Re: Huffpost: There is no autism epidemic

[Guest guest]

I think you missed the boat on this one . The neurodiverse are

not blogging about their need for respect and acceptance except as an

aside to their primary objective which is to muddy the waters in the

mercury debate. Their leaders, ph, Seidel and Leitch blog almost

exclusively to do character assassinations on the scientists who help

to cure children and anyone who helps prove the connection between

mercury and autism. They do not deserve the slightest bit of respect.--

- In EOHarm , " " <dkirby@...> wrote:

>

> Happy New Year everyone!

>

> DK

>

> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/there-is-no-autism-

epidem_b_37

> 647.html

>

[Guest guest]

We wish a Happy New Year to you, too DK.

May God abundantly bless you/yours with great prosperity!

BTW great blog and you nailed it here:

"...Maybe what these kids have is not autism, but something like, say, "Environmentally-acquired Neuroimmune Disorder," which we could call E.N.D. (Great slogan: "Let's End E.N.D.).

Maybe that would explain why a recent CDC-funded study of the San Francisco Bay Area showed that kids with "autism" were 50% more likely to be born in neighborhoods with high levels of airborne toxins, especially mercury. If a second study underway in Baltimore yields similar data, it will be that much harder to defend the "better diagnosis" argument, (other studies have shown an association between autism rates and proximity to coal-fired power plants). "

-------------- Original message -------------- From: " " <dkirby@...>

Happy New Year everyone!

DK

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/there-is-no-autism-epidem_b_37647.html

[Guest guest]

,

I agree that the vitriol hurled by the " neurodiverse " group at

brilliant and sometimes heroic researchers is completely out of line.

The issue of the " neurodiverse " is irrelevant to this discussion,

except to the extent that they intrude on our effort to help our

children. I try my best to leave them alone; if only they would leave

us to our task as parents and not seek to obstruct our way. They are

beside the point.

Kirby is saying something else in his point that is important

and deserves very close attention. Many parents observed from the first

day they became aware that their children were sick - and I am would

guess you are one of them - that their kids had a disorder, but that

the label of " Autism " did not even remotely describe the condition. The

suggestion has been made for years that the word " autism " should be

ceded to those who want it; let them have it. Our kids deserve a

description that more accurately describes their condition and better

serves to improve the quality of their lives. The concept of " Autism "

only serves to distract us from the diseases that afflict our children.

The word " Autism " was created by Kanner and Asperger to provide a

conceptual structure into which to fit their observations of children

whose behavior they observed, but whose disease they poorly understood.

More than 40 years ago Kanner himself, in his forward to Dr. Rimland's

book " Infantile Autism " commented on the conceptual framework he

constructed from his observations of children with " autism " made twenty

years earlier:

" ...I published a small number of observations which impressed me

because of their phenomenologic uniqueness. I considered it my duty to

report what I saw and to correlate, as much as possible, the described

syndrome with ascertainable facts regarding constitutional and

environmental data. It seemed to me that you have to know the " what'

before deciding on the " why. " Even at that, I ventured the opinion that

we deal here with an innate phenomenon of a peculiar disability to form

affective contacts. "

" For several years there were no repercussions. Then came, in Europe

as well as this country, a series of case studies confirming the

original observations. But then came also two parallel developments

which tended to confuse the issue. The concept of " early infantile

autism " (I could not think of a better name) was diluted by some to

deprive it of its specificity, so that the term was used as a

pseudodiagnostic wastebasket for a variety of unrelated conditions, and

a nothing-but-psychodynamic etiology was decreed by some as the only

valid explanation, so that further curiosity was stifled or even

scorned. "

Leo Kanner, Foreward, Infantile Autism by Bernard Rimland, 1964

The time has come for us to heed the advice of Kanner, the man who

coined the word " Autism. " Let's throw out the damn word as it does not

apply to our children. The concept of " autism " simply serves no purpose

for our children. Those who want the label of " Autism " can have it. I

do not want to cure my son's " autism " or " pdd " or " asd " , whatever these

things may be, for that is not what he has. He has encephalopathy,

thyroiditis, pituitary disfunction, multiple forms of metabolic

dysregulation, colitis, adrenal dysfunction, catecholamine

dysregulation, gut pain, inability to regulate body temperature, and

countless other diagnoses and phsyiological dysfunctions all supported

by clinical testing, i.e. evidence. The " evidence " of his " autism " is

the malformed and ill-conceived judgment of practitioners who seem to

think handing out the diagnosis of " autism " and prescribing some form

of " educational " therapy passes for medicine. It does not. I want

therapies for those things that are truly physiologically wrong with my

child. That can be accomplished.

