The Age of Autism: The Amish Elephant

[Ilena Rose]

I have no doubt that the Barrett/Quack/Rag-tag Posse of failures like
Probert will attack this respected journalist ...

See them lined up here:


http://web.archive.org/web/20040610090503/http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm


The Age of Autism: The Amish Elephant
By Dan Olmsted
UPI Senior Editor
Oct. 29, 2005 at 2:34PM

A specter is haunting the medical and journalism establishments of the
United States: Where are the unvaccinated people with autism?
That is just about the only way to explain what now appears to
be a collective resistance to considering that question. And like all
unanswered questions, this raises another one: Why?
What is the problem with quickly and firmly establishing that
the autism rate is about the same everywhere and for everybody in the
United States, vaccinated or unvaccinated? Wouldn't that stop all the
scientifically illiterate chatter by parents who believe vaccinations
made their children autistic? Wouldn't it put to rest concerns that --
despite the removal of a mercury-containing preservative in most U.S.
vaccines -- hundreds of millions of children in the developing world
are possibly at risk if that preservative is in fact linked to autism?
Calling this issue The Amish Elephant reflects reporting earlier
this year in Age of Autism that the largely unvaccinated Amish may
have a relatively low rate of autism. That apparent dissimilarity is,
in effect, a proverbial elephant in the living room -- studiously
ignored by people who don't want to deal with it and don't believe
they will have to.
Here are a few cases in point.
Earlier this month the National Consumers League conference in
Washington held a session on communicating issues around vaccine
safety. I was on the panel and talked about the Amish and autism. In
the Q&A session that followed, the first question was for me.
"Is this a proper role for a journalist, or is this just a straw
dog set up there with a preliminary answer? It not only showed up
where you wrote it. It was all over the place. You did very, very well
for UPI (at which point I said, 'Thank you -- please tell my bosses
that!') but the question is, did you do very, very well for America?
"Is it appropriate for a journalist -- you weren't reporting,
you were investigating. And I just wonder if you think it's an
appropriate role for you to play."
My answer: "There's different roles for the press. That's
certainly a reasonable question. That is investigative reporting. This
idea is something that's already been discarded -- that there's any
reason why you would want to look in an unvaccinated population.
"One of my favorite comments about journalism is that it's the
wild card of American democracy. The First Amendment says we can do
(in the sense of reporting about) whatever we want. So one of our
privileges is to get an idea in our head and go look at it."
My questioner was not finished. "I wasn't questioning whether
you have a First Amendment right to do it. I think this is more of a
question of the ethics, of what value we are bringing to the debate."
My response: "That's probably not a good one for me to answer.
Obviously I thought it was ethical."
At that point a fellow panelist, Dr. Louis Cooper, former
president of the American Academy of Pediatrics and a staunch vaccine
defender, spoke up. "I would jump in and say I thought it was ethical
and I think it was useful," said Cooper, a courtly and unfailingly
courteous Manhattan pediatrician.
"As you've learned, it was annoying to many people. I wasn't
annoyed by it because I thought you kept the process and the debate
and the discussion going forward. And we have to do that for one
another."
That did not end the discussion. A few minutes later a
public-health professor from -- where else? Harvard -- did her own
version of Jeopardy!, offering the correct "answer" in the form of a
question.
"This question is for Dan. Did you mention the outbreak of polio
that happened in the Amish community in the Netherlands that caused
widespread problems there, and also the fact that there'd been some
context with respect to history in our country in trying to reach out
to the Amish to actually encourage them to try to benefit from some of
the vaccine technology to the extent that we could?
"So there's been a long history in this country of the CDC
trying to reach out to them to the extent that they could. Also with
respect to polio, I think what's really amazing is it's such a great
story, this is such an exciting time, in the sense that we are very
close to global eradication. What that means is we've gone from 1988
when we had 350,000 estimated paralytic polio cases in the world every
year to roughly a thousand. It's very exciting that in fact we don't
have the terror or the hysteria and all of the fear that surrounded
disease.
"I just want to remind everyone that one thing that's very
important in the context of reporting these stories is making sure
that people do remember and also realize with infectious disease is
these things can come back, and until they are eradicated they can
come back and devastate us just as much as they did before, except now
there are a lot more people.
"There's some related news that people might find interesting. A
headline in the Washington Post today, 'Polio outbreak occurs among
Amish families.' So I thought people might be interested in that."
At that point the moderator, Dr. Roger Bernier of the Centers
for Disease Control, said time was getting short -- why was I not
surprised? -- and asked for the next "question."
One thing I've noticed is the more that people want to lecture
instead of learn, the more they speak in breathless run-on sentences
that are hard to stop, slow down or even diagram. They leave one with
the unspoken idea that dialogue -- opening the door to new information
-- is somehow dangerous.
These exchanges reminded me of the response I got from Dr. Julie
Gerberding, the CDC director, when I asked her this summer, verbatim:
"Has the government ever looked at the autism rate in an unvaccinated
U.S. population, and if not, why not?"
Her answer, verbatim:
--
In this country, we have very high levels of vaccination as you
probably know, and I think this year we have record immunization
levels among all of our children, so to (select an unvaccinated group)
that on a population basis would be representative to look at
incidence in that population compared to the other population would be
something that could be done.
But as we're learning, just trying to look at autism in a
community the size of Atlanta, it's very, very difficult to get an
effective numerator and denominator to get a reliable diagnosis.
I think those kind of studies could be done and should be done.
You'd have to adjust for the strong genetic component that also
distinguishes, for example, people in Amish communities who may elect
not to be immunized (and) also have genetic connectivity that would
make them different from populations that are in other sectors of the
United States. So drawing some conclusions from them would be very
difficult.
I think with reference to the timing of all of this, good
science does take time, and it's part of one of the messages I feel
like I've learned from the feedback that we've gotten from parents
groups this summer (in) struggling with developing a more robust and a
faster research agenda, is let's speed this up. Let's look for the
early studies that could give us at least some hypotheses to test and
evaluate and get information flowing through the research pipeline as
quickly as we can.
So we are committed to doing that, and as I mentioned, in terms
of just measuring the frequency of autism in the population some
pretty big steps have been taken. We're careful not to jump ahead of
our data, but we think we will be able to provide more accurate
information in the next year or so than we've been able to do up to
this point. And I know that is our responsibility.
We've also benefited from some increased investments in these
areas that have allowed us to do this, and so we thank Congress and we
thank the administration for supporting those investments, not just at
CDC but also at NIH and FDA.
--
The latest response to my pesky persistence comes not from
academia or government but from my own profession. Last week the
prestigious Columbia Journalism Review published an article whose main
thrust -- with which I concur -- was that a vigorous debate over a
possible link between vaccines and autism was being thwarted by the
self-induced timidity of the press.
Some reporters told the author, Daniel Schulman, that they have
basically given up on the story because the criticism -- some of it
from their own editors -- was so fierce, and the story was so
complicated.
Schulman described Age of Autism's efforts to come at the issue
"sideways," looking for possible clues to the cause of the disorder in
the natural history of autism. And he mentioned our reporting on the
Amish:
"Privately, two reporters told me that, while intriguing,
Olmsted's reporting on the Amish is misguided, since it may simply
reflect genetic differences among an isolated gene pool. ... Both
reporters believed that Olmsted has made up his mind on the question
and is reporting the facts that support his conclusions."
Ouch. Being slammed by one's peers is never enjoyable, although
reporters need to have thick skins and realize they dish this kind of
thing out every day. (And those anonymous sources really are annoying,
especially when I am happy to be quoted by name about everything.)
What's interesting about the reporters' "private" remarks is the
degree of presumed expertise they suggest -- that looking at the Amish
is misguided "since it may simply reflect genetic differences among an
isolated gene pool." Really? Where did these guys get their doctorate
in genetics, Harvard?
This assertion -- that the Amish gene pool could explain
everything, based on no data that I'm aware of -- is the kind of
self-interested speculation masquerading as expertise that has beset
the autism-vaccines discussion for far too long. The term I learned
for it long ago is "convenient reasoning," and it does not always have
to be conscious.
The Amish have all kinds of standard genetic mental and
developmental disorders -- from bipolar to retardation -- and a lot
more genetic issues to boot from this supposedly protective "isolated
gene pool." The doctors who actually know something about the Amish
have never suggested to me that genes have anything to do with a low
rate of autism. They seem perplexed.
In upcoming columns, we'll put that question to the right people
-- geneticists -- and tell you what we find. It's called reporting.
--
This ongoing series on the roots and rise of autism welcomes
reader response. E-mail:

[CWatters]

"Ilena Rose" > wrote in message
...

> What is the problem with quickly and firmly establishing that
> the autism rate is about the same everywhere and for everybody in the
> United States, vaccinated or unvaccinated?

...because you would need to control for a lot of other factors. For
example... Parents who don't vaccinate their kids might be less likely to
smoke. If parental smoking caused Autism the results would be misleading if
you didn't control for that. The author claims that the Amish have lower
rates of Autism but is that because they are unvaccinated or because they
live in the countryside away from poluted cities? What about mobile phone
masts? If the parents of unvaccinated children choose not to live near
phone masts then how would you seperate out the effect (if any) of the
masts?

This is one of the reasons that the results of previous studies has been
debated so much - it's allways possible to find something that the study
hasn't controlled for.

[CWatters]

http://www.immunize.org/catg.d/p2065.htm

"Evidence that autism occurs in utero

Toxic or viral insults in utero as well as certain central nervous system
disorders are associated with an increase in the incidence of autism.

For example, children exposed to thalidomide during the first or early
second trimester were found to have an increased incidence of autism.(16)
However, autism occurred in children with ear, but not arm or leg,
abnormalities. Because arms and legs develop after 24 days gestation, the
risk period for autism following receipt of thalidomide must be before 24
days gestation. In support of this finding, Rodier and colleagues(17) found
evidence for structural brainstem abnormalities in children with autism.
These abnormalities could only have occurred during brainstem development in
utero.

