Guest guest Posted May 1, 2005 Report Share Posted May 1, 2005 Guys like that are clueless and understand nothing of the biology of autism, or how their child(ren) were harmed in the first year of life. > http://www.kevinleitch.co.uk/wp/?p=146 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2005 Report Share Posted May 1, 2005 , Go easy on him. Some parents choose to look at Autism as gifted, therefore different. A different culture per se. They often use explanations like " Einstein couldn't tie his own shoes " and look what he did. Honestly, it would be much easier to think that way - and less costly. And at this point I look at my 3 year old and really see nothing wrong with him. He is loving, happy, really cute and fun.... unfortunately when he is 40 and sitting in a board room, spinning and flapping his hands I think those qualities will be lost on his co-workers. DeNile isn't just a river in Egypt. > > http://www.kevinleitch.co.uk/wp/?p=146 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2005 Report Share Posted May 1, 2005 If autism is not an illness tell me then, why did my child have severe and immediate reactions to vaccinations? She has suffered since 6 weeks old with chronic diarrhea, OCD, sensory processing disorder, intolerance to gluten, casein and other foods, projectile vomiting, chronic constipation, eczema, hypotonia, apraxia, ulcerative colitis, reflux and inflammation of the esophagus, etc. etc. Any idiot would know this is not genetic. In our case there is no genetic history of these problems. Kathy Hudson http://www.kevinleitch.co.uk/wp/?p=146 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2005 Report Share Posted May 1, 2005 > http://www.kevinleitch.co.uk/wp/?p=146 Hi, I'm the author of the aboev post and blog. Firstly, thanks very much for the rude and abusive language from a couple of you in here - it speaks volumes about both your intelligence and your understanding of the issues at hand. Well done you. Second, you are, as most of you do in this kind of group, making assumptions about both me and what I believe. The simple fact that I was making was that mercury poisoning is not autism. Why? Becasue its not. Autism is autism, mercury poisoning is mercury poisoning. People with an ASD can get mercury poisoning but when you treat it, you are not treating autism you are treating mercury poisoning. The group (Generation Rescue) that I reference say that autism is mercury poisoning - end of story. That position is laughably naive and I'm amazed to find grown adults with the power of reason suseptable to such rubbish. " Guys like that are clueless and understand nothing of the biology of autism, or how their child(ren) were harmed in the first year of life. " Once again, thanks for the insulting language it gives me a good idea of the level of smarts that I'm dealing with. Next - I understand plenty about the biology of autism my friend. Apparently much more than you. The truth is that autism is both genetic *and* environmental. Three of my relatives were (before they died) on the spectrum. Its both common sense to assume, especially when backed up with the actual empirical evidence (but then you read Evidence of Harm right? You can't be very used to empirical evidence) of a genetic basis for autism. However, I suspect in a lot of cases it requires a trigger - I'm not sure what, it probably differs. In my daughters case (and she's classicaly, Kanners, autistic, not AS) we suspect it may have been her DTP jab. I have no evidence for that but it seems reasonable. All this is in my blog if you could've been bothered to look. Please note the difference between 'cause' and 'trigger'. " Go easy on him. Some parents choose to look at Autism as gifted, therefore different. A different culture per se. They often use explanations like " Einstein couldn't tie his own shoes " and look what he did. Honestly, it would be much easier to think that way - and less costly. " I have no idea what you're referring to. I've never thought of my daughter as gifted or not, just different. Some things she's good at, some things she's not. She needs a lot of help - interventions such as SaLT, toilet training etc etc but neither do I feel inclined to blame this on mercury or whatever the latest idiot craze of the month is. I also don't believe autism is a culture - no one interested in advocacy does, stop believing everything you're spoon-fed and find out for yourself. Do autistics *have* a culture? Yes. *Is* autism a culture? No. neither is it a disease and neither is it solely equatable with mercury poisoning. " I think Lenny in his newsletter has done a great job of pointing out that Aspergers shouldn't be equated with autism. " Except that he's wrong by every diagnostic criteria you care to mention. Are there clinical differences between AS and Kanners? Yes. But he doesn't claim that. He claims (wrongly) that AS isn't autism. Whilst its amusing how many knots he ties himself up in over this, its never going to make it true. " I believe all children should be respected for who they are, but that it is there right to have access to medical care for environmental toxicity. " And who, pray tell, says they shouldn't? Stop creating Strawmen. " Hopefully everyone in the community will eventually come to that