[paramedicmike]

Eh, I don't call anyone a whacko without a smiley-face to make sure that it's taken as tongue in cheek. *shrugs* I thought it was a jab and a nod all in one, wouldn't have really offended me but I'm not the person it was directed at.

I don't know this guy so I'm not offended. That being said, if he's really interested in getting people to consider his point of view, name calling isn't going to win over any friends.

Mike, quit playing semantics. An epidemic and a crisis are not mutually exclusive. FOCUS... ~_~

I really don't think it's playing semantics based on his reply. You're right in that an epidemic and a crisis are not mutually exclusive. However, if he really believed it to be an epidemic he'd have defended his choice of words. Instead, he changed his approach when called on it. Changing the choice of words instead of defending them hints at someone who either doesn't know the definition of the words he's choosing or someone who's unsure of his position in the argument.

Combine that with a lack of evidence to support his argument despite repeated requests is a bit telling, don't you agree?

[DwayneEMTP]

Katiebug, I notice that I've the only one here that seems unable to get past your screen name and notice that you're not a chick...

No offense intended, I promise you that it's an honest mistake.

I'll try to be more careful in my references...

Dwayne

[chbare]

You guys saying Autism started about the time vaccines hit the scene may want to look back at your history. It doesn't appear to be anything new. Sure, we are better able to identify and classify, but the classic signs and symptoms of the various flavours of Autism are documented throughout history. In fact, some of the most brilliant individuals of the past such as Paul Dirac and others may have in fact had Autism.

Dwayne brings a refreshing and dare I say objective view of the subject, especially as a parent.

Take care,

chbare.

[DwayneEMTP]

You guys saying Autism started about the time vaccines hit the scene may want to look back at your history. It doesn't appear to be anything new. Sure, we are better able to identify and classify, but the classic signs and symptoms of the various flavours of Autism are documented throughout history. In fact, some of the most brilliant individuals of the past such as Paul Dirac and others may have in fact had Autism.

Dwayne brings a refreshing and dare I say objective view of the subject, especially as a parent.

Take care,

chbare.

Thanks Brother.

My journey as Dylan's dad, as with most parents of special needs children I'd bet, started with me looking for someone to blame. My child had been slayed by a psychic hit and run driver and I was going to hunt that motherf*cker down and beat him until there was not single part still recognizable. Who was the driver? The doc that delivered my son, the drug companies, God?...I had no idea, only that I was going to identify, and then kill him.

But that turned out not to be so easy as I had thought. Though the birth was difficult and Dylan was delivered apneic, there were not only no clear paths from that to autism, but not even any significant rabbit trails. The same with drugs, parental love or lack thereof, or lack of proper parenting, vaccines..etc, etc.

So I turned my attention to a cure, and of course that led to plenty of information making it clear that there was/is none, nor are were near....

Thus leading me to wonder how I can help that process along, which led to the studies being done and the reasons for them...and then I was truly struck sick. The studies were following the broken hearts of parents instead of evidence. The famous were extolling their scientifically ignorant though popularly brilliant basis for autism, and congress was listening. So if you wanted money for research you fucking well better be studying something that the vocal voters were afraid of...even if it is wrong.

It seems now that the largest battle facing our autistic generation is to try and convince people that emotion and superstition, while making you feel better, is not going to help our autistic kids and the hundreds of thousands of autistic grandkids in the making as we speak.

Before we can even begin the war on autism, we have to first at least begin to win some battles on ignorance...unfortunately trying to raise funds for a war on ignorance isn't as exciting or emotionally satisfying as raising funds to slay the evil drug manufacturers. (The same evil bastards responsible to extending out lives, what, about 30 years over 150 years ago?)

But anyway..sorry for the rant. But I truly am grateful for your comments as I rarely know if I'm off in the ditch following my heart and becoming part of the problem, or am maybe, as I'd hoped, at least trying to stay on the shortest path to a cure. As you mentioned..as a parent there is a true path..it's just almost always snowed in with emotion.

Dwayne

[Katiebug]

I seem to be missing posts in-between my posts. I'm new at the Tapatalk thing. Plus I'm at work and posting between calls.

Thanks for the comments. Like I said, I haven't had anyone to talk to. That's the perspective I haven't had, Dwayne and Nypaemt39. I want to know everything, please.

Man, one of us completely misread her comments. I read them as a compliment to your intelligence with a little tongue in cheek shoulder punching. You seemed to have read them as an attack.

What's up with that brother? You seem to be more on the attack than usual of late...

Dwayne

Yep.