Similarly, children with congenital rubella syndrome are at increased risk
for development of autism.(18-24) Risk is associated with exposure to
rubella prenatally, but not postnatally.

Finally, children with fragile X syndrome or tuberous sclerosis are also at
increased risk of developing autism.

Taken together, these findings indicate that autism is likely due to
abnormalities of the central nervous system that occur in utero"

[Mark Probert]

Ilena Rose wrote:
> I have no doubt that the Barrett/Quack/Rag-tag Posse of failures like
> Probert will attack this respected journalist ...

No one from the newsgroup has to. It was done here, by a professional
journalist who was commenting on Olmsted's faulty methodology.

http://www.cjr.org/issues/2005/6/schulman.asp:

"Privately, two reporters told me that, while intriguing, Olmsted's
reporting on the Amish is misguided, since it may simply reflect genetic
differences among an isolated gene pool (Hornig, however, said that a
study on the Amish may still be valuable should the prevalence of autism
in that community indeed be low, allowing researchers to study the
genetics of people who are not susceptible to the disorder). Both
reporters believed that Olmsted has made up his mind on the question and
is reporting the facts that support his conclusions."

> See them lined up here:

> http://web.archive.org/web/20040610090503/http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm

A fine bunch of criticl thinkers.

> The Age of Autism: The Amish Elephant
> By Dan Olmsted
> UPI Senior Editor
> Oct. 29, 2005 at 2:34PM
>
> A specter is haunting the medical and journalism establishments of the
> United States: Where are the unvaccinated people with autism?
> That is just about the only way to explain what now appears to
> be a collective resistance to considering that question. And like all
> unanswered questions, this raises another one: Why?
> What is the problem with quickly and firmly establishing that
> the autism rate is about the same everywhere and for everybody in the
> United States, vaccinated or unvaccinated? Wouldn't that stop all the
> scientifically illiterate chatter by parents who believe vaccinations
> made their children autistic? Wouldn't it put to rest concerns that --
> despite the removal of a mercury-containing preservative in most U.S.
> vaccines -- hundreds of millions of children in the developing world
> are possibly at risk if that preservative is in fact linked to autism?
> Calling this issue The Amish Elephant reflects reporting earlier
> this year in Age of Autism that the largely unvaccinated Amish may
> have a relatively low rate of autism. That apparent dissimilarity is,
> in effect, a proverbial elephant in the living room -- studiously
> ignored by people who don't want to deal with it and don't believe
> they will have to.
> Here are a few cases in point.
> Earlier this month the National Consumers League conference in
> Washington held a session on communicating issues around vaccine
> safety. I was on the panel and talked about the Amish and autism. In
> the Q&A session that followed, the first question was for me.
> "Is this a proper role for a journalist, or is this just a straw
> dog set up there with a preliminary answer? It not only showed up
> where you wrote it. It was all over the place. You did very, very well
> for UPI (at which point I said, 'Thank you -- please tell my bosses
> that!') but the question is, did you do very, very well for America?
> "Is it appropriate for a journalist -- you weren't reporting,
> you were investigating. And I just wonder if you think it's an
> appropriate role for you to play."
> My answer: "There's different roles for the press. That's
> certainly a reasonable question. That is investigative reporting. This
> idea is something that's already been discarded -- that there's any
> reason why you would want to look in an unvaccinated population.
> "One of my favorite comments about journalism is that it's the
> wild card of American democracy. The First Amendment says we can do
> (in the sense of reporting about) whatever we want. So one of our
> privileges is to get an idea in our head and go look at it."
> My questioner was not finished. "I wasn't questioning whether
> you have a First Amendment right to do it. I think this is more of a
> question of the ethics, of what value we are bringing to the debate."
> My response: "That's probably not a good one for me to answer.
> Obviously I thought it was ethical."
> At that point a fellow panelist, Dr. Louis Cooper, former
> president of the American Academy of Pediatrics and a staunch vaccine
> defender, spoke up. "I would jump in and say I thought it was ethical
> and I think it was useful," said Cooper, a courtly and unfailingly
> courteous Manhattan pediatrician.
> "As you've learned, it was annoying to many people. I wasn't
> annoyed by it because I thought you kept the process and the debate
> and the discussion going forward. And we have to do that for one
> another."
> That did not end the discussion. A few minutes later a
> public-health professor from -- where else? Harvard -- did her own
> version of Jeopardy!, offering the correct "answer" in the form of a
> question.
> "This question is for Dan. Did you mention the outbreak of polio
> that happened in the Amish community in the Netherlands that caused
> widespread problems there, and also the fact that there'd been some
> context with respect to history in our country in trying to reach out
> to the Amish to actually encourage them to try to benefit from some of
> the vaccine technology to the extent that we could?
> "So there's been a long history in this country of the CDC
> trying to reach out to them to the extent that they could. Also with
> respect to polio, I think what's really amazing is it's such a great
> story, this is such an exciting time, in the sense that we are very
> close to global eradication. What that means is we've gone from 1988
> when we had 350,000 estimated paralytic polio cases in the world every
> year to roughly a thousand. It's very exciting that in fact we don't
> have the terror or the hysteria and all of the fear that surrounded
> disease.
> "I just want to remind everyone that one thing that's very
> important in the context of reporting these stories is making sure
> that people do remember and also realize with infectious disease is
> these things can come back, and until they are eradicated they can
> come back and devastate us just as much as they did before, except now
> there are a lot more people.
> "There's some related news that people might find interesting. A
> headline in the Washington Post today, 'Polio outbreak occurs among
> Amish families.' So I thought people might be interested in that."
> At that point the moderator, Dr. Roger Bernier of the Centers
> for Disease Control, said time was getting short -- why was I not
> surprised? -- and asked for the next "question."
> One thing I've noticed is the more that people want to lecture
> instead of learn, the more they speak in breathless run-on sentences
> that are hard to stop, slow down or even diagram. They leave one with
> the unspoken idea that dialogue -- opening the door to new information
> -- is somehow dangerous.
> These exchanges reminded me of the response I got from Dr. Julie
> Gerberding, the CDC director, when I asked her this summer, verbatim:
> "Has the government ever looked at the autism rate in an unvaccinated
> U.S. population, and if not, why not?"
> Her answer, verbatim:
> --
> In this country, we have very high levels of vaccination as you
> probably know, and I think this year we have record immunization
> levels among all of our children, so to (select an unvaccinated group)
> that on a population basis would be representative to look at
> incidence in that population compared to the other population would be
> something that could be done.
> But as we're learning, just trying to look at autism in a
> community the size of Atlanta, it's very, very difficult to get an
> effective numerator and denominator to get a reliable diagnosis.
> I think those kind of studies could be done and should be done.
> You'd have to adjust for the strong genetic component that also
> distinguishes, for example, people in Amish communities who may elect
> not to be immunized (and) also have genetic connectivity that would
> make them different from populations that are in other sectors of the
> United States. So drawing some conclusions from them would be very
> difficult.
> I think with reference to the timing of all of this, good
> science does take time, and it's part of one of the messages I feel
> like I've learned from the feedback that we've gotten from parents
> groups this summer (in) struggling with developing a more robust and a
> faster research agenda, is let's speed this up. Let's look for the
> early studies that could give us at least some hypotheses to test and
> evaluate and get information flowing through the research pipeline as
> quickly as we can.
> So we are committed to doing that, and as I mentioned, in terms
> of just measuring the frequency of autism in the population some
> pretty big steps have been taken. We're careful not to jump ahead of
> our data, but we think we will be able to provide more accurate
> information in the next year or so than we've been able to do up to
> this point. And I know that is our responsibility.
> We've also benefited from some increased investments in these
> areas that have allowed us to do this, and so we thank Congress and we
> thank the administration for supporting those investments, not just at
> CDC but also at NIH and FDA.
> --
> The latest response to my pesky persistence comes not from
> academia or government but from my own profession. Last week the
> prestigious Columbia Journalism Review published an article whose main
> thrust -- with which I concur -- was that a vigorous debate over a
> possible link between vaccines and autism was being thwarted by the
> self-induced timidity of the press.
> Some reporters told the author, Daniel Schulman, that they have
> basically given up on the story because the criticism -- some of it
> from their own editors -- was so fierce, and the story was so
> complicated.
> Schulman described Age of Autism's efforts to come at the issue
> "sideways," looking for possible clues to the cause of the disorder in
> the natural history of autism. And he mentioned our reporting on the
> Amish:
> "Privately, two reporters told me that, while intriguing,
> Olmsted's reporting on the Amish is misguided, since it may simply
> reflect genetic differences among an isolated gene pool. ... Both
> reporters believed that Olmsted has made up his mind on the question
> and is reporting the facts that support his conclusions."
> Ouch. Being slammed by one's peers is never enjoyable, although
> reporters need to have thick skins and realize they dish this kind of
> thing out every day. (And those anonymous sources really are annoying,
> especially when I am happy to be quoted by name about everything.)
> What's interesting about the reporters' "private" remarks is the
> degree of presumed expertise they suggest -- that looking at the Amish
> is misguided "since it may simply reflect genetic differences among an
> isolated gene pool." Really? Where did these guys get their doctorate
> in genetics, Harvard?
> This assertion -- that the Amish gene pool could explain
> everything, based on no data that I'm aware of -- is the kind of
> self-interested speculation masquerading as expertise that has beset
> the autism-vaccines discussion for far too long. The term I learned
> for it long ago is "convenient reasoning," and it does not always have
> to be conscious.
> The Amish have all kinds of standard genetic mental and
> developmental disorders -- from bipolar to retardation -- and a lot
> more genetic issues to boot from this supposedly protective "isolated
> gene pool." The doctors who actually know something about the Amish
> have never suggested to me that genes have anything to do with a low
> rate of autism. They seem perplexed.
> In upcoming columns, we'll put that question to the right people
> -- geneticists -- and tell you what we find. It's called reporting.
> --
> This ongoing series on the roots and rise of autism welcomes
> reader response. E-mail:
>

[Coleah]

"CWatters" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ilena Rose" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> What is the problem with quickly and firmly establishing that
>> the autism rate is about the same everywhere and for everybody in the
>> United States, vaccinated or unvaccinated?
>
> ..because you would need to control for a lot of other factors. For
> example... Parents who don't vaccinate their kids might be less likely to
> smoke. If parental smoking caused Autism the results would be misleading
> if
> you didn't control for that. The author claims that the Amish have lower
> rates of Autism but is that because they are unvaccinated or because they
> live in the countryside away from poluted cities? What about mobile phone
> masts? If the parents of unvaccinated children choose not to live near
> phone masts then how would you seperate out the effect (if any) of the
> masts?
>
> This is one of the reasons that the results of previous studies has been
> debated so much - it's allways possible to find something that the study
> hasn't controlled for.
===========================

Pin pointing the causes 100%, is difficult at best.
As you indicated, there could be other factors which come into play which
are not being considered. Having grown up in the age when vaccinations for
all children were desirable to prevent damaging diseases, I don't recall
observing an abundance of Autism in kids. It wasn't until recent years that
the theory came about associating it with vaccinations.