conclusion, but I'm not holding my breath, " And I hope the day will come when people stop relying on quack 'cures' and anecdotal evidence to base woefully inept theories on. I also long to see the day when people in forms like this can learn to tell the difference between 'cure' and 'treatment'. But I'm not holding my breath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2005 Report Share Posted May 1, 2005 Listmates, Allow me to suggest that you all not respond in kind. This is an open list, but we can quickly allow the discussion to deteriorate if we get into intemperate flame wars. Debate and discussion is fine. Name calling is juvenile. Mark > > http://www.kevinleitch.co.uk/wp/?p=146 > > Hi, > > I'm the author of the aboev post and blog. Firstly, thanks very much > for the rude and abusive language from a couple of you in here - it > speaks volumes about both your intelligence and your understanding of > the issues at hand. Well done you. > > Second, you are, as most of you do in this kind of group, making > assumptions about both me and what I believe. The simple fact that I > was making was that mercury poisoning is not autism. Why? Becasue its > not. Autism is autism, mercury poisoning is mercury poisoning. People > with an ASD can get mercury poisoning but when you treat it, you are > not treating autism you are treating mercury poisoning. The group > (Generation Rescue) that I reference say that autism is mercury > poisoning - end of story. That position is laughably naive and I'm > amazed to find grown adults with the power of reason suseptable to > such rubbish. > > " Guys like that are clueless and understand nothing of the biology of > autism, or how their child(ren) were harmed in the first year of life. " > > Once again, thanks for the insulting language it gives me a good idea > of the level of smarts that I'm dealing with. Next - I understand > plenty about the biology of autism my friend. Apparently much more > than you. The truth is that autism is both genetic *and* > environmental. Three of my relatives were (before they died) on the > spectrum. Its both common sense to assume, especially when backed up > with the actual empirical evidence (but then you read Evidence of Harm > right? You can't be very used to empirical evidence) of a genetic > basis for autism. However, I suspect in a lot of cases it requires a > trigger - I'm not sure what, it probably differs. In my daughters case > (and she's classicaly, Kanners, autistic, not AS) we suspect it may > have been her DTP jab. I have no evidence for that but it seems > reasonable. All this is in my blog if you could've been bothered to > look. Please note the difference between 'cause' and 'trigger'. > > " Go easy on him. Some parents choose to look at Autism as gifted, > therefore different. A different culture per se. They often use > explanations like " Einstein couldn't tie his own shoes " and look > what he did. Honestly, it would be much easier to think that way - > and less costly. " > > I have no idea what you're referring to. I've never thought of my > daughter as gifted or not, just different. Some things she's good at, > some things she's not. She needs a lot of help - interventions such as > SaLT, toilet training etc etc but neither do I feel inclined to blame > this on mercury or whatever the latest idiot craze of the month is. I > also don't believe autism is a culture - no one interested in advocacy > does, stop believing everything you're spoon-fed and find out for > yourself. Do autistics *have* a culture? Yes. *Is* autism a culture? > No. neither is it a disease and neither is it solely equatable with > mercury poisoning. > > " I think Lenny in his newsletter has done a great job of pointing out > that Aspergers shouldn't be equated with autism. " > > Except that he's wrong by every diagnostic criteria you care to > mention. Are there clinical differences between AS and Kanners? Yes. > But he doesn't claim that. He claims (wrongly) that AS isn't autism. > Whilst its amusing how many knots he ties himself up in over this, its > never going to make it true. > > " I believe all children should be respected for who they are, > but that it is there right to have access to medical care for > environmental toxicity. " > > And who, pray tell, says they shouldn't? Stop creating Strawmen. > > " Hopefully everyone in the community will eventually come to that > conclusion, but I'm not holding my breath, " > > And I hope the day will come when people stop relying on quack 'cures' > and anecdotal evidence to base woefully inept theories on. I also long > to see the day when people in forms like this can learn to tell the > difference between 'cure' and 'treatment'. But I'm not holding my breath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2005 Report Share Posted May 1, 2005 > Listmates, > Allow me to suggest that you all not respond in kind. This is an open > list, but we can quickly allow the discussion to deteriorate if we > get into intemperate flame wars. Debate and discussion is fine. Name > calling is juvenile. > Mark Name calling is indeed juvenile - thanks for pointing that out to those that have indulged in it. I suspect however, that your post will simply provide a good excuse for people to shy away from having their ignorance