Vaccination & epidemic

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

No, by definition they can't. They cannot prove what causes autism spectrum disorders, and there is no test for it. It is by very definition the presentation of the symptoms. There are many on the spectrum who can certainly function in day-to-day life just fine, and who would not be considered in any way disabled, but they still have certain classifiable symptoms, or they are not on the spectrum.

There are others as well. Lupus for example. There is no "test" just a Dr's opinions based upon symptoms.

[skysidhe]

I am attempting to answer Bruce's question. I apologize for interrupting again. ( UT and Clod )

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Sorry, but you're not a neurologist. My son's current official diagnosis is actually "encephalopathy with autistic symptom presentation." The underlying hypothesis of the treatments we are pursuing is that most cases of autism are actually combinations of mitochondrial encephalopathy, atypical Glycine encephalopathy, and toxic encephalopathy. I

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

If there are millions of kids with Autism, and Autism in asymptomatic, how the fuck do we know they have Autism? That makes no sense at all.

forget about my asymptomatic fumble. I used it meaning lacking a disease like encephalopathy. I used it badly but that doesn't make me wrong.


My summary of what I read last night.

Her son has an encephalopathy. She is focused on that area of symptomology.She and whomever 'are pursuing an hypothesis of
toxic encephalopathy'. She is pursuing a hypothesis.
It is a theory which is true in her situation but she is using too broad a brush to include all of autism which I disagree with.



Then She said autism was under the encephalopathy
umbrella. oh stop. - No toxic encephalopathy IS but autism is not.
(my point)




You asked, how to people tell if someone has autism?
This is the official criteria for that disability.





DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA FOR 299.00 AUTISTIC DISORDER
A. A total of six (or more) items from (1), (2), and (3), with at
least two from (1), and one each from (2) and (3)




Autism, which affects thought, perception and attention, is not just one disorder with a well defined set of symptoms; autism is a broad spectrum of disorders that ranges from mild to severe. In addition, the behavior usually occurs across many different situations and is consistently inappropriate for their age.

In the diagnostic manual used to classify disabilities, the DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994), “autistic disorder” is listed as a category under the heading of “Pervasive Developmental Disorders.” A diagnosis of autistic disorder is made when an individual displays 6 or more of 12 symptoms listed across three major areas: social interaction, communication, and behavior. When children display similar behaviors but do not meet the criteria for autistic disorder, they may receive a diagnosis of Pervasive Developmental Disorder-NOS (PDD not otherwise specified).

Problems in social relatedness and communication.

(Difficulty in mixing with other children; prefers to be alone; aloof manner; difficulty in expressing needs; uses gestures or pointing instead of words ).

Abnormal responses to one or a
combination of senses; such as sight, hearing, touch, balance, smell, taste, reaction to pain.


Sustained odd play.
Uneven gross/ fine motor skills.
Not responsive to verbal cues
acts as deaf.
Little or no eye contact.
Insistence on sameness; resist changes in routine.
Noticeable physical over activity or extreme under activity.
Tantrums; displays extreme distress for no apparent reason

DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA FOR 299.00 AUTISTIC DISORDER
A. A total of six (or more) items from (1), (2), and (3), with at
least two from (1), and one each from (2) and (3)

(1) qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:

a) marked impairments in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body posture, and gestures to regulate social interaction

b) failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to
developmental level

c) a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people, (e.g., by a lack of showing,
bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)

d) lack of social or emotional reciprocity ( note: in the
description, it gives the following as examples: not actively
participating in simple social play or games, preferring solitary
activities, or involving others in activities only as tools or
"mechanical" aids )

(2) qualitative impairments in communication as manifested by at least one of the following:

a) delay in, or total lack of, the development of spoken language
(not accompanied by an attempt to compensate through alternative modes of communication such as gesture or mime)

b) in individuals with adequate speech, marked impairment in the ability to initiate or sustain a conversation with others

c) stereotyped and repetitive use of language or idiosyncratic
language

d) lack of varied, spontaneous make-believe play or social
imitative play appropriate to developmental level

(3) restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior,
interests and activities, as manifested by at least two of the
following:

a) encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in
intensity or focus

b) apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional
routines or rituals

c) stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole body movements)

d) persistent preoccupation with parts of objects

B. Delays or abnormal functioning in at least one of the following areas, with onset prior to age 3 years:

(1) social interaction

(2) language as used in social communication

(3) symbolic or imaginative play

C. The disturbance is not better accounted for by Rett's Disorder or Childhood Disintegrative Disorder

The critera for aspergers/PDD-Nos is a shorter list but simular.