Personally, I think Autism is more of a random family gene that pops
up......or perhaps with many more years of intense study it may be found
(surprise!) that all mothers of Autistic kids had a similar experience of
viewing a bad TV commercial of a balding car salesmen in a mismatched plaid
suit hawking old junkers with his pet skunk.

The jury is still out on nailing the exact 'cause'.

[LadyLollipop]

"Mark Probert" > wrote in message
...
> Ilena Rose wrote:
>> I have no doubt that the Barrett/Quack/Rag-tag Posse of failures like
>> Probert will attack this respected journalist ...
>
> No one from the newsgroup has to. It was done here, by a professional
> journalist who was commenting on Olmsted's faulty methodology.

I'm glad you respect him.

He believes is <GASP>

Alternative medicine!

http://www.acupuncturepei.com/daniel-schulman.html

Publications on Acupuncture, Oriental Medicine and Alternative Medicine

Schulman D. Case Study Report: Migraines Following a Hysterectomy. North
American Journal of Oriental Medicine. March, 2001: Volume 8 (21); Pages
18-19.

Schulman D. The Best of All Worlds. Towards an Integrated Health Care System
Model. Submission to Commission on Future of Health Care in Canada. Prince
Edward Island Association for Integrative Medicine. 2002.

Schulman D. A Framework for Classifying Unpleasant Responses to Acupuncture.
The Journal of Chinese Medicine. June, 2004: Volume 75; Pages 10-16.

Schulman D. Is 'Energy Medicine' A Good Label for Acupuncture? Guest
Editorial. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. June, 2004:
Volume 10 (3); Pages 7-10.

Schulman D. The Unexpected Outcomes of Acupuncture. Case Reports in Support
of Refocused Research Designs. Journal of Alternative and Complementary
Medicine; October, 2004: Volume 10 (5) In Press.

Schulman D. Gold Standard or Fool's Gold. Staking Our Own Claim on the
Evidence-Based Medicine Map. North American Journal of Oriental Medicine.
November, 2004: Volume 11(32) In Press.

Schulman D. Is An Acupuncture Meridian a Real Thing? Complementary Therapies
in Medicine. 2004. Submitted.

Schulman D. Towards an Acupuncture-Friendly Research Design. Plausibility,
Efficacy and Safety Reframed. 2005. In Preparation.


>
> http://www.cjr.org/issues/2005/6/schulman.asp:
>
> "Privately, two reporters told me that, while intriguing, Olmsted's
> reporting on the Amish is misguided, since it may simply reflect genetic
> differences among an isolated gene pool (Hornig, however, said that a
> study on the Amish may still be valuable should the prevalence of autism
> in that community indeed be low, allowing researchers to study the
> genetics of people who are not susceptible to the disorder). Both
> reporters believed that Olmsted has made up his mind on the question and
> is reporting the facts that support his conclusions."
>
>> See them lined up here:
>
>> http://web.archive.org/web/20040610090503/http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm
>
> A fine bunch of criticl thinkers.
>
>> The Age of Autism: The Amish Elephant
>> By Dan Olmsted
>> UPI Senior Editor
>> Oct. 29, 2005 at 2:34PM A specter is haunting the medical and journalism
>> establishments of the
>> United States: Where are the unvaccinated people with autism? That is
>> just about the only way to explain what now appears to
>> be a collective resistance to considering that question. And like all
>> unanswered questions, this raises another one: Why? What is the problem
>> with quickly and firmly establishing that
>> the autism rate is about the same everywhere and for everybody in the
>> United States, vaccinated or unvaccinated? Wouldn't that stop all the
>> scientifically illiterate chatter by parents who believe vaccinations
>> made their children autistic? Wouldn't it put to rest concerns that --
>> despite the removal of a mercury-containing preservative in most U.S.
>> vaccines -- hundreds of millions of children in the developing world
>> are possibly at risk if that preservative is in fact linked to autism?
>> Calling this issue The Amish Elephant reflects reporting earlier
>> this year in Age of Autism that the largely unvaccinated Amish may
>> have a relatively low rate of autism. That apparent dissimilarity is,
>> in effect, a proverbial elephant in the living room -- studiously
>> ignored by people who don't want to deal with it and don't believe
>> they will have to. Here are a few cases in point. Earlier this month the
>> National Consumers League conference in
>> Washington held a session on communicating issues around vaccine
>> safety. I was on the panel and talked about the Amish and autism. In
>> the Q&A session that followed, the first question was for me. "Is this a
>> proper role for a journalist, or is this just a straw
>> dog set up there with a preliminary answer? It not only showed up
>> where you wrote it. It was all over the place. You did very, very well
>> for UPI (at which point I said, 'Thank you -- please tell my bosses
>> that!') but the question is, did you do very, very well for America? "Is
>> it appropriate for a journalist -- you weren't reporting,
>> you were investigating. And I just wonder if you think it's an
>> appropriate role for you to play." My answer: "There's different roles
>> for the press. That's
>> certainly a reasonable question. That is investigative reporting. This
>> idea is something that's already been discarded -- that there's any
>> reason why you would want to look in an unvaccinated population. "One of
>> my favorite comments about journalism is that it's the
>> wild card of American democracy. The First Amendment says we can do
>> (in the sense of reporting about) whatever we want. So one of our
>> privileges is to get an idea in our head and go look at it." My
>> questioner was not finished. "I wasn't questioning whether
>> you have a First Amendment right to do it. I think this is more of a
>> question of the ethics, of what value we are bringing to the debate." My
>> response: "That's probably not a good one for me to answer.
>> Obviously I thought it was ethical." At that point a fellow panelist, Dr.
>> Louis Cooper, former
>> president of the American Academy of Pediatrics and a staunch vaccine
>> defender, spoke up. "I would jump in and say I thought it was ethical
>> and I think it was useful," said Cooper, a courtly and unfailingly
>> courteous Manhattan pediatrician. "As you've learned, it was annoying to
>> many people. I wasn't
>> annoyed by it because I thought you kept the process and the debate
>> and the discussion going forward. And we have to do that for one
>> another." That did not end the discussion. A few minutes later a
>> public-health professor from -- where else? Harvard -- did her own
>> version of Jeopardy!, offering the correct "answer" in the form of a
>> question. "This question is for Dan. Did you mention the outbreak of
>> polio
>> that happened in the Amish community in the Netherlands that caused
>> widespread problems there, and also the fact that there'd been some
>> context with respect to history in our country in trying to reach out
>> to the Amish to actually encourage them to try to benefit from some of
>> the vaccine technology to the extent that we could? "So there's been a
>> long history in this country of the CDC
>> trying to reach out to them to the extent that they could. Also with
>> respect to polio, I think what's really amazing is it's such a great
>> story, this is such an exciting time, in the sense that we are very
>> close to global eradication. What that means is we've gone from 1988
>> when we had 350,000 estimated paralytic polio cases in the world every
>> year to roughly a thousand. It's very exciting that in fact we don't
>> have the terror or the hysteria and all of the fear that surrounded
>> disease. "I just want to remind everyone that one thing that's very
>> important in the context of reporting these stories is making sure
>> that people do remember and also realize with infectious disease is
>> these things can come back, and until they are eradicated they can
>> come back and devastate us just as much as they did before, except now
>> there are a lot more people. "There's some related news that people might
>> find interesting. A
>> headline in the Washington Post today, 'Polio outbreak occurs among
>> Amish families.' So I thought people might be interested in that." At
>> that point the moderator, Dr. Roger Bernier of the Centers
>> for Disease Control, said time was getting short -- why was I not
>> surprised? -- and asked for the next "question." One thing I've noticed
>> is the more that people want to lecture
>> instead of learn, the more they speak in breathless run-on sentences
>> that are hard to stop, slow down or even diagram. They leave one with
>> the unspoken idea that dialogue -- opening the door to new information
>> -- is somehow dangerous. These exchanges reminded me of the response I
>> got from Dr. Julie
>> Gerberding, the CDC director, when I asked her this summer, verbatim:
>> "Has the government ever looked at the autism rate in an unvaccinated
>> U.S. population, and if not, why not?" Her answer, verbatim: --
>> In this country, we have very high levels of vaccination as you
>> probably know, and I think this year we have record immunization
>> levels among all of our children, so to (select an unvaccinated group)
>> that on a population basis would be representative to look at
>> incidence in that population compared to the other population would be
>> something that could be done. But as we're learning, just trying to look
>> at autism in a
>> community the size of Atlanta, it's very, very difficult to get an
>> effective numerator and denominator to get a reliable diagnosis. I think
>> those kind of studies could be done and should be done.
>> You'd have to adjust for the strong genetic component that also
>> distinguishes, for example, people in Amish communities who may elect
>> not to be immunized (and) also have genetic connectivity that would
>> make them different from populations that are in other sectors of the
>> United States. So drawing some conclusions from them would be very
>> difficult. I think with reference to the timing of all of this, good
>> science does take time, and it's part of one of the messages I feel
>> like I've learned from the feedback that we've gotten from parents
>> groups this summer (in) struggling with developing a more robust and a
>> faster research agenda, is let's speed this up. Let's look for the
>> early studies that could give us at least some hypotheses to test and
>> evaluate and get information flowing through the research pipeline as
>> quickly as we can. So we are committed to doing that, and as I mentioned,
>> in terms
>> of just measuring the frequency of autism in the population some
>> pretty big steps have been taken. We're careful not to jump ahead of
>> our data, but we think we will be able to provide more accurate
>> information in the next year or so than we've been able to do up to
>> this point. And I know that is our responsibility. We've also benefited
>> from some increased investments in these
>> areas that have allowed us to do this, and so we thank Congress and we
>> thank the administration for supporting those investments, not just at
>> CDC but also at NIH and FDA. --
>> The latest response to my pesky persistence comes not from
>> academia or government but from my own profession. Last week the
>> prestigious Columbia Journalism Review published an article whose main
>> thrust -- with which I concur -- was that a vigorous debate over a
>> possible link between vaccines and autism was being thwarted by the
>> self-induced timidity of the press. Some reporters told the author,
>> Daniel Schulman, that they have
>> basically given up on the story because the criticism -- some of it
>> from their own editors -- was so fierce, and the story was so
>> complicated. Schulman described Age of Autism's efforts to come at the
>> issue
>> "sideways," looking for possible clues to the cause of the disorder in
>> the natural history of autism. And he mentioned our reporting on the
>> Amish: "Privately, two reporters told me that, while intriguing,
>> Olmsted's reporting on the Amish is misguided, since it may simply
>> reflect genetic differences among an isolated gene pool. ... Both
>> reporters believed that Olmsted has made up his mind on the question
>> and is reporting the facts that support his conclusions." Ouch. Being
>> slammed by one's peers is never enjoyable, although
>> reporters need to have thick skins and realize they dish this kind of
>> thing out every day. (And those anonymous sources really are annoying,
>> especially when I am happy to be quoted by name about everything.) What's
>> interesting about the reporters' "private" remarks is the
>> degree of presumed expertise they suggest -- that looking at the Amish
>> is misguided "since it may simply reflect genetic differences among an
>> isolated gene pool." Really? Where did these guys get their doctorate
>> in genetics, Harvard? This assertion -- that the Amish gene pool could
>> explain
>> everything, based on no data that I'm aware of -- is the kind of
>> self-interested speculation masquerading as expertise that has beset
>> the autism-vaccines discussion for far too long. The term I learned
>> for it long ago is "convenient reasoning," and it does not always have
>> to be conscious. The Amish have all kinds of standard genetic mental and
>> developmental disorders -- from bipolar to retardation -- and a lot
>> more genetic issues to boot from this supposedly protective "isolated
>> gene pool." The doctors who actually know something about the Amish
>> have never suggested to me that genes have anything to do with a low
>> rate of autism. They seem perplexed. In upcoming columns, we'll put that
>> question to the right people
>> -- geneticists -- and tell you what we find. It's called reporting. --
>> This ongoing series on the roots and rise of autism welcomes
>> reader response. E-mail:
>>