challenged and being called on it. Ah well, my blog is open for all polite commentary for those that actually believe they can back up what they say. That should be something to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2005 Report Share Posted May 1, 2005 You might benefit from seeing some of this: http://www.autismmedia.org/media2.html If you don't think your kids would benefit from biomedical interventions to correct their medical problems, that's your perogative. But we've SEEN children recover from autism by removing their heavy metals, supplementing the vitamins & minerals in which they're deficient, and giving them intensive speech, OT and ABA therapies. I've witnessed the slow recovery of a few severely autistic children. They were young enough that they made a nearly full recovery. Why you seem to be so opposed to those of us who want to fight for our kids, medically & politically is beyond my comprehension. See if you can watch the videos at the above link and not come away with an altered perspective. http://www.autismmedia.org/ > Name calling is indeed juvenile - thanks for pointing that out to > those that have indulged in it. > > I suspect however, that your post will simply provide a good excuse > for people to shy away from having their ignorance challenged and > being called on it. Ah well, my blog is open for all polite commentary > for those that actually believe they can back up what they say. That > should be something to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2005 Report Share Posted May 1, 2005 Lucky for us, we have some of the most brilliant minds (including Mark Blaxill) who have stacks of research that time after time lead back to mercury toxicity as a contributing factor in autism and related disorders. Burbacher's new research was very interesting and the beauty of it was that it was funded by NIH. Show me some long term studies on the safety of Thimerosal. Show me some studies that are actually looking at our children. Jo Pike > > Listmates, > > Allow me to suggest that you all not respond in kind. This is an open > > list, but we can quickly allow the discussion to deteriorate if we > > get into intemperate flame wars. Debate and discussion is fine. Name > > calling is juvenile. > > Mark > > Name calling is indeed juvenile - thanks for pointing that out to > those that have indulged in it. > > I suspect however, that your post will simply provide a good excuse > for people to shy away from having their ignorance challenged and > being called on it. Ah well, my blog is open for all polite commentary > for those that actually believe they can back up what they say. That > should be something to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2005 Report Share Posted May 1, 2005 Dear , Don't want to get in a pissing match with anyone here, but I guess I need a little help to understand what your theory is. A header on your blog page states " The truth about autism " . God, don't we all wish we new exactly what that truth was? I think many on this page, including myself, are connecting the dots that the mercury may be a precipitating factor which starts a chain reation that can manifest iself as Autism, PDD, ADD, ADHD, AS etc. I am a little confused on why you slam the people at Generation Rescue for their views. I think the prevailing attitude amongst people on this board is that the overall mercury burden has increased dratically over the last couple of decades and that has caused the dramatic rise we are seeing is ASD's. You also say that once you have removed the mercury from a person you have cured their mercury toxicity not their autism. What? What about the people who have chelated their child and got an nt or much cognitively improved child back?? You also mention that you think the DPT may have helped push your sister into Autism. Doesn't this lend some credence to Generation Rescue's theory? Obviously you have been burned in the past by someone offering you a cure. If that is the case, I am sorry that happened to you or anyone else. I think most of the people on this board are fairly educated on this issue and are not a bunch of sheep. I think the theory, that some people are genetically poor metal excretors and that the mercury burden increase over the last 2 decades has tipped the scales into an epidemic of ASD's, is not only plausible but highly likely. > > http://www.kevinleitch.co.uk/wp/?p=146 > > Hi, > > I'm the author of the aboev post and blog. Firstly, thanks very much > for the rude and abusive language from a couple of you in here - it > speaks volumes about both your intelligence and your understanding of > the issues at hand. Well done you. > > Second, you are, as most of you do in this kind of group, making > assumptions about both me and what I believe. The simple fact that I > was making was that mercury poisoning is not autism. Why? Becasue its > not. Autism is autism, mercury poisoning is mercury poisoning. People > with an ASD can get mercury poisoning but when you treat it, you are > not treating autism you are treating mercury poisoning. The group > (Generation Rescue) that I reference say that autism is mercury > poisoning - end of story. That position is laughably naive and I'm > amazed to find grown adults with the power of reason suseptable