Re: classic genetic Kanner's autism & malpractice

August 4, 2002

Isnt there some sort of minor mal-practice law regarding false diagnosis? An

attorney mentioned that to me recently.

Michele

IMO, as much as Dr. Filapek's mercury statements get my goat and need be

corrected (in her mind, on ABC url), I'm not sure that her possible misdiagosis

of a child as " classic genetic Kanner's autism " merits legal action. She and

many other med-school autism-diagnosticians have been cajoled into believing the

" must be genetic " model, just as thousands of earlier diagnosticians were

enthralled with the " refrigerator mother " model.

An important option for the parent whose child was dxed as " classic genetic

Kanner's autism " is to write Filipek and ask for clarification. What lab test(s)

demonstrated a specific, known genetic mutation in that child?

Furthermore, if that child's family (a) has lab-test data showing high levels of

toxic-metal excretion, and ( has some documentations (eg, from teachers,

physicians, others outside the family) that the child improved in major ways

during chelation (as the metals were being excreted), then Dr. Filipek could be

asked to consider re-diagnosis, something like: autistic-traits due to metal

toxicity. However, a potential risk is that some highly placed physicians

initiate legal action against physicians who act outside officially approved

doctrine, thus the biggest issue for some people in Dr. Filipek's position will

be: no doctor should order those tests. Paradigm shifts often generate ruffled

feathers. Nonetheless, a friendly approach to her -- backed up by lab-data and

by observers' testimony -- might help her outgrow her over-reliance upon " must

be genetic " .

If her statements to ABC were accurately quoted on the webpage, and if she was

not deliberately and knowingly distributing false information, then I am

inclined to presume -- as another parent or several has noted -- that Dr.

Filipek's sincerely cares about autistic children and their families. Of course,

sincerity was a trait common to many diagnosticians and therapists who

admonished refrigerator mothers. Perhaps, even *perhaps*, her sincerity will

help her come to know the mercury literature more thoroughly.

August 4, 2002

,

You put it very eloquently, and I agree with you except that some Doctors have a

tendency to be very arrogant when they think a parent is trying to teach them

something they should know. Human nature is such that sometimes it is hard to

say " I am sorry " , or " I was wrong " .

The " genetic model " , is even *worse* than the " refridgerator mother " model

because there is much more evidence that autism is not simply caused by genetic

factors.

, the root of this whole problem is this: The Allopathic approach to

healing which advocates a Drug for almost every disease needs to be abandoned.

I am not anti-medicine, but I have seen the misery this brand of medicine has

caused on the human Race.

I see at least 3 new autistic kids every day, in my audiology practice, and it

is sad to see that Doctors who you really want to respect, burying their heads

in the sand and denying that vaccinations have anything to do with the

situation, because the professional Journals they read say so. All other

information outside of that is considered " rubbish " and " unscientific " . (How

sad).

We are watching the " genocide " of largely the *male* population of the next

genaration right before our eyes, and we need some mid-wives like Shiphrah and

Puah, as was the case in the Book of Exodus. It is so sad to see intelligent

professionals denying and (possibly) distorting facts.

R

Re: [ ] classic genetic Kanner's autism & malpractice

Isnt there some sort of minor mal-practice law regarding false diagnosis? An

attorney mentioned that to me recently.

Michele

IMO, as much as Dr. Filapek's mercury statements get my goat and need be

corrected (in her mind, on ABC url), I'm not sure that her possible

misdiagosis

of a child as " classic genetic Kanner's autism " merits legal action. She and

many other med-school autism-diagnosticians have been cajoled into believing

the

" must be genetic " model, just as thousands of earlier diagnosticians were

enthralled with the " refrigerator mother " model.

An important option for the parent whose child was dxed as " classic genetic

Kanner's autism " is to write Filipek and ask for clarification. What lab

test(s)

demonstrated a specific, known genetic mutation in that child?

Furthermore, if that child's family (a) has lab-test data showing high levels

of

toxic-metal excretion, and ( has some documentations (eg, from teachers,

physicians, others outside the family) that the child improved in major ways

during chelation (as the metals were being excreted), then Dr. Filipek could

be

asked to consider re-diagnosis, something like: autistic-traits due to metal

toxicity. However, a potential risk is that some highly placed physicians

initiate legal action against physicians who act outside officially approved

doctrine, thus the biggest issue for some people in Dr. Filipek's position

will

be: no doctor should order those tests. Paradigm shifts often generate

ruffled

feathers. Nonetheless, a friendly approach to her -- backed up by lab-data and

by observers' testimony -- might help her outgrow her over-reliance upon " must

be genetic " .

If her statements to ABC were accurately quoted on the webpage, and if she was

not deliberately and knowingly distributing false information, then I am

inclined to presume -- as another parent or several has noted -- that Dr.

Filipek's sincerely cares about autistic children and their families. Of

course,

sincerity was a trait common to many diagnosticians and therapists who

admonished refrigerator mothers. Perhaps, even *perhaps*, her sincerity will

help her come to know the mercury literature more thoroughly.

August 4, 2002

> Isnt there some sort of minor mal-practice law regarding false

diagnosis? An

> attorney mentioned that to me recently.

> Michele

>

> IMO, as much as Dr. Filapek's mercury statements get my goat and

need be

> corrected (in her mind, on ABC url), I'm not sure that her possible

misdiagosis

> of a child as " classic genetic Kanner's autism " merits legal action.