[Mark Probert]

LadyLollipop wrote:
> "Mark Probert" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Ilena Rose wrote:
>>
>>>I have no doubt that the Barrett/Quack/Rag-tag Posse of failures like
>>>Probert will attack this respected journalist ...
>>
>>No one from the newsgroup has to. It was done here, by a professional
>>journalist who was commenting on Olmsted's faulty methodology.
>
>
> I'm glad you respect him.
>
> He believes is <GASP>
>
> Alternative medicine!

So? However, I do not accept everything anyone says, even if I highly
respect them.

Now, back to his critquie of Olmsted....obviously Shulman has standards,
and Olmsted was just too much of a sloppy "researcher" for him.

[LadyLollipop]

"Mark Probert" > wrote in message
...
> LadyLollipop wrote:
>> "Mark Probert" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Ilena Rose wrote:
>>>
>>>>I have no doubt that the Barrett/Quack/Rag-tag Posse of failures like
>>>>Probert will attack this respected journalist ...
>>>
>>>No one from the newsgroup has to. It was done here, by a professional
>>>journalist who was commenting on Olmsted's faulty methodology.
>>
>>
>> I'm glad you respect him.
>>
>> He believes is <GASP>
>>
>> Alternative medicine!
>
> So?

So, you can't take a compliment?

However, I do not accept everything anyone says, even if I highly
> respect them.
>
> Now, back to his critquie of Olmsted....obviously Shulman has standards,
> and Olmsted was just too much of a sloppy "researcher" for him.
>

[Mark Probert]

LadyLollipop wrote:
> "Mark Probert" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>LadyLollipop wrote:
>>
>>>"Mark Probert" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ilena Rose wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I have no doubt that the Barrett/Quack/Rag-tag Posse of failures like
>>>>>Probert will attack this respected journalist ...
>>>>
>>>>No one from the newsgroup has to. It was done here, by a professional
>>>>journalist who was commenting on Olmsted's faulty methodology.
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm glad you respect him.
>>>
>>>He believes is <GASP>
>>>
>>>Alternative medicine!
>>
>>So?
>
>
> So, you can't take a compliment?

From you?

Please keep your compliments to yourself. I prefer your being your usual
rotten and nasty self.

>
> However, I do not accept everything anyone says, even if I highly
>>respect them.
>>
>>Now, back to his critquie of Olmsted....obviously Shulman has standards,
>>and Olmsted was just too much of a sloppy "researcher" for him.

[[email protected]]

Mark Probert wrote:
> Ilena Rose wrote:
> > I have no doubt that the Barrett/Quack/Rag-tag Posse of failures like
> > Probert will attack this respected journalist ...
>
> No one from the newsgroup has to. It was done here, by a professional
> journalist who was commenting on Olmsted's faulty methodology.
>
> http://www.cjr.org/issues/2005/6/schulman.asp:
>
> "Privately, two reporters told me that, while intriguing, Olmsted's
> reporting on the Amish is misguided, since it may simply reflect genetic
> differences among an isolated gene pool (Hornig, however, said that a

The "two reporters" probably realized that they were not very
good in the thinking-straight department, perhaps no
better than "Schulman", hence the "privately."

They say it "may" reflect genetic differences. But we are not
talking of a steady-state situation here. We are talking about
something that developed suddenly in the late 80's and 90's.

Supposing the cause is "increased" detection, then clearly there
is material for further investigation here: did the Amish
physicians miss out on the circular for increased detection?
Was there a problem with the postal system in Amish areas
at that time?

Why would all the non-Amish genes certainly start to
express themselves differently? And at the same time?
Was this some kind of mass-conspiracy among the non-Amish
genes?

The Amish study clearly provides additional data, that can
obviously be helpful in verifying/falsifying various
hypothesese wrt Autism. (Unless, of course, one is
biased and/or extremely gullible or has an agenda.)

[Mark Probert]

wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
>
>>Ilena Rose wrote:
>>
>>>I have no doubt that the Barrett/Quack/Rag-tag Posse of failures like
>>>Probert will attack this respected journalist ...
>>
>>No one from the newsgroup has to. It was done here, by a professional
>>journalist who was commenting on Olmsted's faulty methodology.
>>
>>http://www.cjr.org/issues/2005/6/schulman.asp:
>>
>>"Privately, two reporters told me that, while intriguing, Olmsted's
>>reporting on the Amish is misguided, since it may simply reflect genetic
>>differences among an isolated gene pool (Hornig, however, said that a
>
>
> The "two reporters" probably realized that they were not very
> good in the thinking-straight department, perhaps no
> better than "Schulman", hence the "privately."
>
> They say it "may" reflect genetic differences. But we are not
> talking of a steady-state situation here. We are talking about
> something that developed suddenly in the late 80's and 90's.

Who is this 'we' kemo sabe?

In the 1980's and 1990's the world finally awakened to the I.D.E.A. that
children were not learning for a reason. Then, they began looking for
this reason.

> Supposing the cause is "increased" detection, then clearly there
> is material for further investigation here: did the Amish
> physicians miss out on the circular for increased detection?

Why assume that the increase was physician driven? Clearly, the child
had to have demonstrated some form of problem to be taken to the
physician/clinician for evaluation. Perhaps this occured in the schools.

However, are Amish children schooled in the same manner as the rest of
the population? I'll let you look that up. Hint" That system is unlikely
to find special education students.

> Was there a problem with the postal system in Amish areas
> at that time?
>
> Why would all the non-Amish genes certainly start to
> express themselves differently? And at the same time?
> Was this some kind of mass-conspiracy among the non-Amish
> genes?

I'll leave that to your fantasizing. They do have a static gene pool.

> The Amish study clearly provides additional data, that can
> obviously be helpful in verifying/falsifying various
> hypothesese wrt Autism. (Unless, of course, one is
> biased and/or extremely gullible or has an agenda.)

If one is open minded, and bothers to look at all factors, one sees that
this is an utterly bull**** argument. The proponents of it have their
agenda, which is confabulation driven.

[[email protected]]

Mark Probert wrote:
> > They say it "may" reflect genetic differences. But we are not
> > talking of a steady-state situation here. We are talking about
> > something that developed suddenly in the late 80's and 90's.
>
> Who is this 'we' kemo sabe?

A reading of the text would indicate the "we" was
I and everybody who was "talking about..." -- I would have
much preferred not to include you in this "we", but
I see you have included yourself.

> > Supposing the cause is "increased" detection, then clearly there
> > is material for further investigation here: did the Amish
> > physicians miss out on the circular for increased detection?
>
> Why assume that the increase was physician driven? Clearly, the child
> had to have demonstrated some form of problem to be taken to the
> physician/clinician for evaluation. Perhaps this occured in the schools.
>
> However, are Amish children schooled in the same manner as the rest of
> the population? I'll let you look that up. Hint" That system is unlikely
> to find special education students.