to > such rubbish. > > " Guys like that are clueless and understand nothing of the biology of > autism, or how their child(ren) were harmed in the first year of life. " > > Once again, thanks for the insulting language it gives me a good idea > of the level of smarts that I'm dealing with. Next - I understand > plenty about the biology of autism my friend. Apparently much more > than you. The truth is that autism is both genetic *and* > environmental. Three of my relatives were (before they died) on the > spectrum. Its both common sense to assume, especially when backed up > with the actual empirical evidence (but then you read Evidence of Harm > right? You can't be very used to empirical evidence) of a genetic > basis for autism. However, I suspect in a lot of cases it requires a > trigger - I'm not sure what, it probably differs. In my daughters case > (and she's classicaly, Kanners, autistic, not AS) we suspect it may > have been her DTP jab. I have no evidence for that but it seems > reasonable. All this is in my blog if you could've been bothered to > look. Please note the difference between 'cause' and 'trigger'. > > " Go easy on him. Some parents choose to look at Autism as gifted, > therefore different. A different culture per se. They often use > explanations like " Einstein couldn't tie his own shoes " and look > what he did. Honestly, it would be much easier to think that way - > and less costly. " > > I have no idea what you're referring to. I've never thought of my > daughter as gifted or not, just different. Some things she's good at, > some things she's not. She needs a lot of help - interventions such as > SaLT, toilet training etc etc but neither do I feel inclined to blame > this on mercury or whatever the latest idiot craze of the month is. I > also don't believe autism is a culture - no one interested in advocacy > does, stop believing everything you're spoon-fed and find out for > yourself. Do autistics *have* a culture? Yes. *Is* autism a culture? > No. neither is it a disease and neither is it solely equatable with > mercury poisoning. > > " I think Lenny in his newsletter has done a great job of pointing out > that Aspergers shouldn't be equated with autism. " > > Except that he's wrong by every diagnostic criteria you care to > mention. Are there clinical differences between AS and Kanners? Yes. > But he doesn't claim that. He claims (wrongly) that AS isn't autism. > Whilst its amusing how many knots he ties himself up in over this, its > never going to make it true. > > " I believe all children should be respected for who they are, > but that it is there right to have access to medical care for > environmental toxicity. " > > And who, pray tell, says they shouldn't? Stop creating Strawmen. > > " Hopefully everyone in the community will eventually come to that > conclusion, but I'm not holding my breath, " > > And I hope the day will come when people stop relying on quack 'cures' > and anecdotal evidence to base woefully inept theories on. I also long > to see the day when people in forms like this can learn to tell the > difference between 'cure' and 'treatment'. But I'm not holding my breath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2005 Report Share Posted May 1, 2005 Hello, I have not been apart of this discussion yet so I thought I'd give my 2 cents. I agree that we all need to respect each others opinions. I also agree that there is an environmental and gentetic predisposition to developing autism (if it was just environment then EVERY child that received Thimerisol would be autistic in some form) I disagree however that it is just Genetic that some want to believe. If you were to look at the signs and symptoms of mercury poisoning and the signs and symptoms of autism they ARE almost IDENTICAL. Who are you to say that they are 2 different things? Are you currently studing this? What proof do you (or anyone) have that mercury is not the trigger? I find YOU insulting as well in your retoric. To call people 'ignorant' if their opinion is differnet then yours is INSULTING. I know too many children that are recovered after chelation to just dismiss this autism treatment connection. Why is Thimerisol even in these innocualtions? There are other more effiecient preservatives on the market that could be used, why use a substance that is almost half mercury (the second deadliest substance known next to plutonium). I am not suggesting that every single autistic case is from exposure to mercury, but I want to see proof that SOMETHING is triggering this EPIDEMIC! Remember there is no such thing as a genetic epeidemic. I think that YOU are the NAIVE one in this discussion! Tina > > http://www.kevinleitch.co.uk/wp/?p=146 > > Hi, > > I'm the author of the aboev post and blog. Firstly, thanks very much > for the rude and abusive language from a couple of you in here - it > speaks volumes about both your intelligence and your understanding of > the issues at hand. Well done you. > > Second, you are, as most of you do in this kind of group, making > assumptions about both me and what I believe. The simple fact that I > was making was that mercury poisoning is not autism. Why? Becasue its > not. Autism is autism, mercury poisoning is mercury poisoning. People > with an ASD can get mercury poisoning