As Leo Kanner advised 40 years ago let us take our children out of the

" pseudodiagnostic wastebasket " and rise above the know-nothing

speculations of " nothing-but-psychodynamic " voodoo diagnosticians who

call themselves pediatric neurologists and psychologists. Let's rescue

our kids from the wastebasket and truly explore their condition; if

others want to wallow in that wastebasket there let them have their

playground.

Let's rename our kids' condition, reconceptualize it, take it back

from the misconceptualizers. Let's take control of our children's

disease and shape their therapies. When we do that we are on the path

to creating a healthier existence for our children and creating for

them a future.

J. Krakow

On Jan 2, 2007, at 9:43 PM, Best Jr wrote:

I think you missed the boat on this one . The neurodiverse are

not blogging about their need for respect and acceptance except as an

aside to their primary objective which is to muddy the waters in the

mercury debate. Their leaders, ph, Seidel and Leitch blog almost

exclusively to do character assassinations on the scientists who help

to cure children and anyone who helps prove the connection between

mercury and autism. They do not deserve the slightest bit of respect.--

- In EOHarm , " " <dkirby@...> wrote:

>

> Happy New Year everyone!

>

> DK

>

> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/there-is-no-autism-

epidem_b_37

> 647.html

>

[Guest guest]

I think most of them are so focused on feelings of inadequecy they

can't think rationally. And, don't forget, many of them have the

tunnelvision that prevents them from ever considering a

multi-dimensional thought-process. I agree, some of them do character

asassinations and outright lie, but in their minds its the truth. I

communicate with some with autism who follow the neurodiverse gang,

once the facts are pointed out they back way off.

Debi

>

> I think you missed the boat on this one . The neurodiverse are

> not blogging about their need for respect and acceptance except as an

> aside to their primary objective which is to muddy the waters in the

> mercury debate. Their leaders, ph, Seidel and Leitch blog almost

> exclusively to do character assassinations on the scientists who help

> to cure children and anyone who helps prove the connection between

> mercury and autism. They do not deserve the slightest bit of respect.--

[Guest guest]

One thing the neurodiverse does have right, though. Respect our kids.

Debi

[Guest guest]

Please tell him to send his postal \address to send him a list of referemces

proving vaccines containng merciry are dangerous

H. H.Fudenberg, M.D.,DDG.IOM

Inman, SC 29349

(864) 592 8076

Website nitrf.org

________________________________

> EOHarm

> From: dkirby@...

> Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 17:43:11 -0500

> Subject: HuffPost: There is no autism epidemic

>

> Happy New Year everyone!

> DK

>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/there-is-no-autism-epidem_b_37647.html

>

[Guest guest]

Bob,

Excellent points. It got me thinking how we were duped into believing

that since my son had " autism " if we just hired the best ABA

consultant and paid to provide a 40 hour a week program he would

progress, oh and don't forget the therapies (Speech and OT) that were

charged at a rate of $45 dollars for 15 minutes....That eventually

changed to finding a qualified Verbal Behavior consultant and follow

their instruction then, he would progress. All the while basically

ignoring his physical ailments other than taking him to the

peditrician for more antibiotics for chronic ear and upper

respiratory problems. Oh well, the toileting issues must be

behavioral because after all he is " autistic " , too stupid or

oblivious to his bodies own sensations, to know he needs to go to the

bathroom. We even had a pediatric GI doctor at the University of

Chicago Hospitals tell us that. Let's not forget the Goodhouse

Keeping type articles that tell us about the boy who took piano

lessons and then began speaking and snapped out of his " autism " .

With the label " autism " we were led to believe if you do x, y, and z

then your child will improve, if not then your child must be " low

functioning " (IMO he is anything but that, but he can't even

articulate all sounds- his thoughts trapped in his adorable smart

little head)

I am not bashing ABA, I know many children who have improved, but it

only took my kid so far. So maybe my kid is not " autistic " like your

kid. This makes me think the one size fits all, catch all

label " autism " is not helping children like mine. I guess in his case

ABA/speech/OT couldn't repair the damage done by injecting him with

all that mercury (born in Jan 96) and recieiving multiple viruses on

one day. I am angry that for so many years; I was too stupid to

realize he had these legitimate health problems and that even if my

own pediatrician wasn't concerned that they were something more. I

needed to go find a doctor to help. It took us from the age of 19

months to 5 years to arrive at that point. Too much noise about

what " autism " is, how it should be handled, and too many examples of

what your kid should look like at 5, 6, 10 that is if you follow the

right path etc....