The dx is accurate based on the definition of " classic genetic

Kanner's autism " . My son is not a regressive case, and he was very

severely autistic, so he did meet the clinical definition.

> An important option for the parent whose child was dxed as " classic

genetic

> Kanner's autism " is to write Filipek and ask for clarification. What

lab test(s)

> demonstrated a specific, known genetic mutation in that child?

So far as I know, it was observation plus the fact that he did not

regress.

>

> Furthermore, if that child's family (a) has lab-test data showing

high levels of

> toxic-metal excretion, and ( has some documentations (eg, from

teachers,

> physicians, others outside the family)

I have no documentation, either medical or otherwise. Sometimes I

wish I did, but then he no longer qualifies as autistic, so most days

I am glad I don't have so much documentation. It will be difficult

enough to have the label removed with the documentation I DO have.

>>Nonetheless, a friendly approach to her -- backed up by lab-data and

> by observers' testimony -- might help her outgrow her over-reliance

upon " must

> be genetic " .

Unfortunately, I don't have this. And I don't know that I could pull

off a " friendly " approach, my social skills are not necessarily my

strong point LOL

Dana

August 5, 2002

> A. Does the DSM-IV mention " classic genetic Kanner's autism " ?

> B. If not, what book uses that as an official or semi-official

diagnostic

> classification?

I don't know where is the exact description. I know that when I was

in the office with Filipek, she kept asking me when my son regressed,

when he lost skills, what were the specific skills he had that he

lost, etc. I kept telling her he never had skills, I thought she was

not listening to me LOL.

Finally I asked why she kept asking, and she indicated that most

autistic kids lost skills. So after about 10 minutes of the same type

of question, I asked her did this mean he was not autistic, because

Lott had given him the dx of autism about 5 months prior. She said

no, actually it made it easier for her, because he more than met the

criteria for autism, he was very low functioning, and because he was

" born this way " and did not lose skills, it meant he qualified as

" classic genetic Kanner's autism " [i remember her exact words], which

was the original type of autism studied by Kanner. She gave me a

brief description of that, then told me to enroll him in the public

schools because " they will know what services he needs " .

Dana

August 5, 2002

What a bunch of crock! All it means is that your child was probably exposed

to the mercury earlier (maybe in utero) or got more early on (maybe the 6th

dose in an unshaken 6-dose vial or maybe amalgam poisoning from the mother).

Barb

[ ] Re: classic genetic Kanner's autism & malpractice

>

>> A. Does the DSM-IV mention " classic genetic Kanner's autism " ?

>> B. If not, what book uses that as an official or semi-official

>diagnostic

>> classification?

>

>I don't know where is the exact description. I know that when I was

>in the office with Filipek, she kept asking me when my son regressed,

>when he lost skills, what were the specific skills he had that he

>lost, etc. I kept telling her he never had skills, I thought she was

>not listening to me LOL.

>

>Finally I asked why she kept asking, and she indicated that most

>autistic kids lost skills. So after about 10 minutes of the same type

>of question, I asked her did this mean he was not autistic, because

>Lott had given him the dx of autism about 5 months prior. She said

>no, actually it made it easier for her, because he more than met the

>criteria for autism, he was very low functioning, and because he was

> " born this way " and did not lose skills, it meant he qualified as

> " classic genetic Kanner's autism " [i remember her exact words], which

>was the original type of autism studied by Kanner. She gave me a

>brief description of that, then told me to enroll him in the public

>schools because " they will know what services he needs " .

>

>Dana

>

>=======================================================

>

August 6, 2002

Barb's point is important and helps clarify what happens when a model (eg, if

early onset, must be genetic) is too thoroughly accepted. In additional to early

eHg exposure (eg, via RhoGam), other possibilities include a period of placental

insufficiency, an incident of abruptio placentae, as well as a reactivated

CMV-infection (eg, reactivated mildly due to the mother's naturally diminished

immunity, which occurs during pregnancy so that the mother does not develop

strong immune reactions against paternal antigens arising from the paternal

chromosomes in the embryo and fetus). In other words, for a physician to

conclude " must be genetic " is for the physician to utter a shibolleth-like

belief rooted in the NIH imposed model (imposed and grant-application guidelines

and then by funding), " must be genetic " .

A question remains for Filipek: Since the child's autism was early onset, how

did Filipek *know* with certainty or why did she rush to the presumption that

that child's autism was " genetic " ? Apparently, there was no confirming lab-test

for a known genetic autism. What's frustrating is that an early onset autism can

prompt evaluation of conditions within the mother, father, and child (eg, HSV

sores too often, shingles too often; CMV viral load in PBMCs, exposure to eHg

and other toxic metals). In some cases, an underlying pathology etiologically

significant to the child's autistic traits can be identified and, in some cases,

treated.

Very frustrating is the fact that when " it's genetic " is uttered so matter of

factly (in the absence of specific-gene, lab-test verification), then the

possibility of finding an underlying pathology that is treatable is precluded a

priori.

" romkemas " <jromkema@...>

Subject: Re: Re: classic genetic Kanner's autism & malpractice

What a bunch of crock! All it means is that your child was probably exposed

to the mercury earlier (maybe in utero) or got more early on (maybe the 6th

dose in an unshaken 6-dose vial or maybe amalgam poisoning from the mother).

Barb Romkema <jromkema@...>