but when you treat it, you are > not treating autism you are treating mercury poisoning. The group > (Generation Rescue) that I reference say that autism is mercury > poisoning - end of story. That position is laughably naive and I'm > amazed to find grown adults with the power of reason suseptable to > such rubbish. > > " Guys like that are clueless and understand nothing of the biology of > autism, or how their child(ren) were harmed in the first year of life. " > > Once again, thanks for the insulting language it gives me a good idea > of the level of smarts that I'm dealing with. Next - I understand > plenty about the biology of autism my friend. Apparently much more > than you. The truth is that autism is both genetic *and* > environmental. Three of my relatives were (before they died) on the > spectrum. Its both common sense to assume, especially when backed up > with the actual empirical evidence (but then you read Evidence of Harm > right? You can't be very used to empirical evidence) of a genetic > basis for autism. However, I suspect in a lot of cases it requires a > trigger - I'm not sure what, it probably differs. In my daughters case > (and she's classicaly, Kanners, autistic, not AS) we suspect it may > have been her DTP jab. I have no evidence for that but it seems > reasonable. All this is in my blog if you could've been bothered to > look. Please note the difference between 'cause' and 'trigger'. > > " Go easy on him. Some parents choose to look at Autism as gifted, > therefore different. A different culture per se. They often use > explanations like " Einstein couldn't tie his own shoes " and look > what he did. Honestly, it would be much easier to think that way - > and less costly. " > > I have no idea what you're referring to. I've never thought of my > daughter as gifted or not, just different. Some things she's good at, > some things she's not. She needs a lot of help - interventions such as > SaLT, toilet training etc etc but neither do I feel inclined to blame > this on mercury or whatever the latest idiot craze of the month is. I > also don't believe autism is a culture - no one interested in advocacy > does, stop believing everything you're spoon-fed and find out for > yourself. Do autistics *have* a culture? Yes. *Is* autism a culture? > No. neither is it a disease and neither is it solely equatable with > mercury poisoning. > > " I think Lenny in his newsletter has done a great job of pointing out > that Aspergers shouldn't be equated with autism. " > > Except that he's wrong by every diagnostic criteria you care to > mention. Are there clinical differences between AS and Kanners? Yes. > But he doesn't claim that. He claims (wrongly) that AS isn't autism. > Whilst its amusing how many knots he ties himself up in over this, its > never going to make it true. > > " I believe all children should be respected for who they are, > but that it is there right to have access to medical care for > environmental toxicity. " > > And who, pray tell, says they shouldn't? Stop creating Strawmen. > > " Hopefully everyone in the community will eventually come to that > conclusion, but I'm not holding my breath, " > > And I hope the day will come when people stop relying on quack 'cures' > and anecdotal evidence to base woefully inept theories on. I also long > to see the day when people in forms like this can learn to tell the > difference between 'cure' and 'treatment'. But I'm not holding my breath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2005 Report Share Posted May 1, 2005 > Ok, I'll bite. > Do I believe that genetics play a role in autism? Yes, I do. I think most people > here believe that these kids have a genetic pre-disposition. I also believe that > this was pointed out rather well in EOH. My point about genetics was in response to one of the original posters and in clarification as to my purpose in posting the linked blog entry. > Do I believe that mercury is the trigger in my son's case. Again, yes, I do. > Which is the " cause " ? > I truly believe that if my son was not exposed to excessive levels of mercury > he would have been fine. He may have carried around that genetic pre- > disposition for the rest of his life but not autism. So, the pre-disposition would > have been present but not actually have " caused " anything by itself. > But the autism appeared after the " trigger " . > Maybe I'm not a rocket scientist, but there's no doubt in my mind what the > causitive factor was. You have a basic misunderstanding. If someone is autistic, they are autistic. End of story. Whether or not that potential is fully realized, partially realized or not realized at all makes no basic difference - autism is autism. Mercury poisoning is mercury poisoning. Those who claim that autism *is* mercury posioning are perpetuating a shameful and ignorant myth. > If removing the mercury makes my son happier, healthier and safer that is > what matters. You can call whatever his " condition " is (and hopefully > someday " was " ) anything you like. It won't matter to me or to him. No disagreement from me. What were you expecting me to say to that? If you successfuly cure your son's mercury poisoning then more power to you. Just don't confuse mercury poisoning with autism. Those who do that belittle autism