" Autism " is not the appropriate label for my son. When your child

can't achieve what others *think* should help him because he

is " autistic " , then shame and guilt is heaped on the parents for

obviously we have failed him somehow.

Yes, please leave the autism label with the nuerodiverse, they can

have it.

>

> ,

>

> I agree that the vitriol hurled by the " neurodiverse " group

at

> brilliant and sometimes heroic researchers is completely out of

line.

> The issue of the " neurodiverse " is irrelevant to this discussion,

> except to the extent that they intrude on our effort to help our

> children. I try my best to leave them alone; if only they would

leave

> us to our task as parents and not seek to obstruct our way. They

are

> beside the point.

>

> Kirby is saying something else in his point that is

important

> and deserves very close attention. Many parents observed from the

first

> day they became aware that their children were sick - and I am

would

> guess you are one of them - that their kids had a disorder, but

that

> the label of " Autism " did not even remotely describe the condition.

[Guest guest]

Bob, I've said the same thing to the ND's except that I chose to

call what our kids have " mercury poisoning " for the sake of

simplicity. That's not good enough for them. They still insist I'm

killing my son by trying to cure him.

Those of us in this group comprise about .33% of estimates of

parents with kids on the spectrum. A lot of good has come from the

actions of this group.

A lot of bad information is being handed out by the ND's. That

garbage is reaching some of the 99.67% of parents who are not with

this group. I choose to oppose said garbage here

http://hatingautism.blogspot.com/

I think it's important to publicly oppose their celebrating the joy

of autism and giving parents bad information who might otherwise

learn to help their kids. So, leaving them alone is not an option

for me.

As is, my son is never going to experience any " joy " from autism.

I worked in an institution with autistic teenagers for awhile. These

kids were drugged into oblivion and nobody was ever going to help

them. They were going to spend the rest of their lives with no

chance of freedom or enjoyment because nobody would try to cure

them. The philosophy of the ND's would ensure that. I think Mr

Kirby has missed the ramifications of them spreading their deranged

message. I think everything they stand for needs to be put down in

no uncertain terms as it harms those children who do not have well

read and intelligent parents as are found on this group.

I say that Neurodiversity is 100% wrong. There is nobody born

with autism aside from rare genetic mutations and those children

whose mother's passed mercury to them as fetuses. The proof of that

is the fact that neurodiversity can not find anyone over the age of

75 with autism (excepting Einstein and other famous people who they

have adopted).

Aside from Mr Kirby giving the slightest credibility to ND's, I

agree that autism was misnamed. Now that we know some causes, the

right names should be easy to produce.

> >

> > Happy New Year everyone!

> >

> > DK

> >

> > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/there-is-no-autism-

> epidem_b_37

> > 647.html

> >

>

[Guest guest]

> So, leaving them alone is not an option

> for me.

You may be right on that point. When those who call themselves the

" neurodiverse " start shutting down scientific research that can help

our kids they can't be ignored. They have halted the work of more than

one researcher with baseless claims. I am with you on that - if they

get in the way of helping our kids then they need to be countered, so

thank you for doing that.

Our kids have nothing in common with them except they share a label

that was mistakenly pinned on our kids.

On Jan 3, 2007, at 9:02 AM, Best Jr wrote:

Bob, I've said the same thing to the ND's except that I chose to

call what our kids have " mercury poisoning " for the sake of

simplicity. That's not good enough for them. They still insist I'm

killing my son by trying to cure him.

Those of us in this group comprise about .33% of estimates of

parents with kids on the spectrum. A lot of good has come from the

actions of this group.

A lot of bad information is being handed out by the ND's. That

garbage is reaching some of the 99.67% of parents who are not with

this group. I choose to oppose said garbage here

http://hatingautism.blogspot.com/

I think it's important to publicly oppose their celebrating the joy

of autism and giving parents bad information who might otherwise

learn to help their kids. So, leaving them alone is not an option

for me.

As is, my son is never going to experience any " joy " from autism.

I worked in an institution with autistic teenagers for awhile. These

kids were drugged into oblivion and nobody was ever going to help

them. They were going to spend the rest of their lives with no

chance of freedom or enjoyment because nobody would try to cure

them. The philosophy of the ND's would ensure that. I think Mr

Kirby has missed the ramifications of them spreading their deranged

message. I think everything they stand for needs to be put down in

no uncertain terms as it harms those children who do not have well

read and intelligent parents as are found on this group.

