Aspies For Freedom

Yes, it is very unfortunate that something that was probably coincidental is going to be seen as being caused by the vaccine.

Stress-vulnerability... Genetic vulnerability to autism; physical stress of severe vaccine reaction, illness, and growth... Not surprising that it shows up at age 2. It would probably show up anyway, triggered by the first time the child has a severe illness--such as the sort prevented by the vaccines.

Yes, and if enough people decided not to have their children immunised, the bad old days when kids died in their hundreds from diseases such as the measles, diptheria, whooping cough, and polio could easily come back. In fact, in countries where immunisation isn't routine, these and similar diseases do kill and damage many people.

You really think that a vaccine reaction can throw a child's typical development off course, so that it looks like an autistic spectrum condition without necessarily being so...?

Really..?  

To me it looks like you're saying abnormal vaccine reactions, in those prone to them, can cause some kind of atypical development but that it isn't "quite" autism.  To me, that's not much better than saying mercury vaccines cause autism.

Where is it?

Where is the solid proof that supports your statement?

I'll just put it simply:

I'm frustrated.

I see two different sides of the argument in this thread, and anecdotal evidence to support each side.  Just when you think you've got acceptable proof that shows no positive causation for the "dark side," an argument is raised that the 18 studies were done by an organization that has a bias and may be "skewing" data to maintain the face of integrity.

Which side of the story is the "real" story??

Just wanted to suggest something kind of parallel to this topic.

When you're trying to decide which side of a debate you come down on, you have to read both sides of the issue--but not only both sides.

You also have to read up on the theory that underlies the issue itself, so that you can spot faulty reasoning in either argument. (Chances are you will find it in both. People who want to prove a point often see what they want to see, and at best you will see connotations and slant words used to make certain pieces of information sound more or less important... at worst, outright lies.)

In the mercury/vaccine/autism case, I suggest learning:
The function of the human immune system
The function of vaccines, their history, and their known side effects
The effect of multiple vaccines given at one time
Vaccine reactions and sensitivity
Vaccine composition
The cause of autism--all known theories
Heritability
Statistics, especially where they refer to nature/nurture and the interpretation of statistical research
The effects of mercury on the human body, including both short-term, long-term, high-dose, and low-dose exposure
The stress/vulnerability model of disease causation
Diseases of the immune system

As you can see, there's at least a year's worth of work here; and that's only if you already know all the things required to understand the things in the above list. But I think it's necessary, if you're to be sure you're right about something.

Okay, this is beginning to be troubling.  When we see people of our own kind thinking that the vaccine/autism link is promising, it's going to be that much harder for us to dispel this utter falsity that we have been "damaged."  This kind of thinking, seen in the above quotes, is very destructive to autistic people.

In my case, from my observation, both parents have traits.  My father was a chemist and fascinated by science at an early age, and lacks empathy.  One of his brothers is an eccentric scientist type who can't see a point for most religion, and also seems to be missing empathy.

On my mother's side, I have a 75-yr-old uncle who is almost certainly AS or at least some kind of PDD, it's rather undeniable--I speak from my own extensive well of knowledge and experience with him.  He is not a normal person.

My brother also has AS, or at least a lot of traits (his therapist at least said he "has some traits of AS.")

Is the vote here for genetics, or for vaccines?  What were childhood vaccines like, 60-75 years ago..?

Dad noticed some autistic traits in me even at around a year of age - hyperfocus and repetitive movements eg. rocking. But because I spoke early, my parents then believed it couldn't have been autism.

I got very ill with measles at 5 (not routine to vaccinate for measles when I was growing up) which seemed to cause mild brain damage and make other autistic symptoms more obvious eg. social withdrawal, difficulty in regulating emotions, perseveration.

But there are a number of people on both sides of my family who had or have autistic traits (some now deceased), so I would go with the heredity theory. I think it is very unlikely for vaccines to "cause" autism but entirely possible for a bad reaction to accentuate existing symptoms.

This would also be the case if a child caught one of the common childhood conditions that are usually vaccinated for and got very ill. Their resilience would be lowered, either temporarily or permanently and so they would appear to regress or to develop autism seemingly out of the blue.

In case it hasn't been mentioned (I only looked at page 6 of this thread plus Breeze's post above) the government through the CDC has made it clear that this case is NOT an admission that vaccines can cause Autism.

Julie Gerberding said;
"Let me be very clear that (the) government has made absolutely no
statement about indicating that vaccines are a cause of autism. That is a complete mischaracterization of the findings of the case, and
a complete mischaracterization of any of the science that we have at our disposal today. So I think we need to set the record straight on that."

She's right. The girl had a rare disorder (not Autism) and the doctor who administered the vaccines didn't know about it. The vaccines reacted to the disorder, created AUTISM-LIKE symptoms. We can not forget that you must have a certain number of symptoms to be on the Spectrum.

And in addition, Edwin Trevathan (also from the CDC) said;
"I think it's also worth noting that most children with autism do not
seem to have a mitochondrial problem. So this association between mitochondrial disorders and autism is actually probably relatively rare. But the association between mitochondrial disorders and severe brain damage and dysfunction is one that is not as rare and is actually quite important."

I think the key to all of this is the media sensationalising the statement made by Hannah's mother. Her daughter is NOT Autistic, and she should never have even brought the subject up in the media conference.

I guess it may be a stupid question, but I'd like some sort of answer to this, please.  Anyone who has studied this vaccine stuff a good bit, can you please give me your thoughts?

I'm not so good at doing my own research.

Actually, I thought that 60 years ago (late 1940's) there weren't that many around at all. I'm pretty sure there was no Rubella vaccine then (it was only introduced into Australia as a school vaccination for girls in 1976 as I recall) - and both myself and my sister got the measles in the early 1970's. My sister got mumps (I didn't - lucky me!) during the same time period.

Smallpox however I think was one of the first ones developed. So was Polio if I'm right. Malaria would be another one from that period around WW2. And Tetanus as well.

These are all educated guesses by the way - from memory of what I was actually vaccinated for when I was a kid.

You've got my support on that one, Batman. This is disappointing to read - and somewhat scary as well. The only explanation that I can think of for this is that the supporters and pseudo supporters aren't comfortable with their identity as being on the Spectrum - and are therefore susceptible to the preachings of the quacks who push this vaccine BS, because it gives "hope". It's false hope, people!

Bottom line - the case has nothing to do with Autism.

That's not what the curebies think, Breeze. That's the whole point - it's a false hope.