Sure, that's possible and therefore a reasonable hypothesis.

Hint" (1) Hypotheses are meant to be further investigated. (2) They
are
not definitely known to be true. (3) They should not be suppressed.

> > Why would all the non-Amish genes certainly start to
> > express themselves differently? And at the same time?
> > Was this some kind of mass-conspiracy among the non-Amish
> > genes?
>
> I'll leave that to your fantasizing. They do have a static gene pool.

So that should be worse, rather than better.

> > The Amish study clearly provides additional data, that can
> > obviously be helpful in verifying/falsifying various
> > hypothesese wrt Autism. (Unless, of course, one is
> > biased and/or extremely gullible or has an agenda.)
>
> If one is open minded, and bothers to look at all factors, one sees that
> this is an utterly bull**** argument. The proponents of it have their
> agenda, which is confabulation driven.

It's utterly bulli**** that the Amish provide "additional data"?

And one arrives at that by being "open minded"? As "open
minded" as yourself, I presume?

[Vaccine-man]

wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
> > I'll leave that to your fantasizing. They do have a static gene pool.
>
> So that should be worse, rather than better.

What makes you say that? If, as a population, they do not possess
alleles for autisms, then there would be a lower incidence (or none at
all).

[[email protected]]

Vaccine-man wrote:
> wrote:
> > Mark Probert wrote:
> > > I'll leave that to your fantasizing. They do have a static gene pool.
> >
> > So that should be worse, rather than better.
>
> What makes you say that? If, as a population, they do not possess
> alleles for autisms, then there would be a lower incidence (or none at
> all).

That's already assuming it's a phenotype and not environmental.
That's possible, of course -- I am not into political suppression
of hypotheses, unlike the vaccine men. However, the observed
behavior of the disease is that it exploded in late 80's and early
90's.
That argues against your hypothesis.

As to why I said it would be "worse", that's standard
likelihood for static gene pools. Bad genes not getting
weeded out, "loss of vigor" etc. If there were an autism
allele, a static gene pool would be the least defended
against it. Its only hope would be never having
had a single instance in the initial pool to begin with.

[Vaccine-man]

wrote:
> Vaccine-man wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > Mark Probert wrote:
> > > > I'll leave that to your fantasizing. They do have a static gene pool.
> > >
> > > So that should be worse, rather than better.
> >
> > What makes you say that? If, as a population, they do not possess
> > alleles for autisms, then there would be a lower incidence (or none at
> > all).
>
> That's already assuming it's a phenotype and not environmental.

It is a reasonable assumption that environmental factors act on
genotype to influence phenotype. Search OMIM for 'autism':

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=OMIM

It looks like there are a couple dozen candidate genes (and many
alleles) for autisms.

> That's possible, of course -- I am not into political suppression
> of hypotheses, unlike the vaccine men.

Opinion not founded in fact.

> However, the observed
> behavior of the disease is that it exploded in late 80's and early
> 90's.
> That argues against your hypothesis.

In what way? Has the incidence of autisms changed in Amish populations
in the last 50 years? Can you provide a mechanistic explanation for the
supposed role of vaccination for the increased incidence of autisms?

> As to why I said it would be "worse", that's standard
> likelihood for static gene pools.

This is an inaccurate statement. If there are no "autism alleles" in
Amish populations (a closed gene pool) then the only way for an autism
allele to arise is through mutation. This is a central tenet of
Hardy-Weinberg. In this context, the Amish would not be susceptible to
autisms since there is no genetic predisposition in the population.
This does not mean they cannot suffer from other genetic disorders at a
frequency higher than the general population (which they,
unfortunately, seem to have a lot of), only that they would not be as
susceptible to autisms.

> Bad genes not getting
> weeded out, "loss of vigor" etc. If there were an autism
> allele, a static gene pool would be the least defended
> against it.

This is not true. If it's a closed population (that is, Amish do not
marry outside the Amish community), then there is no way for an autism
allele to arise, except by mutation, which would be an extremely rare
event.

> Its only hope would be never having
> had a single instance in the initial pool to begin with.

And why can't this be a possibility? Are you familiar with the Founder
Effect?

[HCN]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Vaccine-man wrote:
>> wrote:
>> > Mark Probert wrote:
>> > > I'll leave that to your fantasizing. They do have a static gene pool.
>> >
>> > So that should be worse, rather than better.
>>
>> What makes you say that? If, as a population, they do not possess
>> alleles for autisms, then there would be a lower incidence (or none at
>> all).
>
> That's already assuming it's a phenotype and not environmental.
> That's possible, of course -- I am not into political suppression
> of hypotheses, unlike the vaccine men. However, the observed
> behavior of the disease is that it exploded in late 80's and early
> 90's.
> That argues against your hypothesis.
>
> As to why I said it would be "worse", that's standard
> likelihood for static gene pools. Bad genes not getting
> weeded out, "loss of vigor" etc. If there were an autism
> allele, a static gene pool would be the least defended
> against it. Its only hope would be never having
> had a single instance in the initial pool to begin with.
>

So how to you count something in a time (like the 1970's) before there is
even an agreement of what the definition is? Before DSM IV there was no
concise definition of many of the things NOW called "autism". There was a
time not too long ago that schools did not even have the diagnosis of
"autism" in their list of disabilities
(http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/116/1/e120 , "Only
data from 1993 and later were used, as autism was not reported separately
until 1992 and mandatory reporting did not begin until 1993"). Also, the
definition of some autistic types did not exist until DSM IV
(http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0902/is_3_29/ai_76558499 ).

I have a teenage son who has a severe neurologically based speech disorder.
Back when he was getting diagnosed, early intervention speech therapy and
enrolled in a special ed. preschool program about 12 years ago it was often
very difficult to get kids like him evaluated and treated. We were lucky
because our family doctor refered him for speech therapy when he was two
(having a history of seizures also meant there was a strong possibility of
neuro-damage). We have met many other parents (in speech therapy waiting
rooms and those that had kids in the special ed. program) who were not so
lucky. More often then not their doctor would give the "wait and see" line.
One of the speech therapists at school told me that every year they would
get a child in kindergarten who could not even speak at all... these kids
needed lots of work to catch up (if they could).

From attending parent programs put on by the special ed. program my son
started at, to being online for over ten years with various disability
forums I have seen an incredible change in attitude. Ten years ago it was
very difficult to get many pediatricians to refer kids with speech/language
problems (it didn't help that some professor of ECONOMICS wrote a stupid
book about "late-talking" kids which made them sound like future Einsteins
and disregarded the value of early intervention --- something his son
actually GOT!)... to now where almost every teeny tiny nuance of
developement is looked at with a microscope and lots of kids are being
called "autistic" (including a son of a friend of mine... a kid that just
does not fit the autistic spectrum from my perspective).

There has definitely been an increase of awareness.

Plus, the Amish are a small gene pool with their own problems (including a
genetic disorder that causes sudden infant death):
http://www.clinicforspecialchildren.org/research.html

[[email protected]]

Vaccine-man wrote:

> > That's possible, of course -- I am not into political suppression
> > of hypotheses, unlike the vaccine men.
>
> Opinion not founded in fact.

Eh? See the end of this message.

> > However, the observed
> > behavior of the disease is that it exploded in late 80's and early
> > 90's.
> > That argues against your hypothesis.
>
> In what way? Has the incidence of autisms changed in Amish populations
> in the last 50 years? Can you provide a mechanistic explanation for the
> supposed role of vaccination for the increased incidence of autisms?

If there was an explosion of a disease at a point of time,
environmental
factors would need to be involved. A genetic disease would stay
roughly at similar levels.

> > As to why I said it would be "worse", that's standard
> > likelihood for static gene pools.
>
> This is an inaccurate statement. If there are no "autism alleles" in
> Amish populations (a closed gene pool) then the only way for an autism
> allele to arise is through mutation. This is a central tenet of
> Hardy-Weinberg. In this context, the Amish would not be susceptible to
> autisms since there is no genetic predisposition in the population.
> This does not mean they cannot suffer from other genetic disorders at a
> frequency higher than the general population (which they,
> unfortunately, seem to have a lot of), only that they would not be as
> susceptible to autisms.
>
> > Bad genes not getting
> > weeded out, "loss of vigor" etc. If there were an autism
> > allele, a static gene pool would be the least defended
> > against it.
>
> This is not true. If it's a closed population (that is, Amish do not
> marry outside the Amish community), then there is no way for an autism
> allele to arise, except by mutation, which would be an extremely rare
> event.

The initial Amish would have to be substantially different from the
rest of the population, so the initial pool would have included
not a single allele. Or substantially small and skewed.

> > Its only hope would be never having
> > had a single instance in the initial pool to begin with.
>
> And why can't this be a possibility? Are you familiar with the Founder
> Effect?

Well, was the intial Amish population small enough for a Founder
Effect? I don't know, that's why I said your hypothesis could be
further
investigated and probabilities established.

Now if you could similarly examine and point out to me why
the hypothesis "mercury could be causing autism" was not worthy of
further (or initial) investigation in any single respected journal?
And if a hypothesis is not worthy enough for publication,
how come the most contrived refutation is worthy enough?
If Hviid's data deserves publication (without even asking
for any further defense against allegations that the data was bad),
why was the original data not so publicized?

Before you jump into why the original hypothesis is not correct -- I am
not asking about that at all. I am asking about why the hypothesis
was not well publicized?

[[email protected]]

HCN wrote:

> So how to you count something in a time (like the 1970's) before there is
> even an agreement of what the definition is? Before DSM IV there was no

It's imprecise, but can be done. Talk to (honest) pediatricians,
school teachers and such who have been around for a while.

You will find a general consensus (in the USA) that something
has definitely gone wrong over this time period.

While there have been developmental problems in children for quite
a while, the number has exploded since late 80's and early 90's.
I don't mean to imply that all problems fall in the new category. But
if do you encounter a problem that doesn't fall in the new category,
that doesn't negate others' experiences either.