I say that Neurodiversity is 100% wrong. There is nobody born

with autism aside from rare genetic mutations and those children

whose mother's passed mercury to them as fetuses. The proof of that

is the fact that neurodiversity can not find anyone over the age of

75 with autism (excepting Einstein and other famous people who they

have adopted).

Aside from Mr Kirby giving the slightest credibility to ND's, I

agree that autism was misnamed. Now that we know some causes, the

right names should be easy to produce.

> >

> > Happy New Year everyone!

> >

> > DK

> >

> > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/there-is-no-autism-

> epidem_b_37

> > 647.html

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Here's the neuroinsane's response to Mr. Kirby.

http://www.kevinleitch.co.uk/wp/?p=489

Note Leitch stating that he is completely happy with who his daughter

is and that he doesn't want to change her. That, as he talks about

her running away from his grasp. So, if she gets run over when she

escapes his grasp, Leitch will be completely happy that he was too

stupid to take measures to help her recognize danger. Is such

insanity supposed to be worthy of any respect?!

> > >

> > > Happy New Year everyone!

> > >

> > > DK

> > >

> > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/there-is-no-autism-

> > epidem_b_37

> > > 647.html

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I think that 's intent is correct, i.e. the " neurodiverse " groups

that say they " have autism " are not speaking about the same thing that

we are speaking about when we say we are trying to " cure autism "

or " defeat autism " and so forth. Personality traits, unique abilities,

and so forth, all have a place in this world. Do some of the

neurodiverse group members themselves have underlying medical

conditions? Sure they do. But it's their choice as adults as to how

they treat them, if they choose to do so at all. No one is talking

about curing neurodiversity. We're talking about

curing/treating/fixing/fighting medical issues that can result in

changes in abilities and so forth. I would welcome a change from the

term " autism " to something more accurate and descriptive. Currently,

there are so many professionals that only see the psychological

components of " autism " that if we ever want to make it crystal clear

what we are trying to " treat " with these children, then we need to have

a name that defines it more accurately.

[Guest guest]

I am convinced that the neurodiverse group is infiltrated with many

of the same Big Pharma and mainstream medical shills that want to

keep the autism is only due to gentics - lies alive. Dis-information

at its finest because most people would not consider questioning the

integrity or motives of someone who claims to have autism.

These are the same kinds of people who perpetuate the dis-information

regarding the ineffectiveness of different types of alternative

medicines, etc., with " Quackwatch " , Randi EDUCATIONAL

Foundation (the amazing magician and skeptic), etc., etc. Just fronts

for the same agenda.

I read some of the Asperger message boards for parents of kids with

Asperger's, and the parents who claim they themselves have Asperger's

or shadow traits of Asperger's - are more interested in associating

with people who share their same interests (whether that be NTs or

other people with AS) - rather than associating with the neurodiverse

crowd who are way too " radical " for the typical person with

Asperger's or Asperger shadow traits. I think the typical person with

Asperger's (many who will admit to medical issues) are turned off by

the radical agenda of the ND group, and disasociate themselves from

them.

The leading people of the radical ND crowd who are known to

have " diagnoses " of AS - are being cheered on by other interests.

[Guest guest]

Post vaccine neurodevelopmental disease. PVND.

Re: HuffPost: There is no autism epidemic

I think that 's intent is correct, i.e. the "neurodiverse" groups that say they "have autism" are not speaking about the same thing that we are speaking about when we say we are trying to "cure autism" or "defeat autism" and so forth. Personality traits, unique abilities, and so forth, all have a place in this world. Do some of the neurodiverse group members themselves have underlying medical conditions? Sure they do. But it's their choice as adults as to how they treat them, if they choose to do so at all. No one is talking about curing neurodiversity. We're talking about curing/treating/fixing/fighting medical issues that can result in changes in abilities and so forth. I would welcome a change from the term "autism" to something more accurate and descriptive. Currently, there are so many professionals that only see the psychological components of "autism" that if we ever want to make it crystal clear what we are trying to "treat" with these children, then we need to have a name that defines it more accurately.

[Guest guest]

One thing that not many have been discussing that

relates to the " epidemic/no epidemic " debate is that

both sides may indeed be more correct than the other

will acknowledge.

It is entirely possible that the absolute number of

persons On Spectrum has not grown significantly over

the last 30 odd years but that the severity of the

disability has.

There is strong evidence that at least some aspects of

autism have a genetic component. There is also strong

evidence that environmental insults are also part of

the mix. I say that both cases are correct to varying

degrees.