Let's get this out of the way. Mike, you are aggressively confrontational.

I'm not here to challenge you on your home turf. If I was, I'd pick an argument I knew I could win. Even then, I wouldn't be fully confident, because I think you're smarter than me. And I think I'm pretty smart.

This is not an argument. It's me trying to figure out something I can't let go of. I've read about autism until I'm tired of reading about autism and I still find myself thinking about it. Something is nagging me and I need to know what it is. How do you feel about that? Well... I don't care. Seriously.

If you want to debunk anything I say, that's good because I want that too.

Just don't do it maliciously. I'm not going to deal with that.

I need to show what I've learned. I think it's is more in depth that what's being put out there. It's not new, it's a deep look at an old argument. But I will do it on my schedule, not yours. You will not derail me. If you continue to try, I will abandon this thread and use other media to communicate with people that will talk to me.

Saying, "I thought you were better than that", has no effect on me whatsoever. It's a bullshit psych play to make me sad that you're disappointed in me. I've seen you use it before. You may be smarter than me, but I didn't just fall of the turnip truck.

Am I wasting time talking about this? Okay, who's time am I wasting? Certainly not mine.

The researchers? No, they're not reading EMT City threads. Besides, I'm just another layperson collecting data.

The people going through it? They seem to be looking for answers, too. If they are willing to spend their time helping me understand and talking through my thoughts, why do you have a problem with it?

I didn't put the chip on your shoulder. If you're looking for someone to knock it off, look somewhere else. My purpose here is to take another look at something that's answer didn't satisfy me. It's important to me and I'm willing to risk looking like a fool in front of my peers to talk about it. However, I will not stand for someone trying to make me look like a fool, as you are attempting to do. Back off, man. Debunk me, disagree with me, whatever. But be civilized.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[paramedicmike]

Let's get this out of the way. Mike, you are aggressively confrontational.

You have completely, totally mistaken where I'm coming from or where I was going.

I'm not here to challenge you on your home turf. If I was, I'd pick an argument I knew I could win. Even then, I wouldn't be fully confident, because I think you're smarter than me. And I think I'm pretty smart.

I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm trying to get you to put forward something to support the statements you've made. Something you still haven't done.

This is not an argument. It's me trying to figure out something I can't let go of. I've read about autism until I'm tired of reading about autism and I still find myself thinking about it. Something is nagging me and I need to know what it is. How do you feel about that? Well... I don't care. Seriously.

It's a civilized discussion trying to get to the crux of whatever the point is you're trying to make. You've made some pretty controversial statements. You've made them and then dared us to challenge you on them. What did you expect people to do? Roll over and take it?

If you want to debunk anything I say, that's good because I want that too.

Just don't do it maliciously. I'm not going to deal with that.

I'm blunt and don't pull punches. I'll give you that. But there is, and was, no malicious intent in anything I posted. I would say the same things to your face and we'd laugh over the discussion. Much is lost in translation.

That you're so sensitive to people asking you to support your statements when you've dared us to talk about issues is puzzling, though

I need to show what I've learned. I think it's is more in depth that what's being put out there. It's not new, it's a deep look at an old argument. But I will do it on my schedule, not yours. You will not derail me. If you continue to try, I will abandon this thread and use other media to communicate with people that will talk to me.

You haven't shown anything. Nor am I trying to derail you. Like I said, you've made some broad statements, challenged us to call you on it, and now you're threatening to take your ball and go home. If you want to leave, leave. If you want to engage in discussion the be prepared to have people call you on what you're talking about and engage in the discussion! Should that change the dynamics and direction of the discourse, well, that's what happens when intelligent people talk about things. It happens in real life, too.

And there's nothing wrong with it.

Saying, "I thought you were better than that", has no effect on me whatsoever. It's a bullshit psych play to make me sad that you're disappointed in me. I've seen you use it before. You may be smarter than me, but I didn't just fall of the turnip truck.

No attempts at bullshit psych plays. You started name calling. Given the posts you've made in other threads I honestly thought you were better and smarter than that. As I mentioned, I'm blunt and I call it like I see it. Want to act like a second grader? I'll call you on it. Want to have an intelligent discussion? Then let's have at it.

Am I wasting time talking about this? Okay, who's time am I wasting? Certainly not mine.

The researchers? No, they're not reading EMT City threads. Besides, I'm just another layperson collecting data.

The people going through it? They seem to be looking for answers, too. If they are willing to spend their time helping me understand and talking through my thoughts, why do you have a problem with it?