Statement by Dr. Geri Dawson
Chief Science Officer, Autism Speaks
mitochondrial dysfunction

What percentage of children with autism suffer from this?
There have been very few cases of mitochondrial disorders reported in autism. However, since individuals with mitochondrial dysfunction may not show symptoms, it is difficult to determine how prevalent it really is.

What are the signs that a child has it?
It may present as low muscle tone and recurrent deteriorations. But in many (if not most) cases it is probably asymptomatic.

How would a vaccine influence a child with MD to cause autism?
An immune stimulation (including any infection) may increase the oxidative stress in cells (which could cause a child with a so far undiagnosed, asymptomatic mitochondrial dysfunction to now show evidence of the dysfunction). But it is also important to remember, an infection is a much greater immune stimulus than a vaccine inoculation.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Followup A: Do you believe Desiree had acute encephalopathy?

Followup B: Do you believe that Dr. Buttar's treatments solved it?

A.) Yes, insomuch as I believe her neurological symptoms were real and not psychogenic, that automatically puts them under the category of acute encephalopathy. Like I said, it's not really a very useful diagnostic term. The important question is what caused it.

B.) I believe they improved the symptoms, yes. She isn't cured yet by his own account, and I don't know that she ever will be. Many metabolic processes can be permanently thrown out of balance--perhaps she will eventually be symptom-free, but only with continued medication, I don't know. Given that he indicates they "established as of this Friday" her mecury poisoning, I would assume that he is referring to lab tests confirming the presence of mercury and they are therefore pulling it out of her system, so one would expect additional improvement as the levels go down. It would be impossible to have large amounts of mercury in your system that weren't having some kind of effect, otherwise it would not be known as a poisonous substance.

[Undertoad]

He started chelation on the first day he saw her and she was reported to be 95% symptom free within 36 hours. You were skeptical of these results in post #464... still?

[Clodfobble]

From what I can see, the reporter writing that article indicated she was 95% symptom-free, while the actual doctor only said significant improvement. Your most recent article again indicates that the doctor says she is doing well, but not fully recovered.

Heavy metal tests and other metabolic screenings are almost always done by an outside lab, and can be ordered without seeing the doctor in person. Most doctors of this nature, because they are often in different states than their patients, order the tests remotely and then only see the patient when they get the results back and it is time to treat. If he started treating her with anything without the correct lab testing to back it up, then yes, I would consider that very irresponsible, though still possibly resulting in a successful treatment as even a stopped clock is sometimes right. I don't know what exact procedures she received, or what (if anything) her lab tests showed to justify it.

[Undertoad]

It was Dr. Buttar and Desiree themselves who reported that she was 95% symptom-free after 36 hours, and this was the video (which I posted earlier) that they made on day two:



48 hours before, according to Buttar, she was seizing to the point where she could barely breathe.

[Undertoad]

Buttar tweeted on Nov 8 that Desiree was seizure-free for a week. That would be day five of treatment. Buttar reported on The Robert Scott Bell Show on Nov 4 that he treated her with chelation.

[Clodfobble]

Sorry, I don't know how I missed that video earlier.

The purported severity of her seizure 48 hours ago doesn't raise any red flags with me, because the very nature of seizures is that they come and go and can vary in severity. More damning would be the idea that she is perhaps a typical epileptic rather than a new case of dystonia, because a real epileptic will tell you that they can be hit out of nowhere with a seizure severe enough to cause them to lose bowel control, and mere minutes later the seizure might be over and they will appear normal. My understanding of dystonia is that the seizures are more low-level and constant, but the severity can come and go there as well, as discussed by the dystonic patient in the video jinx posted earlier.