I work with a number of engineers, and I see a little

bit of my boy in many of them. Of course, they are

all much older; none of them had a fraction of the

thimerosal injections my boy has had, none of them

were infants in houses filled with PDBE's, none of

them drank water that was both flouridated and treated

with chloramine (which has been demonstrated to cause

PVC pipes to leach lead) as toddlers.

I have had more than a few " discussions " with persons

who fall in the " neurodiversity " camp, and they were

likewise too old to have shared the experience my 12

yo Autist lived. And while I fully support tolerance

for diversity in most variables in society, I will

also say that I greatly resent people who have not

walked in my boy's shoes to presume to speak for him

as though they have.

To the extent a person On Spectrum can survive life

with only a few modifications to my mind decides

whether their autism is one to be tolerated and

allowed to be or needs to be remediated. Failure to

provide opportunity for therapy is in many cases

punishable child neglect (ask the Christian Scientists

who refused dialysis or insuline therapy for their

children).

It is my belief that autism is not a singular state of

being. The (as yet) flawed attempts to pinpoint the

autism gene support this. We have all seen the

" experts " go from looking for the autism gene to

genes, with some suggesting it may be a rambling

combination of dozens of genes. (Hell, why not just

say ALL the genes? That would be a safe enough bet.)

I am willing to bet my next 4 paychecks that if they

can pinpoint the genes which control the immune system

and the metal excretion process that the typical

individual has they will indeed find the autism genes.

Anybody want to wager that the Powers-that-be will

overlook that one?

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

> It is my belief that autism is not a singular state of

> being. The (as yet) flawed attempts to pinpoint the

> autism gene support this. We have all seen the

> " experts " go from looking for the autism gene to

> genes, with some suggesting it may be a rambling

> combination of dozens of genes. (Hell, why not just

> say ALL the genes? That would be a safe enough bet.)

I agree with your points. The above statement made me wonder something

- particularily concerning the variance in genes and environmental

influences. It makes me wonder.

Has anyone ever gone a made a list of reports (news or abstracts)

where they " claim " to have found an austism gene?

I think that would be an interesting list/chart to show others

everytime one goes about claiming/blaming " genetics " alone. My

background is actually genetics and I know that in the 6 years we been

dealing with this I have seen probably at least 10-20 such claims of

" regions associated with.. " and " we find in a select population of

autistics... " .

I am not saying that the genetic findings or new findings are of

themselves insignificant but such an overall chart sure would reduce

the validity of a " genetics only " detractor to more of a " genetic

chicken little " .

[Guest guest]

To "Dad-4-kids".

Please accept that I am not challenging your observations. In fact, I agree wholeheartedly with your closing statement that "We have all seen the "experts" go from looking for the autism gene to genes, with some suggesting it may be a rambling combination of dozens of genes." However, I suspect each of us has our own individual reasons, based upon personal experience, for accepting or rejecting the "strong evidence that at least some aspects of autism have a genetic component.....and...strong evidence that environmental insults are also part of the mix".

I am just the average "Joe six-pack" grandpa who watched his loveable grandson "regress" into what has been diagnosed as "autism". The more I read and learn about "autism", as presently understood, the less comfortable I am with his diagnosis. In fact, I no longer believe he is "autistic". I am convinced he is "mecury poisioned" instead. Which puts me among those who believe do not believe "genetics" and "environmental insult" are of equal value when seeking the "cause" of the autism epidemic.

What personal experiences have caused me to believe his "regression" into "autism" was the result of an "environmental insult" rather than "genetics"?

I am sixty-seven years of age, a product of the 1950's, when polio was "epidemic". At polio's peak, it theatened 1 in 4,000. In fact, if you had asked me as little as seven years ago (my little guy just turned seven), what the greatest medical advancement in my lifetime was, I would have, without doubt, said Dr. Jonas Salk's polio vaccine.

Unfortunately, my loveable seven year old "autistic" grandson is not the first time that my family has suffered a child being diagnosed with a disease that medical experts had no explanation for. When my now 40 year old daughter was just a child of four, she was diagnosed with ITP. It is a life-threatening blood disease, caused when her spleen, inexplicably, began destroying "platelets", which are critical to stem the loss of blood through "clotting". We were extensively, ad nauseam, questioned about ANY family history of blood disorders. NONE. We were finally offered the term "bizarre" as the only explanation of what "caused" her ITP. No one ever mentioned that she may have suffered what I now understand to be "molecular mimicry", where a childhood vacine mis-identifies a vital organ as a target to attack instead. Indeed, how am I supposed to accept her spleen explicably "going heywire" as a genetic result in an extended family that had never before, or the 40 years since, suffered something similar?