[Coleah]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Vaccine-man wrote:
>
>> > That's possible, of course -- I am not into political suppression
>> > of hypotheses, unlike the vaccine men.
>>
>> Opinion not founded in fact.
>
> Eh? See the end of this message.
>
>> > However, the observed
>> > behavior of the disease is that it exploded in late 80's and early
>> > 90's.
>> > That argues against your hypothesis.
>>
>> In what way? Has the incidence of autisms changed in Amish populations
>> in the last 50 years? Can you provide a mechanistic explanation for the
>> supposed role of vaccination for the increased incidence of autisms?
>
> If there was an explosion of a disease at a point of time,
> environmental
> factors would need to be involved. A genetic disease would stay
> roughly at similar levels.

What mind altering drugs were their parents
taking in the 60's and 70's ???? Gene damage ????

[[email protected]]

Coleah wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > Vaccine-man wrote:
> >
> >> > That's possible, of course -- I am not into political suppression
> >> > of hypotheses, unlike the vaccine men.
> >>
> >> Opinion not founded in fact.
> >
> > Eh? See the end of this message.
> >
> >> > However, the observed
> >> > behavior of the disease is that it exploded in late 80's and early
> >> > 90's.
> >> > That argues against your hypothesis.
> >>
> >> In what way? Has the incidence of autisms changed in Amish populations
> >> in the last 50 years? Can you provide a mechanistic explanation for the
> >> supposed role of vaccination for the increased incidence of autisms?
> >
> > If there was an explosion of a disease at a point of time,
> > environmental
> > factors would need to be involved. A genetic disease would stay
> > roughly at similar levels.
>
> What mind altering drugs were their parents
> taking in the 60's and 70's ???? Gene damage ????

If that were the case, the "autism epidemic" would
have started in late 60's or early or late 70's at the most.

[[email protected]]

HCN wrote:

> So how to you count something in a time (like the 1970's) before there is
> even an agreement of what the definition is? Before DSM IV there was no

Btw, the DSM IV wasn't published until 1991. Autism explosion
goes back earlier than that.

Chances are, the refinement of autism criteria in DSM IV were
in response to a demand from practioners in the field, who
were seeing something and were asking for better guidelines.

[Coleah]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Coleah wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> > Vaccine-man wrote:
>> >
>> >> > That's possible, of course -- I am not into political suppression
>> >> > of hypotheses, unlike the vaccine men.
>> >>
>> >> Opinion not founded in fact.
>> >
>> > Eh? See the end of this message.
>> >
>> >> > However, the observed
>> >> > behavior of the disease is that it exploded in late 80's and early
>> >> > 90's.
>> >> > That argues against your hypothesis.
>> >>
>> >> In what way? Has the incidence of autisms changed in Amish populations
>> >> in the last 50 years? Can you provide a mechanistic explanation for
>> >> the
>> >> supposed role of vaccination for the increased incidence of autisms?
>> >
>> > If there was an explosion of a disease at a point of time,
>> > environmental
>> > factors would need to be involved. A genetic disease would stay
>> > roughly at similar levels.
>>
>> What mind altering drugs were their parents
>> taking in the 60's and 70's ???? Gene damage ????
>
> If that were the case, the "autism epidemic" would
> have started in late 60's or early or late 70's at the most.

Unless the kids born during those years got damaged
genes to pass on, that didn't necessarily affect themselves.

What else could all the families affected have in common
besides baby shots that have been given for decades before
the dramatic increase in Autism emerged?

There are lot's more questions than conclusive answers
that we as a society have.

[[email protected]]

Coleah wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > Coleah wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ups.com...
> >> > Vaccine-man wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > That's possible, of course -- I am not into political suppression
> >> >> > of hypotheses, unlike the vaccine men.
> >> >>
> >> >> Opinion not founded in fact.
> >> >
> >> > Eh? See the end of this message.
> >> >
> >> >> > However, the observed
> >> >> > behavior of the disease is that it exploded in late 80's and early
> >> >> > 90's.
> >> >> > That argues against your hypothesis.
> >> >>
> >> >> In what way? Has the incidence of autisms changed in Amish populations
> >> >> in the last 50 years? Can you provide a mechanistic explanation for
> >> >> the
> >> >> supposed role of vaccination for the increased incidence of autisms?
> >> >
> >> > If there was an explosion of a disease at a point of time,
> >> > environmental
> >> > factors would need to be involved. A genetic disease would stay
> >> > roughly at similar levels.
> >>
> >> What mind altering drugs were their parents
> >> taking in the 60's and 70's ???? Gene damage ????
> >
> > If that were the case, the "autism epidemic" would
> > have started in late 60's or early or late 70's at the most.
>
> Unless the kids born during those years got damaged
> genes to pass on, that didn't necessarily affect themselves.

That's quite a stretch. You would need amazing
synchronization of marriages, pregnancies, births,
to get that to happen simultaneously.

> What else could all the families affected have in common
> besides baby shots that have been given for decades before
> the dramatic increase in Autism emerged?

It's easy to test for that one (and drugs as well) by
testing recent immigrants. They all get baby shots.
But no other factors would be common in the
parental history.

[Mark Probert]

wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
>
>>>They say it "may" reflect genetic differences. But we are not
>>>talking of a steady-state situation here. We are talking about
>>>something that developed suddenly in the late 80's and 90's.
>>
>>Who is this 'we' kemo sabe?
>
> A reading of the text would indicate the "we" was
> I and everybody who was "talking about..." -- I would have
> much preferred not to include you in this "we", but
> I see you have included yourself.

You must be young...

The comment was based on an old story where the Lone Ranger and Tonto
see the entire Comanche nation, who are on the warpath, heading in their
direction.

The LR turns to Tonto and says. "We are in big trouble!"

Tonto responds and says,"Who is this "We", Kemo Sabe?"

And, thank you for the gratuitous snideness. As expected.

>>>Supposing the cause is "increased" detection, then clearly there
>>>is material for further investigation here: did the Amish
>>>physicians miss out on the circular for increased detection?
>>
>>Why assume that the increase was physician driven? Clearly, the child
>>had to have demonstrated some form of problem to be taken to the
>>physician/clinician for evaluation. Perhaps this occured in the schools.
>>
>>However, are Amish children schooled in the same manner as the rest of
>>the population? I'll let you look that up. Hint" That system is unlikely
>>to find special education students.
>
> Sure, that's possible and therefore a reasonable hypothesis.
>
> Hint" (1) Hypotheses are meant to be further investigated. (2) They
> are
> not definitely known to be true. (3) They should not be suppressed.

Yes, hypotheses are meant to be investigated. Take a look how Amish
education is delivered in the US. They are actually *exempt* from the
mandatory attendance laws, and, by extension, I would suspect that they
would also be exempt from I.D.E.A. Thus, the Aspergers, etc. would fit
in with their culture and not be readily identified as having a LD.

Considering that I am familiar with the special education laws, and with
the nature of Amish education, I would suggest that my hypothese is
highly likely.

>>>Why would all the non-Amish genes certainly start to
>>>express themselves differently? And at the same time?
>>>Was this some kind of mass-conspiracy among the non-Amish
>>>genes?
>>
>>I'll leave that to your fantasizing. They do have a static gene pool.

> So that should be worse, rather than better.

No, it would not be worse. Since there is a very strong genetic
component to Autism, and several other LD's, the fact that Autism is
rare among the Amish would imply that the genetic pool does not have the
genes for Autism.

>>>The Amish study clearly provides additional data, that can
>>>obviously be helpful in verifying/falsifying various
>>>hypothesese wrt Autism. (Unless, of course, one is
>>>biased and/or extremely gullible or has an agenda.)
>>
>>If one is open minded, and bothers to look at all factors, one sees that
>>this is an utterly bull**** argument. The proponents of it have their
>>agenda, which is confabulation driven.
>
> It's utterly bulli**** that the Amish provide "additional data"?
>
> And one arrives at that by being "open minded"? As "open
> minded" as yourself, I presume?

I am very openminded, contrary to your fantasies. I have yet to see any
real proof of the mercury connection, and very ample proof that there is
none. Show me something new which directly shows a connection.

[Mark Probert]

wrote:
> Vaccine-man wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>>Mark Probert wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'll leave that to your fantasizing. They do have a static gene pool.
>>>
>>>So that should be worse, rather than better.
>>
>>What makes you say that? If, as a population, they do not possess
>>alleles for autisms, then there would be a lower incidence (or none at
>>all).
>
>
> That's already assuming it's a phenotype and not environmental.
> That's possible, of course -- I am not into political suppression
> of hypotheses, unlike the vaccine men. However, the observed
> behavior of the disease is that it exploded in late 80's and early
> 90's.
> That argues against your hypothesis.

When taken in isolation. Add on what I have shown about their
educational system and the fact that new cases are often found in
schools, and there is ample support for a finding that the "explosion"
consisted of finding what already existed.

> As to why I said it would be "worse", that's standard
> likelihood for static gene pools. Bad genes not getting
> weeded out, "loss of vigor" etc. If there were an autism
> allele, a static gene pool would be the least defended
> against it. Its only hope would be never having
> had a single instance in the initial pool to begin with.

Weeding out occurs when the new organism is weaker reproductively and
survivability. In the case of the milder forms of Autism, neither is the
case. Place the limitations of what Aspergers, etc. have on a person in
a culture like the Amish, and, voila! they are in a place where they can
thrive.

[Mark Probert]

wrote:
> Vaccine-man wrote:
>
>
>>>That's possible, of course -- I am not into political suppression
>>>of hypotheses, unlike the vaccine men.
>>
>>Opinion not founded in fact.
>
>
> Eh? See the end of this message.
>
>
>>>However, the observed
>>>behavior of the disease is that it exploded in late 80's and early
>>>90's.
>>>That argues against your hypothesis.
>>
>>In what way? Has the incidence of autisms changed in Amish populations
>>in the last 50 years? Can you provide a mechanistic explanation for the
>>supposed role of vaccination for the increased incidence of autisms?
>
>
> If there was an explosion of a disease at a point of time,
> environmental
> factors would need to be involved.