Who says I have a problem with it? I'm here for the discussion just as much as you are. The only problem is you're not discussing. You're making claims then failing to back them up. If what's been presented so far doesn't fit into your schedule then why did you bring it up and then walk away?

I didn't put the chip on your shoulder. If you're looking for someone to knock it off, look somewhere else. My purpose here is to take another look at something that's answer didn't satisfy me. It's important to me and I'm willing to risk looking like a fool in front of my peers to talk about it. However, I will not stand for someone trying to make me look like a fool, as you are attempting to do. Back off, man. Debunk me, disagree with me, whatever. But be civilized.

No chips here. No lack of civility here, either. Nor am I attempting to make you look like a fool. Present your thoughts. Back them up when you present them. Let discussion happen. Don't be upset when people call you on it in an attempt to better understand where you're coming from.

[chbare]

I've read about autism until I'm tired of reading about autism and I still find myself thinking about it. Something is nagging me and I need to know what it is. How do you feel about that? Well... I don't care. Seriously.

If you have done a significant amount of research, why do you not present and cite your sources and clearly identify the problems you have with the literature? To date, most of the "immunisation" literature has been debunked, the physician who spear headed the studies stripped of his license and disgraced and legal action taken against that individual for his behaviour. Pretty tough to stand by that evidence IMHO.

I'm just another layperson collecting data.

The people going through it? They seem to be looking for answers, too. If they are willing to spend their time helping me understand and talking through my thoughts, why do you have a problem with it?

One must be careful about getting answers from people who may not even know what they are talking about.

My purpose here is to take another look at something that's answer didn't satisfy me. It's important to me and I'm willing to risk looking like a fool in front of my peers to talk about it.

Being dissatisfied with an answer does not make said answer wrong. You must be willing to accept counter-intuitive conclusions if the evidence points in that direction. I had a crisis of intuition while taking chemistry because the concepts that describe the "motion" of an electron are so non-intuitive, I simply was not satisfied with the model. How can we have an area of high probability density here and there, but nothing in between? How can the electron move between these two areas if there is zero probability at the node? Unfortunately, after calculating wicked sick accurate binding energies with the theory, I had to accept that the model in fact reflects the physical world.

My point being, sometimes you have to accept answers that you "feel" are not intuitively correct or leave you dissatisfied. If the evidence is good and points in a specific direction, you need to strongly consider it's validity. If you want to change our minds, you had better produce some data that is good, peer reviewed and reproducible before any of us are going to consider these crackpot, pseudo science ideas.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Take care,

chbare.

[Katiebug]

Good points, and I understand where you are coming from, Mike and Chbare. Chbare, you are well spoken and an educator by nature. I have learned a lot from you posts. Thanks for that. However, scientific absolutes are often shown not to be absolute at all. What we think we know often becomes what we thought we knew. It never hurts to go back over something if the answer is counterintuitive.

We haven't begun to get to the meat of it though, because I'm getting shut down before I can get there.

What I'll be doing is going over the vaccines ingredient by ingredient and discussing the purpose and effects of each one. I wanted to start that yesterday, but got derailed. That's where the meat is. That's where my points are. There's no end to the discussion without that, because no one can prove either side.

Mike, you have attempted to assassinate my character before I could say much of anything. Look back over the thread. I'm asking you to prove me wrong, but you have to let me put something out there first. Yeah, I've stated my idea, but we're already arguing without any reasoning put forth. Mike, I thought you were better than that. You come across as one that's looking for a fight. That may or may not have been your intention, but trust me when I tell you that you are overly aggressive. Shut me down. It's what I'm asking you to do. But at least let's get into the conversation first. You can't shut someone down based on a preface. You have to read the story first.

I've got too much going on to be here today except maybe sporadically. I look forward to getting this kicked off tomorrow.

If, in the end, we haven't arroused new suspicion of an old suspect, we will still have profited. Firstly, those of us that can't let it go may be able to move on to other possibilities. Secondly, all of us will have learned things we didn't know before. It's a win/win.

Let's get back on track. Mike, I'm not now, nor may I ever be prepared to argue with you. Even if I'm right, I believe you could make it sound wrong. So in that respect, I give up. You win. But I will stand up for myself, and sometimes I do disagree with you.

I look forward to getting your ideas on my thoughts, which I will start sharing tomorrow. Educate me.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Babs]

Hello everyone.

I am DwayneEMTP's wife, Barbara. Even though I'm not in the EMS field he occasionally sends me links to posts on here because I might be interested in throwing my 2 cents in the mix. Obviously, this subject is near and dear to my heart but also I'd like to toss a few things out there that may add to the discussion. I'm sorry this is such a long post but this thread has taken many interesting turns and I'd like to comment on several of them.