and real autistics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2005 Report Share Posted May 1, 2005 > > .. you said that autism is genetic and I read > > that there is no scientific proof to back this up > > either ... anyone know for sure? There's no gene tied > > to it so how can they say its genetic? Kathy (I assume you meant me when you referred to ''). I didn't say autism was genetic I said it was genetic and environmental and there was empirical evidence to back that up. Please note that 'evidence' is not 'proof'. A quick search of BBC News will reveal several ongoing and apst genetic studies into autism. My wider point here is to discredit the idea that mercury poisoning *is* autsim as expounded by Generation Rescue. The reason I'm bringing that up is that this is the subject of my blog psot that brought me here so I assumed it was the topic under discussion. > They haven't found the gene or genes yet but are searching hard to find it. > But beware of those who believe it is just in " the genes " . They have their own > " cure " in mind. I've no doubt that some organisations such as DAN/CAN/NAAR do indeed but I assure you I personally and all of the advocacy movement do not. I am 100% unequivically against a 'cure' should one ever become available. My reasons are off topic to this thread but I'm happy to explain and debate them either here or on my blog or anywhere else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2005 Report Share Posted May 1, 2005 > You might benefit from seeing some of this: > If you don't think your kids would benefit from biomedical interventions to correct their > medical problems, that's your perogative. But we've SEEN children recover from autism by > removing their heavy metals, supplementing the vitamins & minerals in which they're > deficient, and giving them intensive speech, OT and ABA therapies. Once again, as a group, you're confusing treatment and cure. I don't believe in a cure but I do believe in appropriate interventions such as communication therapy ( is learning PECS). I'm also unsure where you get the idea she has any medical problems? You have not, by the way, seen people 'recover' from their autism. You have seen people recover from there mercury/metal poisoning. Thats great and I'm glad for your kids but please don't make the continuing mistake of confusing metal poisoning and autism. This is a basic error brought about by the fact that they share several behaviours. > I've witnessed the slow recovery of a few severely autistic children. They were young > enough that they made a nearly full recovery. Why you seem to be so opposed to those of > us who want to fight for our kids, medically & politically is beyond my comprehension. I don't. I just want you to realise that what you're treating is not autism - its metal poisoning. > See if you can watch the videos at the above link and not come away with an altered > perspective. See if you can offer me empirical evidence that you have seen children recovering from autism instead of hearsay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2005 Report Share Posted May 1, 2005 > Lucky for us, we have some of the most brilliant minds (including > Mark Blaxill) who have stacks of research that time after time lead > back to mercury toxicity as a contributing factor in autism and > related disorders. Burbacher's new research was very interesting and > the beauty of it was that it was funded by NIH. Show me some long > term studies on the safety of Thimerosal. Show me some studies that > are actually looking at our children. Show me some empirical evidence that thimerasol causes autism. I can't prove a negative. You're making the positive statement. Back it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2005 Report Share Posted May 1, 2005 Hi again , You state. " Just don't confuse mercury poisoning with autism. Those who do that belittle autism and real autistics " . What?????? What studies and or unpublished theories do you cite to explain your position? I can name numerous studies that point to a conclusion that most Autism is mercury poisoning. What is your theory . It seems that your beliefs are not based on anything other than your beliefs. > > Listmates, > > Allow me to suggest that you all not respond in kind. This is an open > > list, but we can quickly allow the discussion to deteriorate if we > > get into intemperate flame wars. Debate and discussion is fine. Name > > calling is juvenile. > > Mark > > Name calling is indeed juvenile - thanks for pointing that out to > those that have indulged in it. > > I suspect however, that your post will simply provide a good excuse > for people to shy away from having their ignorance challenged and > being called on it. Ah well, my blog is open for all polite commentary > for those that actually believe they can back up what they say. That > should be something to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2005 Report Share Posted May 1, 2005 I'll allow these folks to back it up: http://www.autismmedia.org/media2.html Watch Mark Geier's video footage. It's as much proof as you'll get online, unless of course you're willing to read the thousands of articles written on the subject! > Show me some empirical evidence that thimerasol causes autism. I can't > prove a negative. You're making the positive statement. Back it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2005 Report Share Posted May 1, 2005 > Don't want to get in a pissing match with anyone here, but I guess I > need a little help to understand what your theory is. A header on > your blog page states " The truth about autism " . God, don't we all > wish we new exactly what that truth was? I think many on this page, > including myself, are connecting the dots that the mercury may be a > precipitating factor which starts a chain reation that can manifest > iself as Autism, PDD, ADD, ADHD, AS etc. Only if the autism is already there. If you disagree with me I need to see empirical evidence that mercury doesn't trigger what is already there (which I'm undecided on myself) but that it *causes* autism. > I am a little confused on why you slam the people at Generation > Rescue for their views. Because they quite clearly state on their site that autism is mercury poisoning. This is patently rubbish. If you feel comfortable about trusting a group that contains such innaccuate generalisations then thats up to you - me personally, I'd rather deal with people who know what they're talking about instead of people trying to sell me the latest quack cure. > I think the prevailing attitude amongst > people on this board is that the overall mercury burden has > increased dratically over the last couple of decades and that has > caused the dramatic rise we are seeing is ASD's. Well, you'd all be wrong then. Time after time, authority after authority explain how a change in diagnostic criteria (a very large widening) coupled with better detection techniques account for a large part of this 'dramatic' rise. I'm not saying there's been *no* rise but 'dramatic'? No. I suggest you have a read of this regarding how statisitics have been massaged by those intent on spreading fear about an autism 'epidemic': http://autismdiva.blogspot.com/2005/04/california-dds-responds-very.html > " You also say that > once you have removed the mercury from a person you have cured their > mercury toxicity not their autism. What? What about the people who > have chelated their child and got an nt or much cognitively improved > child back?? You also mention that you think the DPT may have > helped push your sister into Autism. Doesn't this lend some > credence to Generation Rescue's theory? " First, is my daughter, not my sister. Second, yes thats right - you remove mercury and what you're curing is mercury poisoning. Generation Rescue claim that autism is mercury poisoning - nothing else. Anyone with an ounce of common sense kows thats incorrect. Chelating: http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/immu/thimerosal.html http://autismdiva.blogspot.com/2005/04/dark-side-to-chelation-therapy.html Be careful when chelating - it can cause grave harm. > Obviously you have been burned in the past by someone offering you a > cure. If that is the case, I am sorry that happened to you or > anyone else. I think most of the people on this board are fairly > educated on this issue and are not a bunch of sheep. I think the > theory, that some people are genetically poor metal excretors and > that the mercury burden increase over the last 2 decades has tipped > the scales into an epidemic of ASD's, is not only plausible but > highly likely. Nope, no ones burned me because I don't seek and never will seek a 'cure' for . She's bright, happy and (gasp!) autistic. Why would I want to 'cure' that? I don't think people on here are sheep either. I think a lot of you are genuinely seeking some way to help your kids. I can assure you that Generation Rescue and its ilk are not the answer. In my opinion, parents should accept their autistic kids for who they are and intervene where needed - i.e. we intervene in s inability to communicate via PECS. I forsee a happy future for as I have no reason to think otherwise. Do you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2005 Report Share Posted May 1, 2005 --- In EOHarm , " timothybooton " <timothybooton@y...> > What studies and or unpublished theories do you cite to explain your > position? I can name numerous studies that point to a conclusion > that most Autism is mercury poisoning. http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/immu/thimerosal.html But its really common sense. If Generation Rescue are right then how come not all 'autistics' who've been chelated are 'cured'? > What is your theory . It seems that your beliefs are not based > on anything other than your beliefs. I've already explained my theory. Go back and read. Unlike Generation Rescue I don't claim it as undisputed fact. Ah hell, I'll go through it again. Autism is autism. You either have it or you don't. Whether its Kanners, AS, PDD - whatever. However, I do believe it takes an environmental trigger in *some* cases. Hence, genes *and* environment play a role but it all starts with the fact that a person has autism. On the other hand, if someone regresses due to mercury poisoning then thats all it is. Its certainly not autism. So what do I read to back it up? Well, the governments of most affected countries will do for a start. Here's the thing - if autism is mercury then MMR is a cause, right? However, when the Japanese