Not necessarily, as I have pointed out. I should also include that the
diagnostic criteria for autism expaned during the same period and it was
fully recognized as a 'specturn disorder', thus adding many
possibilities under the specturm.

A genetic disease would stay
> roughly at similar levels.

Not necessarily. A genetic disorder could have environmental triggers.
That is the currect claim for a mercury autism link.

>>>As to why I said it would be "worse", that's standard
>>>likelihood for static gene pools.
>>
>>This is an inaccurate statement. If there are no "autism alleles" in
>>Amish populations (a closed gene pool) then the only way for an autism
>>allele to arise is through mutation. This is a central tenet of
>>Hardy-Weinberg. In this context, the Amish would not be susceptible to
>>autisms since there is no genetic predisposition in the population.
>>This does not mean they cannot suffer from other genetic disorders at a
>>frequency higher than the general population (which they,
>>unfortunately, seem to have a lot of), only that they would not be as
>>susceptible to autisms.
>>
>>
>>>Bad genes not getting
>>>weeded out, "loss of vigor" etc. If there were an autism
>>>allele, a static gene pool would be the least defended
>>>against it.
>>
>>This is not true. If it's a closed population (that is, Amish do not
>>marry outside the Amish community), then there is no way for an autism
>>allele to arise, except by mutation, which would be an extremely rare
>>event.
>
> The initial Amish would have to be substantially different from the
> rest of the population, so the initial pool would have included
> not a single allele. Or substantially small and skewed.

What makes you think that this is not the case? They have had a closed
pool for several generations.

>>> Its only hope would be never having
>>>had a single instance in the initial pool to begin with.
>>
>>And why can't this be a possibility? Are you familiar with the Founder
>>Effect?
>
> Well, was the intial Amish population small enough for a Founder
> Effect? I don't know, that's why I said your hypothesis could be
> further investigated and probabilities established.
>
> Now if you could similarly examine and point out to me why
> the hypothesis "mercury could be causing autism" was not worthy of
> further (or initial) investigation in any single respected journal?

It was very heavily examined for many years. There were numerous
epidemiological studies, etc. So, your hypothesis is not correct.

> And if a hypothesis is not worthy enough for publication,
> how come the most contrived refutation is worthy enough?
> If Hviid's data deserves publication (without even asking
> for any further defense against allegations that the data was bad),
> why was the original data not so publicized?
>
> Before you jump into why the original hypothesis is not correct -- I am
> not asking about that at all. I am asking about why the hypothesis
> was not well publicized?

It was and it was studied.

[Mark Probert]

wrote:
> HCN wrote:
>
>
>>So how to you count something in a time (like the 1970's) before there is
>>even an agreement of what the definition is? Before DSM IV there was no
>
>
> It's imprecise, but can be done. Talk to (honest) pediatricians,
> school teachers and such who have been around for a while.
>
> You will find a general consensus (in the USA) that something
> has definitely gone wrong over this time period.

Do I need to point out that this is an utterly fallacious argument and
impossible to profe. You compounded the fallacy by implying that the
ones who disagree are not honest.

> While there have been developmental problems in children for quite
> a while, the number has exploded since late 80's and early 90's.

You continue to make the claim, but do not provide proof that this is an
actual increase of incidence.

> I don't mean to imply that all problems fall in the new category. But
> if do you encounter a problem that doesn't fall in the new category,
> that doesn't negate others' experiences either.

[Coleah]

"Mark Probert" > wrote in message
...

> Yes, hypotheses are meant to be investigated. Take a look how Amish
> education is delivered in the US. They are actually *exempt* from the
> mandatory attendance laws, and, by extension, I would suspect that they
> would also be exempt from I.D.E.A. Thus, the Aspergers, etc. would fit in
> with their culture and not be readily identified as having a LD.

My Grandson has mild Aspergers and one of my brothers does as well,
although we didn't 'identify' it with a name until the Grandson came along
and was diagnosed.

We never could put a finger on what it was about my brother other than he
was a bit odd in his behavior, extremely knowledgable about scores for
sport games (back for decades, local/state/national) and read the dictionary
for fun and wasn't interactive in social atmospheres. When the Grandson's
doctor described the symptoms and asked if anyone else in the family
had similar characteristics, it was one of those 'Bingo' moments.

Brother managed to make it in life to age 70 without any medication, however
he never drove a car and was limited in his experiences in life. The
Grandson
was placed on medication and able to focus on more than one obsessive
interest,
expanded his horizons socially and even flew an air plane at age 14.
Definitely
not something my brother would have ever taken on.

So I understand what you are saying about fitting in with a 'culture' and
not
readily being identified as having a LD. [BTW, though my brother
never graduated from high school, married or took on all the expenses that
usually go along with life (driving a car, making house payments, repairs,
insurance, replacement, etc) and lived in the same apartment for 27 years,
he
saved enough to retire at 50, lives in a $5,200/month assisted living center
in his old age which he pays for out of his own pocket and he still he has
hundreds of thousands in savings. A learning disability ???

[HCN]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> HCN wrote:
>
>> So how to you count something in a time (like the 1970's) before there is
>> even an agreement of what the definition is? Before DSM IV there was no
>
> Btw, the DSM IV wasn't published until 1991. Autism explosion
> goes back earlier than that.


Could you provide a reference to that please?

>
> Chances are, the refinement of autism criteria in DSM IV were
> in response to a demand from practioners in the field, who
> were seeing something and were asking for better guidelines.
>

[HCN]

(removed Breast Implant newsgroup since it does not seem to have any
relevance to this discussion)

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> HCN wrote:
>
>> So how to you count something in a time (like the 1970's) before there is
>> even an agreement of what the definition is? Before DSM IV there was no
>
> Btw, the DSM IV wasn't published until 1991. Autism explosion
> goes back earlier than that.

Please provide references, since the DSM-IV was published in 1994 (you are
three years off):
http://www.nasponline.org/publications/cq268autism.html

Plus there was a national law enacted in 1975, which really started to take
hold in the 1980's... what do you think that was? What kind of revisions
did it have (like a name change) that would have made it more used in the
80's?

See the above link for some answers.


>
> Chances are, the refinement of autism criteria in DSM IV were
> in response to a demand from practioners in the field, who
> were seeing something and were asking for better guidelines.
>

[Mark Probert]

Coleah wrote:
> "Mark Probert" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>Yes, hypotheses are meant to be investigated. Take a look how Amish
>>education is delivered in the US. They are actually *exempt* from the
>>mandatory attendance laws, and, by extension, I would suspect that they
>>would also be exempt from I.D.E.A. Thus, the Aspergers, etc. would fit in
>>with their culture and not be readily identified as having a LD.
>
>
> My Grandson has mild Aspergers and one of my brothers does as well,
> although we didn't 'identify' it with a name until the Grandson came along
> and was diagnosed.
>
> We never could put a finger on what it was about my brother other than he
> was a bit odd in his behavior, extremely knowledgable about scores for
> sport games (back for decades, local/state/national) and read the dictionary
> for fun and wasn't interactive in social atmospheres. When the Grandson's
> doctor described the symptoms and asked if anyone else in the family
> had similar characteristics, it was one of those 'Bingo' moments.
>
> Brother managed to make it in life to age 70 without any medication, however
> he never drove a car and was limited in his experiences in life. The
> Grandson
> was placed on medication and able to focus on more than one obsessive
> interest,
> expanded his horizons socially and even flew an air plane at age 14.
> Definitely
> not something my brother would have ever taken on.
>
> So I understand what you are saying about fitting in with a 'culture' and
> not
> readily being identified as having a LD. [BTW, though my brother
> never graduated from high school, married or took on all the expenses that
> usually go along with life (driving a car, making house payments, repairs,
> insurance, replacement, etc) and lived in the same apartment for 27 years,
> he
> saved enough to retire at 50, lives in a $5,200/month assisted living center
> in his old age which he pays for out of his own pocket and he still he has
> hundreds of thousands in savings. A learning disability ???


Sounds like he did well in his own way. What sort of work did he perform
(just curious)?

My only friend who could retire at age 50 was able to do that because
his business was bought out by Georgia Pacific when he was 40 and the
payment, in their stock, sky rocketed afterwards. Want a picture of his
yacht?

[Coleah]

"Mark Probert" > wrote in message
...
> Coleah wrote:
>> "Mark Probert" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>
>>>Yes, hypotheses are meant to be investigated. Take a look how Amish
>>>education is delivered in the US. They are actually *exempt* from the
>>>mandatory attendance laws, and, by extension, I would suspect that they
>>>would also be exempt from I.D.E.A. Thus, the Aspergers, etc. would fit in
>>>with their culture and not be readily identified as having a LD.
>>
>>
>> My Grandson has mild Aspergers and one of my brothers does as well,
>> although we didn't 'identify' it with a name until the Grandson came
>> along
>> and was diagnosed.
>>
>> We never could put a finger on what it was about my brother other than he
>> was a bit odd in his behavior, extremely knowledgable about scores for
>> sport games (back for decades, local/state/national) and read the
>> dictionary
>> for fun and wasn't interactive in social atmospheres. When the Grandson's
>> doctor described the symptoms and asked if anyone else in the family
>> had similar characteristics, it was one of those 'Bingo' moments.
>>
>> Brother managed to make it in life to age 70 without any medication,
>> however
>> he never drove a car and was limited in his experiences in life. The
>> Grandson
>> was placed on medication and able to focus on more than one obsessive
>> interest,
>> expanded his horizons socially and even flew an air plane at age 14.
>> Definitely
>> not something my brother would have ever taken on.
>>
>> So I understand what you are saying about fitting in with a 'culture' and
>> not
>> readily being identified as having a LD. [BTW, though my brother
>> never graduated from high school, married or took on all the expenses
>> that
>> usually go along with life (driving a car, making house payments,
>> repairs,
>> insurance, replacement, etc) and lived in the same apartment for 27
>> years, he
>> saved enough to retire at 50, lives in a $5,200/month assisted living
>> center
>> in his old age which he pays for out of his own pocket and he still he
>> has
>> hundreds of thousands in savings. A learning disability ???
>
>
> Sounds like he did well in his own way. What sort of work did he perform
> (just curious)?
>
> My only friend who could retire at age 50 was able to do that because his
> business was bought out by Georgia Pacific when he was 40 and the payment,
> in their stock, sky rocketed afterwards. Want a picture of his yacht?