To this grandpa, my now 40 year old daughter appears to have suffered the same environmental attack in her childhood as did the Gul War veterans who, inexplicably, came down with the very same disease decades later. Which causes me to wonder: Did my daughter share the same "genetic flaw" with returning Gulf War veterans, or, did she suffer the same "environmental insult" that spawned their blood disease?

Unfortunately, I do not know of ANY "genetic research" that is focusing on the possibility that some families, such as, my own, that are at higher risk of being adversely affected by the environmental insults commonly used as ingredients in childhood vaccines. Now that would be "genetic research" that I would fully support.

(By the way, my grandson has a first-cousin, a 4 year old twin boy, who was recently diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. Apparently, this little guy's pancreas inexplicably stopped producing insulin within 4 weeks of having received 6 vaccines on a single visit. His twin sister suffered an immediate adverse reaction at the time she received her six vaccines, but, thankfully, she was given a shot that caused the visible hives to dissipate within minutes.)

[Guest guest]

The basic reason to reject the autism genes theory is that it is bullshit. End of story.

It is made up to gull us sheep into believing that the epidemic of post vaccine neurodevelopmental disorder, PCND or vaccine induced neurodevelopmental disorder VIND, mislabeled even-by-us autism, which is the worst iatrogenic scandal in the history of medicine (with the possible exception of the AIDS crisis- although there were some evolutionary issues working there).

If you have absolutely no understanding of genetics, no understanding of basic biochemistry, no understanding of immunology and no understanding of the toxicity of mercury, are being paid, believe in fairy tales or are stupider than a tack, you will fall for and accept the autism gene nonsense.

If you are not, you won't.

Kind of tough. Deal with it.

Re: Huffpost: There is no autism epidemic

To "Dad-4-kids".

Please accept that I am not challenging your observations. In fact, I agree wholeheartedly with your closing statement that "We have all seen the "experts" go from looking for the autism gene to genes, with some suggesting it may be a rambling combination of dozens of genes." However, I suspect each of us has our own individual reasons, based upon personal experience, for accepting or rejecting the "strong evidence that at least some aspects of autism have a genetic component.....and...strong evidence that environmental insults are also part of the mix".

I am just the average "Joe six-pack" grandpa who watched his loveable grandson "regress" into what has been diagnosed as "autism". The more I read and learn about "autism", as presently understood, the less comfortable I am with his diagnosis. In fact, I no longer believe he is "autistic". I am convinced he is "mecury poisioned" instead. Which puts me among those who believe do not believe "genetics" and "environmental insult" are of equal value when seeking the "cause" of the autism epidemic.

What personal experiences have caused me to believe his "regression" into "autism" was the result of an "environmental insult" rather than "genetics"?

I am sixty-seven years of age, a product of the 1950's, when polio was "epidemic". At polio's peak, it theatened 1 in 4,000. In fact, if you had asked me as little as seven years ago (my little guy just turned seven), what the greatest medical advancement in my lifetime was, I would have, without doubt, said Dr. Jonas Salk's polio vaccine.

Unfortunately, my loveable seven year old "autistic" grandson is not the first time that my family has suffered a child being diagnosed with a disease that medical experts had no explanation for. When my now 40 year old daughter was just a child of four, she was diagnosed with ITP. It is a life-threatening blood disease, caused when her spleen, inexplicably, began destroying "platelets", which are critical to stem the loss of blood through "clotting". We were extensively, ad nauseam, questioned about ANY family history of blood disorders. NONE. We were finally offered the term "bizarre" as the only explanation of what "caused" her ITP. No one ever mentioned that she may have suffered what I now understand to be "molecular mimicry", where a childhood vacine mis-identifies a vital organ as a target to attack instead. Indeed, how am I supposed to accept her spleen explicably "going heywire" as a genetic result in an extended family that had never before, or the 40 years since, suffered something similar?

To this grandpa, my now 40 year old daughter appears to have suffered the same environmental attack in her childhood as did the Gul War veterans who, inexplicably, came down with the very same disease decades later. Which causes me to wonder: Did my daughter share the same "genetic flaw" with returning Gulf War veterans, or, did she suffer the same "environmental insult" that spawned their blood disease?

Unfortunately, I do not know of ANY "genetic research" that is focusing on the possibility that some families, such as, my own, that are at higher risk of being adversely affected by the environmental insults commonly used as ingredients in childhood vaccines. Now that would be "genetic research" that I would fully support.