First, I'd like to talk about the "epidemic" of autism. When it's suggested that we are just better at diagnosing it, that is not exactly the case. We're not better at finding the kids, we're better at defining autism. Since it was actually acknowledged as a disorder, they've spent the last 30 years redefining it and widening the criteria. And I'd be willing to bet that when the next DSM edition is released that the net will be wider still.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is published by the American Psychiatric Association and provides criteria for all current psychiatric diagnoses. The first publication was in 1952 with new editions or revisions published in 1968, 1980, 1987, 1994 and 2000. Prior to 1980, what we now call an autism spectrum disorder was primarily diagnosed as childhood schizophrenia because there was no designation for autism. As late as the 70's, some autistic children and adults were being treated with electric shock therapy and LSD which shows a complete inability to understand the symptoms of autism. According to the 1980 edition (DSM-III) there were only 6 symptoms of autism and all 6 had to be displayed in order to receive a diagnosis of autism. Hard to say what the diagnosis was for the child with only 5 symptoms. The latest edition (DSM-IV-TR) categorizes 16 symptoms and the child only needs to display 6 of them to be considered on the autism spectrum.

So you can see with the progression of the standards used to diagnose autism, the numbers would have to rise alarmingly also. It becomes even harder to distinguish it from the increased use of vaccinations. Wouldn't the means of finding autistic children need to have been consistent over the last 30 years to compare it to the vaccines of the last 30 years?

As awareness increases, so does the number of parents having their children tested. Which would also contribute to the rise in statistics. Having a child that is non-verbal forces the issue but a huge percentage of these kids speak perfectly fine (Asperger's Syndrome) and would have previously been seen as having behavioral or emotional issues. Or even the victims of bad parenting. Now that we know that's not true, it sort of opens the flood gates to new diagnoses. The rules keep changing so how can we know what's really going on?

Also, when it comes to the vaccine connection it's important to remember that no one has ever claimed to have proof of that except Dr. Andrew Wakefield. You should know that he was actually hired by lawyers specifically for the purpose of finding a connection between vaccines and autism and stood to gain financially from the outcome of the lawsuit. The medical journal that originally published his findings printed a retraction after independent researchers were finally able to dig through Wakefield's research. He lost his medical license in England, so now he's come to the US.

The current estimation of autistic children being diagnosed is 1 in 110. (Let's call that 10% just for the sake of my lacking math skills ) That means that about 90% of vaccinated children are unaffected by autism. If the vaccines were the sole cause in otherwise healthy children, shouldn't the numbers be much higher than that?

Recently, some pediatricians are coming forward to say that they don't agree with bombarding infants with multiple vaccinations because it's easier for the doctor or it saves money on doctor's visits. They are saying you should consider restricting them to one vaccination per visit with at least a month or so in between. But that suggestion isn't really about preventing autism so much as it's about the general good health of the infant.

As to the original post, it's extremely difficult to find professionals who support changes in diet and supplements as a 'cure' when they're not also trying to sell you something. The snake oil salesmen have really come out of the woodwork on this one. And to suggest that you could need up to 2 years of treatments to fully appreciate the benefits of the treatment seems like an attempt at locking you into buying their stuff until they close up shop one day and run for the Bahamas. A lot parents have reported improvement after diet changes but mostly for the GI issues that many autistic children have. Children without autism are also benefiting from the gluten free/casein free diet and probiotics, so do dietary changes have any more of a connection to autism than to the preservatives they've been pumping into our food for generations?

My personal opinion (for what it's worth) is that, for the autistic children with digestive disorders, autistic symptoms are severely intensified. They are nauseous, have diarrhea and/or stomach pain on nearly a daily basis. Since autism is a disorder that is driven by anxiety and a lack of communication, it makes perfect sense that once you remove digestive symptoms there would be a remarkable improvement in general well being. I'm not surprised that parents see improvements in behavior when their child is no longer in a constant state of distress.

I've read about a lot of studies over the years that have tried but failed to find conclusive connections:

Stress during pregnancy

Vitamin deficiency during pregnancy

Gene mutation

Parents who fail to make an emotional connection during the child's infancy

High concentration of heavy metals in the system

Vaccine preservatives

Intestinal flora

I'm sure there's more but to be honest I've stopped reading articles that begin with "Researcher believe they may have found a connection between autism and...." For now, we're just doing the best we can to make sure our son is loved and has a place in this world where he's safe and is free to live his own life to the best of his ability.