We're basically at an impasse, here. I find her story credible, because I have seen similar symptoms in other people starkly reduced in a similar manner with similar treatments. I'm not going to make a definitive proclamation one way or the other about her specific medical condition, because I haven't seen her lab tests (both before and after treatment,) and I don't know her or her doctor personally. Is it possible the whole thing is a huge scam? I suppose it is, but that would be silly, because there are hundreds if not thousands of other patients out there who have received similar, documented relief from these treatments. This one just happened to get picked up by the media. Not everyone wants to have their life thrown out there, you know--just last Thursday, I was sitting at a table with a dozen other women with autistic children who are in the process of recovering or are already completely recovered, and we were talking about the fact that I have been posting progress videos of my son on YouTube. As I was surprised to learn that night, I am the only one at the whole table who has done this. The rest of the women felt that they were so exhausted by just living with the process, they didn't have the time or energy to deal with showing anyone else what they were seeing. They felt it was enough that they had demonstrated results to their own relatives, and their children's individual teachers and therapists. The vast majority had stopped going to see their pediatrician and neurologist at all, because there's only so many times you can be called delusional to your face. I sent my videos to my pediatrician. By her own admission, she did not watch them. Desiree Jennings is not the only one this has ever happened to, she's just one of the few who's willing to become a huge target by putting her evidence out there.

My life experiences indicate to me that her experience is a credible one. Yours indicates to you that it is not. But you must admit that you do not have experiences to indicate that hers is false--you don't know anyone with dystonia who has been unable to improve with these treatments. You simply lack any corroborating experiences. Which is fine. But if you find yourself inching over from healthy skepticism into vilification and accusation, then you will only help make it more unlikely that others will come forward with their stories.

[Undertoad]

Dr. Buttar's diagnosis was "a number of conditions including but not limited to Acute, Viral Post Immunization Encephalopathy and Mercury Toxicity with secondary respiratory and neurological deficits". Dystonia may have been one of her conditions, but it didn't make the headline.

Here's Dr. Buttar's own timeline, mostly via the Robert Scott Bell show, which is partly transcribed on Wikipedia:

- Jennings reports to Buttar Monday morning, having a seizure every forty-five to sixty seconds.
- Buttar contemplates sending her to a hospital because she is stopping breathing for 15-30 second intervals.
- Buttar gives her "a couple of different IVs to stimulate the lymphatics to help build her nutritional status up".
- By noon she is able to breathe without going into a seizure.
- Tuesday morning she returns, feeling better, looking better, but still unable to talk.
- They start chelation and antioxidants and "hitting her for natural forms of antivirals".
- 30 minutes after starting the second IV, she is able to speak.
- Tuesday night the Robert Scott Bell show is recorded, and Buttar reports that she's walking and talking normally and "There's not one single neurological deficit with her now."
- Thursday she records the video.

[Undertoad]

You simply lack any corroborating experiences.

Direct experience is only one way to determine truth.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

We're basically at an impasse, here. I find her story credible, because I have seen similar symptoms in other people starkly reduced in a similar manner with similar treatments.

Observation alone is classic junk science. Missing is the necessary control subject. Where is an example where an offending material is removed and the defect disappears? Just another example of what one does before knowing anything. To have a fact, supporting and existing knowledge must also exist to explain the relationship. You don't have anything necessary to have a fact. What is necessary to form a hypothesis? You don't have that. Your logic is classic junk science.

Even your hypothesis is only wild speculation. A hypothesis only from observation (without any control subject or underlying concepts) is classic junk science.

What causes autism? One report suggested that people exposed to trace amounts of mercury (ie when a fluorescent bulb breaks) years previously can cause it. Observation also proved that to be true. So you would instead blame medication?

What is traced to some forms of heart disease? Chlamydia. Yes, exposures to a sexual disease ten and twenty years ago may cause diseases today. Need we also mention Mad Cow disease? Another disease due to exposure years previously. But somehow you know autism is traceable to something immediate; only using observation. By ignoring other possiblities. A classic science mistake. "I would not have seen it if I had not known it was there." Clodfobble is doing just that. A conclusion based only in a few observations and wild speculatioin.