banned MMR, autism rates still rose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2005 Report Share Posted May 1, 2005 > I'll allow these folks to back it up: > http://www.autismmedia.org/media2.html Uh, a video is not empirical evidence. Geez. > Watch Mark Geier's video footage. It's as much proof as you'll get online, > unless of course you're willing to read the thousands of articles written on the subject! More than willing. Name all these peer reviewed science-based thousands of articles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2005 Report Share Posted May 1, 2005 , if there's no dramatic rise in autism...and if there are 1.77 million autistics in this country...why aren't more of them adults? Why are MOST of them children 15 and under? Go to any large suburban or urban school district and ask them how many special needs children they had in their schools 20 years ago. Then ask them how many they have now. Then ask them which disability most of these new kids have. The numbers are startling, and so is the common answer: Autism. Well, you'd all be wrong then. Time after time, authority after authority explain how a change in diagnostic criteria (a very large widening) coupled with better detection techniques account for a large part of this 'dramatic' rise. I'm not saying there's been *no* rise but 'dramatic'? No. I suggest you have a read of this regarding how statisitics have been massaged by those intent on spreading fear about an autism 'epidemic': Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2005 Report Share Posted May 1, 2005 Yes, , you are absolutely correct. A " video " is not empirical evidence. My apologies for possibly implying that it was intended as such. And good for you for pointing that out. However, the CONTENT on the video...the testimony of those on the videos...outline some of the evidence you seek. I also suggest you read " Evidence of Harm, " the impetus for this forum. That also outlines evidence that others have found. http://www.autismmedia.org/ > > I'll allow these folks to back it up: > > http://www.autismmedia.org/media2.html > > Uh, a video is not empirical evidence. Geez. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2005 Report Share Posted May 1, 2005 Go to Pub Med and do a literature search. > More than willing. Name all these peer reviewed science-based > thousands of articles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2005 Report Share Posted May 1, 2005 > , if there's no dramatic rise in autism...and if there are 1.77 million autistics in this > country...why aren't more of them adults? Why are MOST of them children 15 and under? I'm unsure what country you're in so this is very difficult to answer but the general answer is the same in all countries - a change in diagnostoc criteria. In fact, the change is so severe that leading diagnosticians such as Tony Attwood and others believe that Hans Asperger for example wouldn't even recognise a modern-day AS person. > Go to any large suburban or urban school district and ask them how many special needs > children they had in their schools 20 years ago. Then ask them how many they have now. > Then ask them which disability most of these new kids have. The numbers are startling, > and so is the common answer: Autism. I've done the research and the answer is clear - there may well be a rise in autism but 'dramatic'? Nope. Sorry. No evidence other than hearsay. " We at the MIND Institute do believe that there is an increase in full syndrome autism but have not endorsed this as an epidemic. Thanks for your interest in the MIND Institute. L Hendren, DO Professor of Psychiatry Exec. Director, M.I.N.D. Institute Chief, Child and Adolescent Psychiatry " http://autismdiva.blogspot.com/2005/04/dr-hendren-kindly-responds.html At some point the likes of Schafer, Rollens et al are going to have to start behaving like adults and stop this ridiculous attempt at scare-mongering. Here's a great article on how education assessments skew rates: http://www.autism-watch.org/general/edu.shtml The sad truth is that its easy to get scared and fearful when someones using words like 'epidemic' and 'tsunami' (a description in particular poor taste after recent events) but a look at the actual raw data and questions to those whos job it is to actually draw conculsions from that data usually give a more accurate picture. No need for conspiracy theories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2005 Report Share Posted May 1, 2005 > However, the CONTENT on the video...the testimony of those on the videos...outline some > of the evidence you seek. Evidence to me comes from qualified statisticians and doctors without anything to sell me. Not online videos of hearsay. > I also suggest you read " Evidence of Harm, " the impetus for this forum. That also outlines > evidence that others have found. I'll check that out when it gets released over here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2005 Report Share Posted May 1, 2005 > But its really common sense. If Generation Rescue are right then how > come not all 'autistics' who've been chelated are 'cured'? > ~~~~~ > Because the damage was already done? Just a thought. Or maybe because its rubbish? Just another thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.