He delivered furniture for a big department store (he obviously wasn't
the 'driver'), and used his muscles to make a living. He was an avid walker
or took buses for very long distances. His 'social life' was going to the
bank, the barber and a restaurant once a week.

He's lost both legs to diabetes and is now the volunteer 'paperboy'
delivering
the morning newspaper in his wheel chair to other residents at the assisted
living center.

[Mark Probert]

Coleah wrote:
> "Mark Probert" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Coleah wrote:
>>
>>>"Mark Probert" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yes, hypotheses are meant to be investigated. Take a look how Amish
>>>>education is delivered in the US. They are actually *exempt* from the
>>>>mandatory attendance laws, and, by extension, I would suspect that they
>>>>would also be exempt from I.D.E.A. Thus, the Aspergers, etc. would fit in
>>>>with their culture and not be readily identified as having a LD.
>>>
>>>
>>>My Grandson has mild Aspergers and one of my brothers does as well,
>>>although we didn't 'identify' it with a name until the Grandson came
>>>along
>>>and was diagnosed.
>>>
>>>We never could put a finger on what it was about my brother other than he
>>>was a bit odd in his behavior, extremely knowledgable about scores for
>>>sport games (back for decades, local/state/national) and read the
>>>dictionary
>>>for fun and wasn't interactive in social atmospheres. When the Grandson's
>>>doctor described the symptoms and asked if anyone else in the family
>>>had similar characteristics, it was one of those 'Bingo' moments.
>>>
>>>Brother managed to make it in life to age 70 without any medication,
>>>however
>>>he never drove a car and was limited in his experiences in life. The
>>>Grandson
>>>was placed on medication and able to focus on more than one obsessive
>>>interest,
>>>expanded his horizons socially and even flew an air plane at age 14.
>>>Definitely
>>>not something my brother would have ever taken on.
>>>
>>>So I understand what you are saying about fitting in with a 'culture' and
>>>not
>>>readily being identified as having a LD. [BTW, though my brother
>>>never graduated from high school, married or took on all the expenses
>>>that
>>>usually go along with life (driving a car, making house payments,
>>>repairs,
>>>insurance, replacement, etc) and lived in the same apartment for 27
>>>years, he
>>>saved enough to retire at 50, lives in a $5,200/month assisted living
>>>center
>>>in his old age which he pays for out of his own pocket and he still he
>>>has
>>>hundreds of thousands in savings. A learning disability ???
>>
>>
>>Sounds like he did well in his own way. What sort of work did he perform
>>(just curious)?
>>
>>My only friend who could retire at age 50 was able to do that because his
>>business was bought out by Georgia Pacific when he was 40 and the payment,
>>in their stock, sky rocketed afterwards. Want a picture of his yacht?
>
>
> He delivered furniture for a big department store (he obviously wasn't
> the 'driver'), and used his muscles to make a living. He was an avid walker
> or took buses for very long distances. His 'social life' was going to the
> bank, the barber and a restaurant once a week.
>
> He's lost both legs to diabetes and is now the volunteer 'paperboy'
> delivering
> the morning newspaper in his wheel chair to other residents at the assisted
> living center.

Interesting. I have spoken with people who have similar relatives, and,
when the relatives developed problems such as diabetes, they were unable
to adequately care for themselves and had similar problems.

[Coleah]

"Mark Probert" > wrote in message
...
> Coleah wrote:
>> "Mark Probert" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Coleah wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Mark Probert" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Yes, hypotheses are meant to be investigated. Take a look how Amish
>>>>>education is delivered in the US. They are actually *exempt* from the
>>>>>mandatory attendance laws, and, by extension, I would suspect that they
>>>>>would also be exempt from I.D.E.A. Thus, the Aspergers, etc. would fit
>>>>>in with their culture and not be readily identified as having a LD.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>My Grandson has mild Aspergers and one of my brothers does as well,
>>>>although we didn't 'identify' it with a name until the Grandson came
>>>>along
>>>>and was diagnosed.
>>>>
>>>>We never could put a finger on what it was about my brother other than
>>>>he
>>>>was a bit odd in his behavior, extremely knowledgable about scores for
>>>>sport games (back for decades, local/state/national) and read the
>>>>dictionary
>>>>for fun and wasn't interactive in social atmospheres. When the
>>>>Grandson's
>>>>doctor described the symptoms and asked if anyone else in the family
>>>>had similar characteristics, it was one of those 'Bingo' moments.
>>>>
>>>>Brother managed to make it in life to age 70 without any medication,
>>>>however
>>>>he never drove a car and was limited in his experiences in life. The
>>>>Grandson
>>>>was placed on medication and able to focus on more than one obsessive
>>>>interest,
>>>>expanded his horizons socially and even flew an air plane at age 14.
>>>>Definitely
>>>>not something my brother would have ever taken on.
>>>>
>>>>So I understand what you are saying about fitting in with a 'culture'
>>>>and not
>>>>readily being identified as having a LD. [BTW, though my brother
>>>>never graduated from high school, married or took on all the expenses
>>>>that
>>>>usually go along with life (driving a car, making house payments,
>>>>repairs,
>>>>insurance, replacement, etc) and lived in the same apartment for 27
>>>>years, he
>>>>saved enough to retire at 50, lives in a $5,200/month assisted living
>>>>center
>>>>in his old age which he pays for out of his own pocket and he still he
>>>>has
>>>>hundreds of thousands in savings. A learning disability ???
>>>
>>>
>>>Sounds like he did well in his own way. What sort of work did he perform
>>>(just curious)?
>>>
>>>My only friend who could retire at age 50 was able to do that because his
>>>business was bought out by Georgia Pacific when he was 40 and the
>>>payment, in their stock, sky rocketed afterwards. Want a picture of his
>>>yacht?
>>
>>
>> He delivered furniture for a big department store (he obviously wasn't
>> the 'driver'), and used his muscles to make a living. He was an avid
>> walker
>> or took buses for very long distances. His 'social life' was going to
>> the
>> bank, the barber and a restaurant once a week.
>>
>> He's lost both legs to diabetes and is now the volunteer 'paperboy'
>> delivering
>> the morning newspaper in his wheel chair to other residents at the
>> assisted
>> living center.
>
> Interesting. I have spoken with people who have similar relatives, and,
> when the relatives developed problems such as diabetes, they were unable
> to adequately care for themselves and had similar problems.

Exactly. He once called an 911 because he cut himself shaving and it
wouldn't stop bleeding. He caught such hell from the EMT's that he
didn't go to the emergency room until his toes were turning black.
I didn't live in the same state or I've have been watching over him
more closely.

His social skills are classic for Asperger's and his method of
communicating a bit tilted from the 'norm'. We had to talk
with the grandson about his social skills and tell him how inviting
someone to come over to play didn't mean that they would enjoy
watching HIM play a video game all by himself.

Likewise, once when the grandson met a person for the first time
because he'd heard us talking about the person's interest in playing chess,
he didn't say 'glad to meet you, I hear you play chess'......he just when
right
into asking about some chess move or strategy, right out of left field. So
much for all that 'social' stuff, just cut right to the chase <g>.

Out of 6 grandkids, he is the only one with Aspergers Syndrome.

[[email protected]]

HCN wrote:
> (removed Breast Implant newsgroup since it does not seem to have any
> relevance to this discussion)
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > HCN wrote:
> >
> >> So how to you count something in a time (like the 1970's) before there is
> >> even an agreement of what the definition is? Before DSM IV there was no
> >
> > Btw, the DSM IV wasn't published until 1991. Autism explosion
> > goes back earlier than that.
>
> Please provide references, since the DSM-IV was published in 1994 (you are
> three years off):
> http://www.nasponline.org/publications/cq268autism.html

Thanks for the reference. Note that since I was three years off,
that makes the argument even stronger that DSM-IV had
nothing to do with the "autism epidemic", except that
it was probably in response to something being observed
out in the field.

[HCN]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> HCN wrote:
>> (removed Breast Implant newsgroup since it does not seem to have any
>> relevance to this discussion)
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > HCN wrote:
>> >
>> >> So how to you count something in a time (like the 1970's) before there
>> >> is
>> >> even an agreement of what the definition is? Before DSM IV there was
>> >> no
>> >
>> > Btw, the DSM IV wasn't published until 1991. Autism explosion
>> > goes back earlier than that.
>>
>> Please provide references, since the DSM-IV was published in 1994 (you
>> are
>> three years off):
>> http://www.nasponline.org/publications/cq268autism.html
>
> Thanks for the reference. Note that since I was three years off,
> that makes the argument even stronger that DSM-IV had
> nothing to do with the "autism epidemic", except that
> it was probably in response to something being observed
> out in the field.
>

The observations were often from schools... especially since a specific law
went into effect. Now think of what that might be... the first version was
in 1975 with a rather politically incorrect title, and has been revised
several times. What was that?

Also where are you getting YOUR numbers from? You've yet to post the
reference. For all we know you are just making it up.

[[email protected]]

Mark Probert wrote:

> > It's imprecise, but can be done. Talk to (honest) pediatricians,
> > school teachers and such who have been around for a while.
> >
> > You will find a general consensus (in the USA) that something
> > has definitely gone wrong over this time period.
>
> Do I need to point out that this is an utterly fallacious argument and
> impossible to profe. You compounded the fallacy by implying that the
> ones who disagree are not honest.

This is a valid argument -- as I didn't make it very clear perhaps
that I was presenting a suggestion, not an agrument. This was
meant to help other people of good faith form better informed opinions,
instead of relying upon single "authoratitive" sources.