Clodfobble will not read this. I have a bad habit of demanding conclusions based in logic - not in junk science reasoning. Some will refuse to read to remain in denial - not learn from their mistakes. Foolishly pretend that observation is sufficient to 'know'. Any hypothesis or conclusion based only in observation is classic junk science. Any facts sufficient to have a hypothesis were condemned even in the Lancet. Avoiding that reality is further evidence of junk science reasoning. A relationship between medication and autism is classic junk science. As Clodfobble admits, the conclusion comes only from observation - which is the symptom of junk science.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Dr. Buttar's diagnosis was "a number of conditions including but not limited to Acute, Viral Post Immunization Encephalopathy and Mercury Toxicity with secondary respiratory and neurological deficits". Dystonia may have been one of her conditions, but it didn't make the headline.

Dr. Buttar is not qualified to diagnose dystonia. Dystonia is a type of encephalopathy. Having encephalopathy is like saying you have bronchitis--that does not specify whether you have the flu, or a viral cold, or a bacterial infection. It just says your bronchial tubes are inflamed. Saying she had encephalopathy is equivalent to saying she had "a neurological problem of some sort." As could be expected, he seems unconcerned with diagnosing what specific neurological symptoms she was displaying, because his philosophy is that the underlying root of the problem is not neurological, but elsewhere. It's like you're trying to pin him down over whether she is coughing this way or that way, while he is only concerned with giving her the antibiotics that the lab test confirmed she needed.

Originally Posted by tw

Observation alone is classic junk science. Missing is the necessary control subject. Where is an example where an offending material is removed and the defect disappears?

Absolutely. Please go ask the CDC where their control subject is. I'd love nothing more than to see studies comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated control subjects. That's what my community has been demanding for twenty years now.

Originally Posted by tw

What causes autism? One report suggested that people exposed to trace amounts of mercury (ie when a fluorescent bulb breaks) years previously can cause it. Observation also proved that to be true. So you would instead blame medication?

You're not even making sense. Do you understand that the "medication" we're discussing here contains mercury?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

You're not even making sense. Do you understand that the "medication" we're discussing here contains mercury?

Do you understand that foods you eat, air you breath, and water you drink also contain mercury? You have again done what junk science and political extremists do. Promote a fear subjectively. Not provide numbers.

If mercury in that medication was so destructive, then fluorescent bulbs must be killing people.

Your posts contain subjective reasoning, devoid of the always required numbers, and are based only on statistically insignificant observation. Subjective claims and proof based only in observation are classic symptoms of junk science. The exact same reasoning also proved Saddam had WMDs.

Amazing how many know science intentionally wants to subvert us. Ironically, those who most promote these myths have no science background. Often are educated in religion, politics, English, or other subjective disciplines.

Same reasoning also proved that childhood leukemia was directly traceable to AC electric lines. Once the data was finally provided, that myth (just like an autism myth) was completely debunked.

Do you understand that foods also contain radioactive material? Where is your campaign to eliminate naturally grown foods because radiation is so dangerous? Another example of fears based only in hearsay because numbers and perspective were not provided.

Worse, your every proof is based only subjective observations. Observation alone is a symptom of junk science. But your observation are also subjective – even less reliable. At least the myth about childhood leukemia was based in numbers – before it was discovered to be another junk science conclusion.

[Griff]

Stop eating fluorescent bulbs!

[Clodfobble]

Not everyone has a problem removing the mercury from their body, and not everyone has severe neurological symptoms.

The numbers are evident in the urinary toxic screenings. Other mothers have shared theirs with me. Their kids had no mercury output in their urine (which isn't normal, since as you say it's everywhere around us and should be coming out in equal quantities,) then they were administered a dose of chelation drugs and peed off-the-charts amounts of mercury--or in some cases, lead, aluminum, arsenic, etc. And lo and behold, after these kids peed out these huge amounts of metals, their autistic symptoms were suddenly improved dramatically.

Not all autistic kids suffer from heavy metals toxicity. It's just one possible part of an overall condition. But if my son does, you have my word that I will scan his lab results and post the numbers for you alongside the before-and-after videos of his symptoms.