(By the way, my grandson has a first-cousin, a 4 year old twin boy, who was recently diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. Apparently, this little guy's pancreas inexplicably stopped producing insulin within 4 weeks of having received 6 vaccines on a single visit. His twin sister suffered an immediate adverse reaction at the time she received her six vaccines, but, thankfully, she was given a shot that caused the visible hives to dissipate within minutes.)

[Guest guest]

One of the commenters on my recent Huffington Post feature referred to

me as " The Poster Child for the Genetics of autism. " I suppose because

all three of my kids are on the spectrum. The post is archived at

Huffpo - you can search my name at Huffingtonpost.com and find it: The

title was: The Crappy Life of The Autism Mom.

I knew the title alone would draw controversy - but my kids and your

kids deserve the attention, as much as other commenters think it's all

about me. I was also called self-centered. ly, I'd prefer to be

a basic, boring suburban soccer Mom worrying about my hair and nails

instead of " getting all this attention " because of autism. (Shaking my

head....)

KIM

>

> The basic reason to reject the autism genes theory is that it is

bullshit. End of story.

[Guest guest]

Thrombocytopenic purpura can be an adverse reaction to certain vaccines. See the part about MMR in the link below. Aasa http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/00046738.htmRmoffi@... wrote: To "Dad-4-kids". Please accept that I am not challenging your observations. In fact, I agree wholeheartedly with your closing statement that "We have all seen the "experts" go from looking for the autism gene to genes, with some suggesting it may be a rambling combination of dozens of genes." However, I suspect each of us has our own individual reasons, based upon personal experience, for accepting or rejecting the "strong evidence that at least some aspects of autism have a genetic component.....and...strong evidence that environmental insults are also part of the mix". I am just the average "Joe six-pack" grandpa who watched his loveable grandson "regress" into what has been diagnosed as "autism". The more I read and learn about "autism", as presently understood, the less comfortable I am with his diagnosis. In fact, I no longer

believe he is "autistic". I am convinced he is "mecury poisioned" instead. Which puts me among those who believe do not believe "genetics" and "environmental insult" are of equal value when seeking the "cause" of the autism epidemic. What personal experiences have caused me to believe his "regression" into "autism" was the result of an "environmental insult" rather than "genetics"? I am sixty-seven years of age, a product of the 1950's, when polio was "epidemic". At polio's peak, it theatened 1 in 4,000. In fact, if you had asked me as little as seven years ago (my little guy just turned seven), what the greatest medical advancement in my lifetime was, I would have, without doubt, said Dr. Jonas Salk's polio vaccine. Unfortunately, my loveable seven year old "autistic" grandson is not the first time that my family has suffered a child being diagnosed with a disease that medical experts had no explanation for. When my now 40 year old daughter was just a child of four, she was diagnosed with ITP. It is a life-threatening blood disease, caused when her spleen, inexplicably, began destroying "platelets", which are critical to stem the loss of blood through "clotting". We were extensively, ad nauseam, questioned about ANY family history of blood disorders. NONE. We were finally offered the term "bizarre" as the only explanation of what "caused" her ITP. No one ever mentioned that she may have suffered what I now understand to be "molecular mimicry", where a childhood vacine mis-identifies a vital organ as a target to attack instead. Indeed, how

am I supposed to accept her spleen explicably "going heywire" as a genetic result in an extended family that had never before, or the 40 years since, suffered something similar? To this grandpa, my now 40 year old daughter appears to have suffered the same environmental attack in her childhood as did the Gul War veterans who, inexplicably, came down with the very same disease decades later. Which causes me to wonder: Did my daughter share the same "genetic flaw" with returning Gulf War veterans, or, did she suffer the same "environmental insult" that spawned their blood disease? Unfortunately, I do not know of ANY "genetic research" that is focusing on the possibility that some families, such as, my own, that are at higher risk of being adversely

affected by the environmental insults commonly used as ingredients in childhood vaccines. Now that would be "genetic research" that I would fully support. (By the way, my grandson has a first-cousin, a 4 year old twin boy, who was recently diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. Apparently, this little guy's pancreas inexplicably stopped producing insulin within 4 weeks of having received 6 vaccines on a single visit. His twin sister suffered an immediate adverse reaction at the time she received her six vaccines, but, thankfully, she was given a shot that caused the visible hives to dissipate within minutes.)

[Guest guest]

It is also an autoimmune disease.

Re: Re: Huffpost: There is no autism epidemic

Thrombocytopenic purpura can be an adverse reaction to certain vaccines. See the part about MMR in the link below. Aasa

http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/00046738.htmRmoffi@... wrote:

To "Dad-4-kids".

