Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think too much exposure to TV/videos at too early an age has something to do with it, too. Friends of ours sat their child, starting at about 2 months old, in an infant seat in front of the TV to watch "Baby Einstein" videos, one after the ohter. They kept this up until he was a toddler, and at 3 he was diagnosed as autistic. I think too much use of those videos to "babysit" rather than having a lot of actual human contact with a child plays a part - it's the wrong kind of excessive stimulation.
I think it could also be, hear me out, too much focus on anti-bacterial this or that. Parents raise their kids in an almost bacteria free environment, as much as possible. Then a child/baby is exposed to a bacteria and it does a number on them.
Take this a bit further. I also don't EVER remember anyone having allergies (food). Let me take that back, I remember my Grandmother being allergic to peanuts, but she wasn't anaphylactic, just would get a really upset stomach after eating any - she loved them so she would have some every now and then.
There are so many kids allergic to everything under the sun. it has to be how we are raising our kids today.
Actually, if you listen to the majority of parents of children with autism, most say regression occurred right after a round of vaccines.No agenda, just posting the usual suspects. Do you have an agenda?
Because I have two videos, 3 weeks apart, one taken before a round of vaccines and one after. Evidence of harm doesn't even begin to describe what is on those videos.
As for you, do you have a child with autism? My guess is no. Actually, I'd bet the farm on it.
Again, anecdote does not equal data.
A possibility is that autism shows up at the age that kids seem to be vaccinated. Not that vaccination is a cause.
Conjecture without studies is silly.
Last edited by chielgirl; 04-04-2011 at 06:32 AM..
I think it could also be, hear me out, too much focus on anti-bacterial this or that. Parents raise their kids in an almost bacteria free environment, as much as possible. Then a child/baby is exposed to a bacteria and it does a number on them.
Take this a bit further. I also don't EVER remember anyone having allergies (food). Let me take that back, I remember my Grandmother being allergic to peanuts, but she wasn't anaphylactic, just would get a really upset stomach after eating any - she loved them so she would have some every now and then.
There are so many kids allergic to everything under the sun. it has to be how we are raising our kids today.
Kids used to be able to make mud pies, roll in the grass, catch bugs and frogs, and play in the sandbox. A little exposure to germs and dirt helps toughen the immune system. Now, kids are dressed in these tiny designer clothes, are not allowed to get a little dirty, they have their play and everything they are exposed to "regimented", and most of the time they are plopped in front of videos or some other learning tool to develop their minds. Every time they get a little sniffel, they're rushed to the doctor and put on antibiotics.
What we know for sure is that the autism rate is getting worse by the year.
We also know that the gene pool is not changing at the same rate. (Unless we are mutating)
We also know that we are polluting our environment with chemicals and heavy metals to the point where almost everything we eat and drink and breathe contains more toxins than we should not be ingesting.
We also know we are giving our children more vaccines than ever before, usually multiple per visit.
We also know that despite what drug companies tell us they are still using mercury as a preservative. (They were using it in H1N1 vaccines)
Add it all up and come to your own conclusion.
Don't conclude yet! Add to this:
We also know that there were more mothers driving mini-vans during the big autism diagnosis rush than ever before and that mini-vans didn't exist before the autism-vaccine link "discovery."
We also know that Starbucks branched out during the first years of the autism diagnosis rush.
We also know that the Bush family was in political office during the entire time.
We also know that Unilever came out with prescription-strength antipersperant that didn't require a prescription, and it was selling like hotcakes during this time.
Conclusion? You betcha:
Mothers driving mini-vans, who wore prescription-strength anti-perspirant during the Bush administration, sucking down Starbucks coffee, are the direct cause of all children diagnosed with autism.
Again, anecdote does not equal data.
A possibility is that autism shows up at the age that kids seem to be vaccinated. Not that vaccination is a cause.
Conjecture without studies is silly.
That ridiculous response might have held water when the prevalence was 1 in 10,000.
At 1 in 110, and several thousand accounts of the EXACT same correlation, only a fool would deny that there is a connection between autism and vaccines.
In fact, the CDC has just reopened the case themselves.
There is a point where correlation does equal causation. The fact that medical science has been unable to prove why it's happening has nothing to do with the fact that it is. That's the failure of medical science, not a verdict of innocent for vaccines.
My guess (since none of us know for sure) is a combination of genes and environmental factors, like most things. I have seen autism running in families to different degrees (which could be genetic, cultural, or both). I've also seen people who were the only ASD person in their family, so it seems like it's multifactorial.
I don't know about the vaccine cause. I never got any vaccines and I'm Asperger's. Then again vaccines might just be one of several causes. It would be interesting to see a study of people who didn't get vaccines, too see if the rate of autism is higher, lower, or the same compared to the general population.
...and to all those 17 folks who think autism is genetic.
THINK, McFly! A sudden genetic mutation that affects 1% of the population is how probable?
Do you seriously believe that spontaneous genetic mutation is responsible for this?
An environmental factor altering genes is far more likely. What is that factor?
Well, all indications are vaccines. That includes vaccines received by the child, as well as the mother or father.
No indications are vaccines. The evidence is simply not there no matter how badly you want it to be. Some people want to think that because they'd rather think that than accept that a condition is genetic. Much easier to blame big pharm and argue for the right to sue than to blame one's own genes. Some people need to get over it.
Go away and stop endangering public health. Fearing mongering against basic public health measures is inexcusable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