Please accept that I am not challenging your observations. In fact, I agree wholeheartedly with your closing statement that "We have all seen the "experts" go from looking for the autism gene to genes, with some suggesting it may be a rambling combination of dozens of genes." However, I suspect each of us has our own individual reasons, based upon personal experience, for accepting or rejecting the "strong evidence that at least some aspects of autism have a genetic component.....and...strong evidence that environmental insults are also part of the mix".

I am just the average "Joe six-pack" grandpa who watched his loveable grandson "regress" into what has been diagnosed as "autism". The more I read and learn about "autism", as presently understood, the less comfortable I am with his diagnosis. In fact, I no longer believe he is "autistic". I am convinced he is "mecury poisioned" instead. Which puts me among those who believe do not believe "genetics" and "environmental insult" are of equal value when seeking the "cause" of the autism epidemic.

What personal experiences have caused me to believe his "regression" into "autism" was the result of an "environmental insult" rather than "genetics"?

I am sixty-seven years of age, a product of the 1950's, when polio was "epidemic". At polio's peak, it theatened 1 in 4,000. In fact, if you had asked me as little as seven years ago (my little guy just turned seven), what the greatest medical advancement in my lifetime was, I would have, without doubt, said Dr. Jonas Salk's polio vaccine.

Unfortunately, my loveable seven year old "autistic" grandson is not the first time that my family has suffered a child being diagnosed with a disease that medical experts had no explanation for. When my now 40 year old daughter was just a child of four, she was diagnosed with ITP. It is a life-threatening blood disease, caused when her spleen, inexplicably, began destroying "platelets", which are critical to stem the loss of blood through "clotting". We were extensively, ad nauseam, questioned about ANY family history of blood disorders. NONE. We were finally offered the term "bizarre" as the only explanation of what "caused" her ITP. No one ever mentioned that she may have suffered what I now understand to be "molecular mimicry", where a childhood vacine mis-identifies a vital organ as a target to attack instead. Indeed, how am I supposed to accept her spleen explicably "going heywire" as a genetic result in an extended family that had never before, or the 40 years since, suffered something similar?

To this grandpa, my now 40 year old daughter appears to have suffered the same environmental attack in her childhood as did the Gul War veterans who, inexplicably, came down with the very same disease decades later. Which causes me to wonder: Did my daughter share the same "genetic flaw" with returning Gulf War veterans, or, did she suffer the same "environmental insult" that spawned their blood disease?

Unfortunately, I do not know of ANY "genetic research" that is focusing on the possibility that some families, such as, my own, that are at higher risk of being adversely affected by the environmental insults commonly used as ingredients in childhood vaccines. Now that would be "genetic research" that I would fully support.

(By the way, my grandson has a first-cousin, a 4 year old twin boy, who was recently diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. Apparently, this little guy's pancreas inexplicably stopped producing insulin within 4 weeks of having received 6 vaccines on a single visit. His twin sister suffered an immediate adverse reaction at the time she received her six vaccines, but, thankfully, she was given a shot that caused the visible hives to dissipate within minutes.)

[Guest guest]

Kim, The neuroknuckleheads have to knock you since anyone who talks

sanely about autism is a threat to their agenda of insanity. Give

yourself a pat on the back for becoming an threat to them. Take

their insults as compliments.

> >

> > The basic reason to reject the autism genes theory is that it is

> bullshit. End of story.

>

[Guest guest]

God bless you Kim and you family.

There are few who could deal with your situation.

God give you the strength to continue your fight.

Re: Huffpost: There is no autism epidemic

Kim, The neuroknuckleheads have to knock you since anyone who talks sanely about autism is a threat to their agenda of insanity. Give yourself a pat on the back for becoming an threat to them. Take their insults as compliments.> >> > The basic reason to reject the autism genes theory is that it is > bullshit. End of story.>

[Guest guest]

This thing with genes.let's get real, every person has a genetic predisposition to whatever ailment befalls them...Why do some get the flu while others don't or meningitis when others don't.Maybe, because it's their genetic makeup coupled with their immune system 's condition at the time they're exposed to the pathogen that offers the optimum conditions for the onset of the ailment..So, to stipulate that autism is caused by genes alone is pure hogwash............... The detractors will do anything to really protect the interests of the 'guilty' parties who know who they are and know that their complicit contributions will eventually be exposed. They're just desperately trying to stem the tide which ultimately will lead to the proving of their guilt. They did it with tobacco and they know the consequences of their perfidy as it relates to Autism contribution will engender a far greater

backlash. Take care n __________________________________________________